This is something that is never going to happen.

Why does he keep talking about it?

ketamine? TBI? golfball to the back of the skull?

Honestly? Two things, I think.

First, Melania was flirting with Trudeau pretty openly at a state dinner. I think she was having a bit of a fantasy about which one she’d rather go home with. Even the published pics were embarrassing. I can’t imagine OJ took that very well.

Secondly, he overheard Trudeau ridiculing him to other foreign leaders at a conference in Europe, another humiliating incident. He’s famously vindictive and I think this ‘51st State’ stuff started there, beginning as an attempt to denigrate Trudeau personally and then letting it get out of hand.

At this point I think it’s already embedded in his reptilian brain, and he’s become serious. I’m concerned that he’s stupid enough to start a Russia / Ukraine style conflict just to make his point. His public comments in front of third parties reinforces his seriousness, in my opinion. Don’t forget that he’s a rapist, and everything he does and plans comes from the mindset and value set of a rapist with great power.

why not just thinking that putin actions let him leading to believe he can do so as putin did in ukraine ... and trump will not stop as he has great ideas for panama, greenland, mexico and canada ...

Justin Trudeau did.
When Trump and Trudeau met right after Trump’s inauguration (when Trudeau agreed to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.) Trudeau opined that tariff increases would mean the end of Canada as a nation. Trump said (with no little wit) Canada would be welcome as the 51st state.

He’s continued the needling to the chagrin of stiff-necked Canadians and TDS sufferers.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Justin Trudeau did.
When Trump and Trudeau met right after Trump’s inauguration (when Trudeau agreed to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.) Trudeau opined that tariff increases would mean the end of Canada as a nation. Trump said (with no little wit) Canada would be welcome as the 51st state.

He’s continued the needling to the chagrin of stiff-necked Canadians and TDS sufferers.

for sure the fentanyl issue is the canadian problem the same as immigrants lol ... judge there are only a few trumpets still coming here to tell the truth of the supreme leader but for how long?

Come on, Judge. Trump's "needling" has ruined relations with our former best ally. Ha! Ha! Isn't that witty of the Great Leader, to threaten to ruin Canada's economy so they come begging to be admitted to the US?

What about Greenland? What's your supposed cause for Trump's threatening them? More of his wit?

I never liked that little nitwit from the North.

But, compared to Trump he is a GENIUS!

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Justin Trudeau did.
When Trump and Trudeau met right after Trump’s inauguration (when Trudeau agreed to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.) Trudeau opined that tariff increases would mean the end of Canada as a nation. Trump said (with no little wit) Canada would be welcome as the 51st state.

He’s continued the needling to the chagrin of stiff-necked Canadians and TDS sufferers.

Is that what it is? The President of the United States "needling" another world leader? Like a ten year old? I can certainly see why you are a proud supporter.

The irony is that all it does is make trump look like a clueless idiot.

The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

No matter who planted the seed.

Point is he is too stupid to realize these things can never be realized!

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

why not doing right now a special operation in invading canada to save the english speaking minorities in quebec ... your supreme leader can follow what your master putin already did.

i can not believe a man like you judge wnet that low ...

Hey Ernest, if TDS means that you're tired of Trump cozying up to Russia, weakening Ukraine by his words and actions just as peace negotiations start, stomping on the toes of our allies, making inflammatory statements about our friends to the North, destroying our financial markets with his inconsistent and unpredictable behavior, imposing massive tax increases on Americans through his tariffs, and I could go on, yep, I have TDS. I think, however, that Trump Delusion Syndrome, another form of TDS where folks operate under the delusion that Trump knows what he is doing and has the best interests of the US in mind, is far more pernicious and seems to be just as prevalent in American these days. Seems like those with the latter form of TDS have at least been struck mute by the disease, I guess that is some consolation.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

That post is kinda funny/ironic.

So you think it's about owning the libs and you get jollies out of that fantasy.

Truth is closer to home. Trump owns you.

Like any well-composted manure pile Trump's brain provides ideal conditions for any random seed blown in or dropped in birdshit to germinate and grow...

I'm guessing in this case it was birdshit.

Nobody here should be entertaining it either. It's a northern refuge for mining engineers, protesters, draftees and escaped slaves that should be preserved for the future. Even Quebec will grudgingly accommodate an English speaker seeking inner peace or a place to fish quietly.

Pity we now have to have passports to go there, that's just dumb.

I’m seriously considering changing my user name to “Stiff Necked Canadian”, it has a sort of ring to it…

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

So, we need Greenland to keep Russia from having it? Remind me again about trump addressing Russian aggression around the world. Starting with abandoning Ukraine.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
Nobody here should be entertaining it either. It's a northern refuge for mining engineers, protesters, draftees and escaped slaves that should be preserved for the future. Even Quebec will grudgingly accommodate an English speaker seeking inner peace or a place to fish quietly.

Pity we now have to have passports to go there, that's just dumb.

wait when trump and trumpets will build a wall to stop the hords of immigrants coming to you from the north ...

you do remember the wall that mexico was supposed to be built a wall on their own dime ... i imagine the whole was built ...

Obama and Biden abandoned Ukraine. China owns much of Africa and is seizing the Southwest Pacific. Greenland is moving towards autonomy. Strategically, it controls the north Atlantic and a huge part of the Arctic where Russia has thousands of miles of coastline. They’re only 50,000 Greenlanders. Figure it out for yourself.

The reality is that since WWII Europe (including Greenland), Japan and Canada have ridden the coattails of the U.S. for defense. There are existential threats out there require strength, not B.S. conspiracy Putin/Trump theories. The real question is what is the strongest path to protect the traditional western world from the Russian and the Chinese.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

So, we need Greenland to keep Russia from having it? Remind me again about trump addressing Russian aggression around the world. Starting with abandoning Ukraine.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Obama and Biden abandoned Ukraine. China owns much of Africa. Greenland is moving towards autonomy. Strategically, it controls the north Atlantic and a huge part of the Arctic where Russia has thousands of miles of coastline. They’re only 50,000 Greenlanders. Figure it out for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

So, we need Greenland to keep Russia from having it? Remind me again about trump addressing Russian aggression around the world. Starting with abandoning Ukraine.

expansionism and imperialism at any cost ... seems the greenlanders are not agreeing at all with your position and the one from your supreme leader, are you ready to take it by force ... do you think they will welcome you as liberators like the russian soldiers in ukraine ...?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Obama and Biden abandoned Ukraine. China owns much of Africa. Greenland is moving towards autonomy. Strategically, it controls the north Atlantic and a huge part of the Arctic where Russia has thousands of miles of coastline. They’re only 50,000 Greenlanders. Figure it out for yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
The question (and following speculation of why) was “What planted the seed…”

My answer was correct. Where Trump TDS sufferers and Canadians take (or took) it thereafter is taking quasi-rational assumptions to ilogical conclusions.

As to Greenland, maybe, just maybe, it’s a seed (not an all or nothing demand) planted to assure that the North Atlantic and Artic aren’t eventually Russian. But that can’t be true. It’s more fun to be Adam Schiff-like and create conspiracy theories out of whole cloth.

So, we need Greenland to keep Russia from having it? Remind me again about trump addressing Russian aggression around the world. Starting with abandoning Ukraine.

Greenland is part of Denmark and thus is a part of NATO. How this will pan out if they achieve full independence remains to be seen, but at present an attack on Greenland is the same as an attack on any other NATO state. Plus the US already has a base there.

An empire can always justify invading another country by citing security concerns. Putin's invasion of Ukraine was not the first such incident.

Look how the US justified invading Iraq--yup, alleged security concerns due to non-existent WMDs.

And now Trump is talking about taking over Greenland because it strategically controls the North Atlantic--security concerns again. All according to our ex-member of the judiciary.

One question, Judge: Why would Trump have any security concerns about Russia, given his close persondal relationship with Putin?

To be fair, I added to the post above

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
To be fair, I added to the post above

russia is not anymore the enemy of usa just the one for the rest of nato countries ...

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
To be fair, I added to the post above

You sure did, trying to make it look like you'd already anticipated my argument in the post I was responding to.

A post that responds to another post should follow that post.

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
To be fair, I added to the post above

russia is not anymore the enemy of usa just the one for the rest of nato countries ...

An Enemy of NATI is the enemy of the USA. That was the whole point of NATO.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
To be fair, I added to the post above

russia is not anymore the enemy of usa just the one for the rest of nato countries ...

An Enemy of NATI is the enemy of the USA. That was the whole point of NATO.

well as of today your country did not behave like russia is your enemy while it remains the ones of the rest of nato ... it is just the reality like it or not.

I cannot help what happened today. Som I can do is stand up when people make uneducated statements and tell what the historical and legal implications of NATO is.

NATO is not a pay for play. NATO is not a suggestion. It is the supreme law of the United States federal government. The point was to mandate mutual defense among members that would prevent or respond to an act of aggression.

Instead of putting all public pressure on Ukraine. Trump should be saying Putin what happens if we all agree to admins Ukraine to NATO tomorrow, leave now.

The reality is, I don’t care “who rides out cost tails.” We have won no world war alone. We hit the ring late, but WWII was lost. The question by our entry was how long.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I cannot help what happened today. Som I can do is stand up when people make uneducated statements and tell what the historical and legal implications of NATO is.

NATO is not a pay for play. NATO is not a suggestion. It is the supreme law of the United States federal government. The point was to mandate mutual defense among members that would prevent or respond to an act of aggression.

Instead of putting all public pressure on Ukraine. Trump should be saying Putin what happens if we all agree to admins Ukraine to NATO tomorrow, leave now.

The reality is, I don’t care “who rides out cost tails.” We have won no world war alone. We hit the ring late, but WWII was lost. The question by our entry was how long.

i do not know what you think or not about your implications of nato for your country but with the attempts of your country to take over two parts of nato like canada (a founding member 1949) and greenland autonomous territory attached to denmark (another founding member 1949) without the acceptance of those two allies: it is hard to follow or believe that usa is still part of nato ...

you can try to educate the uneducated about what nato should be or not but what is nato today i cant say.

the only thing i can say: russia is the ennemy of nato members at the exception of usa: your country that is supporting putin and russia: it cannot be said more clearly ...

I have made my stance on NATO very clear. It is a treaty approved by the Senate. Under our Common it becomes supreme law of the land. It is not negotiable.

Canada was a founding member and is a great member.

I have no use for these people.

Technically, under our Constitution and NATO itself we are still part of NATO.

Trump tried to dismantle NATO last time. He was blunted by law land moral minded professional civil servants like Kelly, Matthis, and even Tillerson.

Now, he has nothing but yes men. Folks like Rubio who gravel for a little more in a history books and useful messages like our retired Judge who have bought the propaganda.

As long as gay and trans people are kept or put back in their place a defend t of the Right will do anything.

It does not matter that my point of view Trump should not be president. He is the due and vested President of the United States. Here we are. Here we make the debate to prevent and exclude this political movement.

As for what NATO is today. It appears the United States through this administration is posed to violate its legal and binding terms. Seek to undermine it first the benefit of aggressors against its design, terms, and spirit.

The only people who can prevent or change this is Congress through impeachment. That is not going to happen; even w a Dem Congress. US citizens simply do not care about international politics nor treaties. The ga t they are equal to domestic law when approved by the Senate is not known nor understood. It is too complicated against their immediate needs. Most would not believe that an approved treaty is the “supreme law of the land.”

Yes. I would impeach any president who has engaged w NATO like Trump has regardless of party. I do not have the votes.

The next election is two years away. I will do my part to remove a political natured, and compliant Congress as permitted by the Constitution. The votes will say.

Sadly, we have lost those who are willing to tell the base no, the law says this and we are not a nation of whelms, but law.”

It matters not to me someone’s party. I accept bad policy. What I care about is the legal requirement. The process mandated by law.

point of order
treaties aren't "the supreme law of the land" - that's the constitution -

it's a law, agreed by the senate, that can, arguably, is the EASIST form of a law to abandon ---

Ask the Indians -- and Texas .. ZING

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
point of order
treaties aren't "the supreme law of the land" - that's the constitution -

it's a law, agreed by the senate, that can, arguably, is the EASIST form of a law to abandon ---

Ask the Indians -- and Texas .. ZING

quote:

Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Zing, indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
point of order
treaties aren't "the supreme law of the land" - that's the constitution -

it's a law, agreed by the senate, that can, arguably, is the EASIST form of a law to abandon ---

Ask the Indians -- and Texas .. ZING

I have Stewart give. You the Supreme Court case for my white supreme law of the land.

You are legally wrong.

Enjoy some light reading.

I suggest you read the cars cited.
https://harvardlawreview.org/w.../2008/12/vazquez.pdf


McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is another example where the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of treaties over state law.
Specifically, treaties are “supreme Law of the Land" alongside the Constitution and federal laws.


The question that remains unanswered and reverberates among law school con law class is What has pens when an approved treaty violates the Constitution? So far, we have not had that happen. The idea is the Senate would never approve such a treaty. Yet, what happens when the Senate surrenders or becomes a rubber stamp for a president. The issue is an open matter. Some argue the S. Cr., will carve out an exception to our an approved but otherwise unconstitutional treaty. Conservative minds believe that if precedent is strictly applied, the Constitution is amended by the treaty.

I wrote on here very recently about why true conservatism seeks to uphold constitutional norms, and checks and balances. Whereupon no one branch of government is permitted unilateral power, influence, over any one aspect of government. This is why. A Senate who becomes entirely beholden to a President, in theory, could amend the Constitution through approving a treaty. The reason tge Senate has to approve a Tre to make a treaty the “supreme law of the land” is to prevent such things.

Point of order, you are legally wrong.

Yep, it is hard to argue constitutional law when you do not read Supreme Court cases.

Joshua,
thank you for correcting me --

appreciate that

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
point of order
treaties aren't "the supreme law of the land" - that's the constitution -

it's a law, agreed by the senate, that can, arguably, is the EASIST form of a law to abandon ---

Ask the Indians -- and Texas .. ZING

I have Stewart give. You the Supreme Court case for my white supreme law of the land.

You are legally wrong.

Enjoy some light reading.

I suggest you read the cars cited.
https://harvardlawreview.org/w.../2008/12/vazquez.pdf


McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is another example where the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of treaties over state law.
Specifically, treaties are “supreme Law of the Land" alongside the Constitution and federal laws.


The question that remains unanswered and reverberates among law school con law class is What has pens when an approved treaty violates the Constitution? So far, we have not had that happen. The idea is the Senate would never approve such a treaty. Yet, what happens when the Senate surrenders or becomes a rubber stamp for a president. The issue is an open matter. Some argue the S. Cr., will carve out an exception to our an approved but otherwise unconstitutional treaty. Conservative minds believe that if precedent is strictly applied, the Constitution is amended by the treaty.

I wrote on here very recently about why true conservatism seeks to uphold constitutional norms, and checks and balances. Whereupon no one branch of government is permitted unilateral power, influence, over any one aspect of government. This is why. A Senate who becomes entirely beholden to a President, in theory, could amend the Constitution through approving a treaty. The reason tge Senate has to approve a Tre to make a treaty the “supreme law of the land” is to prevent such things.

Point of order, you are legally wrong.

Yep, it is hard to argue constitutional law when you do not read Supreme Court cases.

Even harder when you don't, or can't, read the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Joshua,
thank you for correcting me --

appreciate that

No problem. The supremacy of treaties (approved) gets it authority from the Supremacy Clause. Treaties are a subset of the Supremacy Clause.

When we speak of the Constitution. We must always go to the interpretive, controlling S. Ct., precedent.

Like with the whole 14th Amendment, Insurrection Clause, some arguments are best not pressed; even when there is no direct precedent. Bad facts make bad law.

As for how Trump got fixated on Canada? I have two ideas:

Trump targeted Canada back during his first campaign. It took a few weeks, but someone finally told him what NAFTA was. Then he started taking about NAFTA. That led him to tie Canada and “renegotiating NAFTA” in campaign messaging. US Citizens did not care about this.

We fast forward and Trump and the policy people of Trump have tariffs as a goal to pay for their ridiculous tax breaks. Trump being Trump remembers he got over w the US citizens last time targeting Canada. So, Trump has just decide to turn the heat up, cut promos on Canada. Trump’s policy people are pro-tariff. They have convinced him that they are necessary. Trump being Trump goes full wrestling promo.

That is my speculation.

I think you can add a layer to that hypothesis. I can’t forget Trumps campaign speech when he said “All my life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy and now I want to be greedy for you!”. I think that was an unplanned spontaneous confession that just fell out of his mouth, combined with his standard issue Mk.1 lie.

I thought then, nope. You’ll always be uncontrollably greedy for yourself because you can’t stop. It’s aberrant behaviour, just like any other addiction.

Trump, I believe, is compulsively acquisitive as is Putin, Musk and his other less visible peers. They want it ALL. But Trump has been given great power, which is like giving a drug addict unlimited drugs or a gambler unlimited funds. Musk has pulled alongside to feast on the power; he has literally bought the privilege with campaign influence. Trumps companionship obviously must offer greater reward than Musks celebrated businesses, otherwise he wouldn’t be there. Don’t fool yourself, that’s not altruism, it’s avarice. Add the element of Putin’s undeniable influence, be it through compromat or financial obligations, and here we are.

I do not see this ending well.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
I think you can add a layer to that hypothesis. I can’t forget Trumps campaign speech when he said “All my life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy and now I want to be greedy for you!”. I think that was an unplanned spontaneous confession that just fell out of his mouth, combined with his standard issue Mk.1 lie.

I thought then, nope. You’ll always be uncontrollably greedy for yourself because you can’t stop. It’s aberrant behaviour, just like any other addiction.

Trump, I believe, is compulsively acquisitive as is Putin, Musk and his other less visible peers. They want it ALL. But Trump has been given great power, which is like giving a drug addict unlimited drugs or a gambler unlimited funds. Musk has pulled alongside to feast on the power; he has literally bought the privilege with campaign influence. Trumps companionship obviously must offer greater reward than Musks celebrated businesses, otherwise he wouldn’t be there. Don’t fool yourself, that’s not altruism, it’s avarice. Add the element of Putin’s undeniable influence, be it through compromat or financial obligations, and here we are.

I do not see this ending well.

it will not that is a given.

edited: sorry i meant it not i ...