Elon Musk plans US - UK war in 2025

[Octavious]

That you don't believe this (?) because you don't believe the media seems like a bad way to get informed about things — as is jumping up and down at every sensational headline.

I don't believe it in the sense that "gosh, that can't possibly be true", but in the sense that half the stories I hear about Trump turn out either to be exaggerations or outright lies so I have no faith in them. The media is held now in a similar regard to the office gossip. Yes, what they say might be true, but I'm still not going to congratulate Julie on her pregnancy until I'm 100% sure she's not just getting fat.

[Octavious]

In case you're interested (and I know you're not, but you've given me the opportunity to natter about Newfie so you're stuck with it) the founding father of the Newfie branch of the family was Thomas Youden who moved over there to Bull Cove a little over 200 years back

I must ask that you instruct me on how Youden is properly pronounced, because otherwise I'm going to keep saying YOO-den in the most stereotypical northern accent you've ever heard even though I'm sure that that's totally wrong... I'm easily entertained.

Also, cool.

Assuming the pronunciation has stayed the same for the last couple of hundred years, that's pretty much it. Yew den, with the yew bit more pronounced than the den

[Octavious]

This is all I believe about Trump's ill intentions towards Canada and I still view them as outrageous, moronic, without modern historical precedent, and profoundly embarassing for Americans. Do you think such rhetoric is normal, justified, wise or strategic? If not, why continuously go to bat saying "but it won't happen" as though the threat itself isn't hugely problematic.

I rather suspect that the US consistently plays hardball in diplomacy, and that the behind the scenes pressure from the US over its fellow nations is probably little different regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. The biggest difference is that Trump seems to have little interest in maintaining the veneer of diplomatic niceties, preferring instead to use the additional lever of public opinion in these other countries to help achieve his goals.

One thing that did get my attention from your article, by the way, was the poll showing "overwhelming" resistance to Canada becoming part of the USA, with 82% saying no...

Only 82%?!? I'd have assumed it'd easily be in the high 90s. I was genuinely shocked

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I rather suspect that the US consistently plays hardball in diplomacy, and that the behind the scenes pressure from the US over its fellow nations is probably little different regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. The biggest difference is that Trump seems to have little interest in maintaining the veneer of diplomatic niceties, preferring instead to use the additional lever of public opinion in these other countries to help achieve his goals.

I can guarantee you previous US administrations were not threatening to annex allies in closed door conversations about trade disputes. What makes you "rather suspect" this?

I worked in international trade and the G processes back in the day. The Trump years were indeed hard to manage, with Trump disrupting what would have otherwise been unified G7 stances on many issues. Never did a read out from one of these meetings quote a US official threatening to re-draw borders.

One thing that did get my attention from your article, by the way, was the poll showing "overwhelming" resistance to Canada becoming part of the USA, with 82% saying no...

Only 82%?!? I'd have assumed it'd easily be in the high 90s. I was genuinely shocked

Yes, a poll like this gave some Canadians a consequence-free way to express their displeasure with our leadership and the state of the economy. Some Canadians no doubt genuinely wouldn't mind being incorporated into the US, but I imagine of the 18% of so who responded this way you'd lose most of them if the poll were instead a binding referendum. And you'd lose yet more if Canada had a Conservative PM (i.e., later this spring) and if we weren't basically in a recession.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Is it normal for a politician? No. Is it normal for a businessman? Yes. So no, it's not problematic because Trump, a businessman, is acting like a businessman, and personally I think it's hilarious that people don't expect that or find it in character for him to do so. He's not talking about invasion, his economic plans are the same ones he's had all along and has said that he'll do, he's just diverting publicity. If the media is too stupid to follow that, then his plan has just shown it's stupidity while letting him get his way.

It's really rather smart. He's using the fact that his opponents have claimed so often that he's gone mad and stupid that they believe their own propaganda, and he's using their underestimation of him against them, all while having a higher chance of accomplishing what he's said he'll do all along. The Democratic party is making the same mistake that they made during the election.

That's all entirely separate from the matter of how tariffs will actually effect our economies, of course.

Trump is not a businessman today. He's the president of the US and ought to act that way. And besides, the idea that businessmen start every negotiation with "I'll destroy your company if you don't sell me widgets at $1/unit" is profoundly stupid - do you actually think this is how business is conducted? That there are no repeated deals over time? Reputations worth defending? Legal guardrails? Trump's "art of the deal" reflects his own performance in business, which is actually quite poor (i.e., overall returns that are worse than if he had just invested his dad's money in the S&P and a heap of lawsuits over fraud and unpaid contractors).

For this to be some genius plan, you have to think it will accomplish something more than what ordinary negotiations would have. I don't bridle at the basic idea that the US can use both carrots and sticks (including economic coercion, tariffs, etc.) in a trade and defense financing dispute with an ally. You just don't get to threaten an allies' sovereignty, because it's either a threat you absolutely will not carry out (in which case, if it's totally not credible, what does it accomplish?) or because, if you carry it out, you're literally an enemy of NATO and the West.

And what's the practical consequence of Trump's annexation threat? Canadians were sheepishly accepting the tariff threat on its own, with many recognizing that the original requests (spend more on NATO, tighten up the border) had merit. Once he added the nonsense threat to adjust the border and annex Canada it sparked a unified response of "fuck no" from all corners of Canadian politics. This issue united bitter rivals in their condemnation of Trump - it's the first time Harper, Trudeau, and major Quebecois politicians all agreed on anything.

Trump has made this blunder in the immediate lead up to a federal election in Canada and it has made opposition to Trump *the* defining policy issue of an election that would have otherwise been fought on domestic economic, immigration, and climate policy. The Conservative leader and most likely candidate for PM, Pierre Poilievre, had been an outspoken Trump admirer before Trump's most recent threats and would have gladly aligned Canada with the Trump admin on a number of key issues. Now the Conservative platform will be defined by how it protects Canadian interests against the US. How is any of this helping Trump achieve something useful for the US?

[Jamiet99uk]

*president elect.

(Otherwise I agree with everything Bert just said).

[Octavious]

I can guarantee you previous US administrations were not threatening to annex allies in closed door conversations about trade disputes. What makes you "rather suspect" this?

I don't. No American administration now or in recent history has ever done this. The American administrations that have done this in more distant history didn't consider Canada an ally, so you can legitimately say it has never happened in all of history.

And even if Trump was leading the current administration, which he currently very much isn't, he has not threatened to annex Canada. You may interpret his answer to one particular question (in which he doesn't use the word annex) to mean that he wishes to annex Canada using economic force... but as it isn't actually possible to annex a country against its will using economic force I would argue that this would be a somewhat foolish interpretation.

And as far as threats go, in order to be a threat people need to feel threatened. I doubt that there's a single Canadian of sound mind who is going to sleep fearing that they'll wake up the next day with their country taken by the Yanks against their will. No such threat exists. Yes, there is a real threat regarding potential economic harm if Trump doesn't get various things he wants. There is zero threat of Canada having blue added back to its flag

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I can guarantee you previous US administrations were not threatening to annex allies in closed door conversations about trade disputes. What makes you "rather suspect" this?

I don't. No American administration now or in recent history has ever done this. The American administrations that have done this in more distant history didn't consider Canada an ally, so you can legitimately say it has never happened in all of history.

And even if Trump was leading the current administration, which he currently very much isn't, he has not threatened to annex Canada. You may interpret his answer to one particular question (in which he doesn't use the word annex) to mean that he wishes to annex Canada using economic force... but as it isn't actually possible to annex a country against its will using economic force I would argue that this would be a somewhat foolish interpretation.

And as far as threats go, in order to be a threat people need to feel threatened. I doubt that there's a single Canadian of sound mind who is going to sleep fearing that they'll wake up the next day with their country taken by the Yanks against their will. No such threat exists. Yes, there is a real threat regarding potential economic harm if Trump doesn't get various things he wants. There is zero threat of Canada having blue added back to its flag

During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago on January 7 President-elect Donald Trump discussed the possibility of Canada becoming the 51st state of the United States. He stated that while he would not use military force to achieve this, he would consider employing "economic force" to encourage such a union. Trump elaborated: "You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like." What the fuck else do you need to consider that Trump is actually, legitimately talking about this?

Trump has indeed made a threat that is in fact not threatening, which is what is so abysmally stupid about this whole episode. I agree that all his statements have done is rile people up in a manner that will make it harder for Trump to achieve his own stated foreign policy goals.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Even if I'm wrong and this is some false flag indulged by every major media outlet all at once (and you're willing to accept Trump's own statements on Truth Social as just a joke) then all this is, at best, a major communications error on the part of Trump and his team. Maybe they consider committing to a weird joke about violating Canada's sovereignty a worthwhile exercise because it excites the absolute dumbest part of the Trump voter base? But even with this extremely generous interpretation, this gaffe/joke is having an honest to God impact on Canadian politics in a manner that ultimately hurts US interests and Western unity.

[CaptainFritz28]

Is it normal for a politician? No. Is it normal for a businessman? Yes. So no, it's not problematic because Trump, a businessman, is acting like a businessman, and personally I think it's hilarious that people don't expect that or find it in character for him to do so. He's not talking about invasion, his economic plans are the same ones he's had all along and has said that he'll do, he's just diverting publicity. If the media is too stupid to follow that, then his plan has just shown it's stupidity while letting him get his way.

It's really rather smart. He's using the fact that his opponents have claimed so often that he's gone mad and stupid that they believe their own propaganda, and he's using their underestimation of him against them, all while having a higher chance of accomplishing what he's said he'll do all along. The Democratic party is making the same mistake that they made during the election.

That's all entirely separate from the matter of how tariffs will actually effect our economies, of course.

Trump is not a businessman today. He's the president of the US and ought to act that way. And besides, the idea that businessmen start every negotiation with "I'll destroy your company if you don't sell me widgets at $1/unit" is profoundly stupid - do you actually think this is how business is conducted? That there are no repeated deals over time? Reputations worth defending? Legal guardrails? Trump's "art of the deal" reflects his own performance in business, which is actually quite poor (i.e., overall returns that are worse than if he had just invested his dad's money in the S&P and a heap of lawsuits over fraud and unpaid contractors).

For this to be some genius plan, you have to think it will accomplish something more than what ordinary negotiations would have. I don't bridle at the basic idea that the US can use both carrots and sticks (including economic coercion, tariffs, etc.) in a trade and defense financing dispute with an ally. You just don't get to threaten an allies' sovereignty, because it's either a threat you absolutely will not carry out (in which case, if it's totally not credible, what does it accomplish?) or because, if you carry it out, you're literally an enemy of NATO and the West.

And what's the practical consequence of Trump's annexation threat? Canadians were sheepishly accepting the tariff threat on its own, with many recognizing that the original requests (spend more on NATO, tighten up the border) had merit. Once he added the nonsense threat to adjust the border and annex Canada it sparked a unified response of "fuck no" from all corners of Canadian politics. This issue united bitter rivals in their condemnation of Trump - it's the first time Harper, Trudeau, and major Quebecois politicians all agreed on anything.

Trump has made this blunder in the immediate lead up to a federal election in Canada and it has made opposition to Trump *the* defining policy issue of an election that would have otherwise been fought on domestic economic, immigration, and climate policy. The Conservative leader and most likely candidate for PM, Pierre Poilievre, had been an outspoken Trump admirer before Trump's most recent threats and would have gladly aligned Canada with the Trump admin on a number of key issues. Now the Conservative platform will be defined by how it protects Canadian interests against the US. How is any of this helping Trump achieve something useful for the US?

Perhaps I poorly stated my previous meaning. I shouldn't have brought up the art of the deal, that's contrary to my point, so I apologize for being confusing.

I don't think it's negotiation at all. I think it has more to do with Trump creating a distraction, something so outlandish that everyone has to pay attention and remain on the edge of their seats to see if he actually does it. Meanwhile, I think he'll do what he wanted to do all along with less backlash because it's not what people really are as interested in.

So I think he doesn't particularly care so much for the international ramifications as for the domestic ones. He seems to be of the opinion that he doesn't need to be nice to our allies because there's no way they can stop being our allies without huge consequences.

As for threatening sovereignty... lol. Everyone knows there's no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Trump knows that everyone knows that. And besides, Trump knows that if Canada joined the U.S. Republicans wouldn't win another election for a number of years.

By the way, if it turns out that Trump really does mean to annex Canada and isn't doing this all for distraction or negotiation, then y'all can say I told you so all you want, because I think that's a rather stupid idea for a lot of reasons.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Is it normal for a politician? No. Is it normal for a businessman? Yes. So no, it's not problematic because Trump, a businessman, is acting like a businessman, and personally I think it's hilarious that people don't expect that or find it in character for him to do so. He's not talking about invasion, his economic plans are the same ones he's had all along and has said that he'll do, he's just diverting publicity. If the media is too stupid to follow that, then his plan has just shown it's stupidity while letting him get his way.

It's really rather smart. He's using the fact that his opponents have claimed so often that he's gone mad and stupid that they believe their own propaganda, and he's using their underestimation of him against them, all while having a higher chance of accomplishing what he's said he'll do all along. The Democratic party is making the same mistake that they made during the election.

That's all entirely separate from the matter of how tariffs will actually effect our economies, of course.

Trump is not a businessman today. He's the president of the US and ought to act that way. And besides, the idea that businessmen start every negotiation with "I'll destroy your company if you don't sell me widgets at $1/unit" is profoundly stupid - do you actually think this is how business is conducted? That there are no repeated deals over time? Reputations worth defending? Legal guardrails? Trump's "art of the deal" reflects his own performance in business, which is actually quite poor (i.e., overall returns that are worse than if he had just invested his dad's money in the S&P and a heap of lawsuits over fraud and unpaid contractors).

For this to be some genius plan, you have to think it will accomplish something more than what ordinary negotiations would have. I don't bridle at the basic idea that the US can use both carrots and sticks (including economic coercion, tariffs, etc.) in a trade and defense financing dispute with an ally. You just don't get to threaten an allies' sovereignty, because it's either a threat you absolutely will not carry out (in which case, if it's totally not credible, what does it accomplish?) or because, if you carry it out, you're literally an enemy of NATO and the West.

And what's the practical consequence of Trump's annexation threat? Canadians were sheepishly accepting the tariff threat on its own, with many recognizing that the original requests (spend more on NATO, tighten up the border) had merit. Once he added the nonsense threat to adjust the border and annex Canada it sparked a unified response of "fuck no" from all corners of Canadian politics. This issue united bitter rivals in their condemnation of Trump - it's the first time Harper, Trudeau, and major Quebecois politicians all agreed on anything.

Trump has made this blunder in the immediate lead up to a federal election in Canada and it has made opposition to Trump *the* defining policy issue of an election that would have otherwise been fought on domestic economic, immigration, and climate policy. The Conservative leader and most likely candidate for PM, Pierre Poilievre, had been an outspoken Trump admirer before Trump's most recent threats and would have gladly aligned Canada with the Trump admin on a number of key issues. Now the Conservative platform will be defined by how it protects Canadian interests against the US. How is any of this helping Trump achieve something useful for the US?

Perhaps I poorly stated my previous meaning. I shouldn't have brought up the art of the deal, that's contrary to my point, so I apologize for being confusing.

I don't think it's negotiation at all. I think it has more to do with Trump creating a distraction, something so outlandish that everyone has to pay attention and remain on the edge of their seats to see if he actually does it. Meanwhile, I think he'll do what he wanted to do all along with less backlash because it's not what people really are as interested in.

So I think he doesn't particularly care so much for the international ramifications as for the domestic ones. He seems to be of the opinion that he doesn't need to be nice to our allies because there's no way they can stop being our allies without huge consequences.

As for threatening sovereignty... lol. Everyone knows there's no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Trump knows that everyone knows that. And besides, Trump knows that if Canada joined the U.S. Republicans wouldn't win another election for a number of years.

By the way, if it turns out that Trump really does mean to annex Canada and isn't doing this all for distraction or negotiation, then y'all can say I told you so all you want, because I think that's a rather stupid idea for a lot of reasons.

I refer back to my previous point, and reiterate questions I still have for you about why you're excusing this behaviour and whether you think it is good for America:

Trump isn't actually going to annex Canada but that's not the point. The outrageous thing is that he actually said he would and that it's part of his justification for what could be massively damaging tariffs and other economic sanctions.

This is all I believe about Trump's ill intentions towards Canada and I still view them as outrageous, moronic, without modern historical precedent, and profoundly embarassing for Americans. Do you think such rhetoric is normal, justified, wise or strategic? If not, why continuously go to bat saying "but it won't happen" as though the threat itself isn't hugely problematic.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

My response may have been a little glib, and I guess your answer to my question above might be captured by "I think it has more to do with Trump creating a distraction, something so outlandish that everyone has to pay attention and remain on the edge of their seats to see if he actually does it. Meanwhile, I think he'll do what he wanted to do all along with less backlash because it's not what people really are as interested in."

And to respond to that point - really? Who is Trump "distracting"? What does this buy him in terms of leverage or ability to get what he wants done? If there is any benefit to this, how does it stack up to the point I mentioned earlier regarding how Trump's rhetoric has legitimately poisoned Canadians politics against Trump in a manner that will make it hard for even his clearest allies and ideological sympathizers (the federal Conservatives, the Albertan UCP) to be seen cooperating with his administration?

[CaptainFritz28]

Trump has a... shall we say, unique... view on tariffs. Democrats hate them, and many Republicans aren't too keen on what he's proposed. I suppose what I mean is that he gets the advantage that people don't focus on his economic policy because they're so busy talking about whether or not he'll go ahead with his unite North America plan, meaning he gets less criticism. The media, or at least a majority of it, doesn't like Trump. If he can get them to focus on something he won't actually do, he can do what he was already going to do without a lot of media backlash.

To be honest, I'm still trying to make sense of it. As I've said, if he really means it I think it's kind of stupid, and I agree that it doesn't seem to achieve anything for him Canadawise, so I'm presenting what I see as the most likely reason for what he's saying.

If it sounds like I'm justifying what he's said, I don't mean to. I'm just trying to explain it if I can, just as much to myself as to anyone else. Honestly, I've found it surprising and somewhat annoying that he's gone about this like he has (although it still seems rather funny to me). I hope his term doesn't look like the last few weeks have, and I don't think it will, but it sure doesn't give me a more positive view of him.

I haven't been critical of him like y'all because... I don't need to, everything that I see as wrong with it has been said by others.

[Octavious]

Whether the distraction theory is true or not, it's probably worth pointing out that it would be a pretty piss poor distraction if the thing it was meant to be distracting from was obvious to a bunch of boardgaming enthusiasts, let alone the intended target

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Trump has a... shall we say, unique... view on tariffs. Democrats hate them, and many Republicans aren't too keen on what he's proposed. I suppose what I mean is that he gets the advantage that people don't focus on his economic policy because they're so busy talking about whether or not he'll go ahead with his unite North America plan, meaning he gets less criticism. The media, or at least a majority of it, doesn't like Trump. If he can get them to focus on something he won't actually do, he can do what he was already going to do without a lot of media backlash.

To be honest, I'm still trying to make sense of it. As I've said, if he really means it I think it's kind of stupid, and I agree that it doesn't seem to achieve anything for him Canadawise, so I'm presenting what I see as the most likely reason for what he's saying.

If it sounds like I'm justifying what he's said, I don't mean to. I'm just trying to explain it if I can, just as much to myself as to anyone else. Honestly, I've found it surprising and somewhat annoying that he's gone about this like he has (although it still seems rather funny to me). I hope his term doesn't look like the last few weeks have, and I don't think it will, but it sure doesn't give me a more positive view of him.

Thank you for clarifying.

I suspect Trump could have done tariffs without all this additional bluster re: Canada's sovereignty. I think stuff like this will make Democrats and moderate Republicans less likely, not more likely, to support his trade policy. And I think it's very generous to paint this as part of an intentional plan, rather than Trump just being Trump lol. But maybe someone in his team is genuinely committed to maintaining the old "firehose of bullshit" strategy outlined by Bannon.

I know you were a reluctant Trump voter, but I also don't know what you expected lol. This episode seems like par for the course. It doesn't take a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome to realize that Trump's second term would be largely defined by nonsense like this.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

(although it still seems rather funny to me)

Not to be too much of a snowflake, but I think some Americans really don't appreciate the gravity of the situation for Canadians.

The tariffs, if imposed as threatened, would push Canada into a recession and threaten millions of jobs: https://thehub.ca/2024/12/12/trevor-tombe-what-do-trumps-threats-mean-for-working-canadians-2-4-million-jobs-are-exposed-to-u-s-tariffs/

The mere threat of these actions is driving down the Canadian dollar, which is already denting my net worth and raising the price of imported goods.

I'm currently delaying booking a honeymoon trip to Hawaii because I'm uncertain if it will be affordable in light of potential CAD/USD movements.

I accelerated the purchase of a major imported good (dishwasher), because it might be much more more expensive if the CAD drops further.

I'm delaying my long-planned entry into the housing market because a trade dispute induced recession could put my fiancé out of work. It's also partly opportunistic - house prices and interest rates might dip if the Canadian economy really tumbles.

Maybe this is all part of some earned comeuppance for Canada being stingy with NATO or whatever, but the impacts are certainly being felt by individual Canadians.

The insults to our sovereignty hit a little different in this context.

[flash2015]

(although it still seems rather funny to me)

Not to be too much of a snowflake, but I think some Americans really don't appreciate the gravity of the situation for Canadians.

The tariffs, if imposed as threatened, would push Canada into a recession and threaten millions of jobs: https://thehub.ca/2024/12/12/trevor-tombe-what-do-trumps-threats-mean-for-working-canadians-2-4-million-jobs-are-exposed-to-u-s-tariffs/

The mere threat of these actions is driving down the Canadian dollar, which is already denting my net worth and raising the price of imported goods.

I'm currently delaying booking a honeymoon trip to Hawaii because I'm uncertain if it will be affordable in light of potential CAD/USD movements.

I accelerated the purchase of a major imported good (dishwasher), because it might be much more more expensive if the CAD drops further.

I'm delaying my long-planned entry into the housing market because a trade dispute induced recession could put my fiancé out of work. It's also partly opportunistic - house prices and interest rates might dip if the Canadian economy really tumbles.

Maybe this is all part of some earned comeuppance for Canada being stingy with NATO or whatever, but the impacts are certainly being felt by individual Canadians.

The insults to our sovereignty hit a little different in this context.

Perhaps you are not understanding this from someone that lives in the US. Trump has been saying crazy stuff since he came down the elevator almost a decade ago. We have lived this for so long that we have become numb to the crazy. I wish the Democrats had not been so f**** terrible and out of touch which led to Trump winning again but it is what it is.

People are so exhausted with following politics so they are just tuning it out or not taking it seriously anymore. It didn't help that every single little thing Trump said for the past decade has been turned into a potential world ending event for the clicks.

I am sorry that you are finding this stressful. We will all get through this and get to the other side.

[CaptainFritz28]

(although it still seems rather funny to me)

Not to be too much of a snowflake, but I think some Americans really don't appreciate the gravity of the situation for Canadians.

The tariffs, if imposed as threatened, would push Canada into a recession and threaten millions of jobs: https://thehub.ca/2024/12/12/trevor-tombe-what-do-trumps-threats-mean-for-working-canadians-2-4-million-jobs-are-exposed-to-u-s-tariffs/

The mere threat of these actions is driving down the Canadian dollar, which is already denting my net worth and raising the price of imported goods.

I'm currently delaying booking a honeymoon trip to Hawaii because I'm uncertain if it will be affordable in light of potential CAD/USD movements.

I accelerated the purchase of a major imported good (dishwasher), because it might be much more more expensive if the CAD drops further.

I'm delaying my long-planned entry into the housing market because a trade dispute induced recession could put my fiancé out of work. It's also partly opportunistic - house prices and interest rates might dip if the Canadian economy really tumbles.

Maybe this is all part of some earned comeuppance for Canada being stingy with NATO or whatever, but the impacts are certainly being felt by individual Canadians.

The insults to our sovereignty hit a little different in this context.

You're right on the count of us not getting it from the Canadian perspective. You've already had to endure enough in the last few years of Trudeau and now this really isn't what y'all deserve.

[MajorMitchell]

I liked POTUS Joe Biden & VP Kamala Harris, at least they were much better than Trumptoad
Trumptoad probably doesn't think about Australia much, so as long as he's not thinking about us the happier I will.be.
Out national government are gullible purchasers of military equipment from suppliers in the USA & generally sycophants to USA in Diplomacy and Military matters.

We're not worried about Trumptoad cancelling our expensive purchase*(*if they are ever supplied*) Virginia class submarines, I rather hope he will.

Regrettably the deal.is such a rort for the Americans and British it won't be cancelled, we're worried that Trumptoad will significantly increase the cost, demand a few extra hundred billion.

* there are conditions in the legislation that had to be passed in USA Congress and Senate to sell.us the Virginia class submarines.
Some relate to the number if these submarines the US Navy has in service and it's needs, the needs of the US Navy come first.
The US Navy.is about 16 Virginia class submarines short of it's needs.
They're not building them.fast enough.
For the Virginia class submarines to be sold to.us. the US Naby has to state that it has enough of these submarines and the US President can only approve the sale if he gets such a report from the US Navy
Can't see a US President risking domestic political costs if.US Navy is short of these submarines
So we could pay ~$Aus 400 billion.and not be supplied and get no compensation

[Octavious]

I liked POTUS Joe Biden & VP Kamala Harris, at least they were much better than Trumptoad

By what metric? Four years of them convinced the American people that they actually preferred Trump. Convinced them enough to win the popular vote as well as the electoral college, which is quite an achievement for a party that has so little interest in the popular vote. And this was no longer the theoretical "drain the swamp and give the establishment a kicking" Trump. This was people voting for Trump based on Biden and Trump's actual performance.

From the perspective of us foreigners, Trump's period of government tends to be a lot less war-y, which is nice. I don't really care a great deal about US domestic policy. If they want to change their abortion laws to a model that more closely resembles the EU then that's their business. Of course that happened under President Biden rather than Trump, but the principle is the same.

The best thing about Trump by a country mile is that he really annoys a lot of the people I enjoy seeing annoyed, and that makes me happy. The next best thing about Trump is the lack of enthusiasm for war. When you look at woman's rights Biden was directly responsible for millions of women having them stripped away almost entirely and being forced to live in virtual slavery, but I rather suspect that Trump would have been no better. Indeed, Trump's actions previously helped set up Biden's moment of supreme cowardice and evil. Good reason to be repulsed by both of them.