@MarkJCarney I read that you're not impressed with our inviting Trump. I can assure you, that I , and many, many folk here aren't either. There will be protests and unease. He is not welcome here #trumpnotwelcome#trumpfelon#canada🤎
Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"
Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:
"A few things spring to mind.
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.
For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.
So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.
I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.
But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.
And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.
Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.
Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.
And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.
Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.
He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.
He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.
That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.
There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.
After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.
God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.
He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:
'My God… what… have… I… created?
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."
The BBC need to sack Laura Kuenssberg and replace her with less biased Victoria Derbyshire. Get rid of Fiona Bruce at same time. Please retweet or like if you agree. #BBCLauraK
Greenland 🇬🇱.What American really wants 🇺🇸
The renewed U.S. interest in Greenland goes beyond security rhetoric, it’s about resources, Arctic dominance, and the shifting power dynamics between the U.S., Denmark, and China.
Washington’s push to increase its foothold in Greenland follows a pattern: Trump’s crude 2019 “purchase” proposal was dismissed, but the underlying intent never changed. The difference now? The Arctic is no longer a peripheral issue—it’s a frontline of strategic competition- and Trump sees this as a chance to flank Canada with a long term view to also encroach on its territory too.
The U.S. has long relied on the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) for missile defense and space surveillance. But the Arctic’s changing landscape—both in climate and geopolitics—has made control over Greenland’s resources and trade routes a higher priority.
The real driver here is resource security. Greenland holds vast reserves of rare earth elements, crucial for tech and defense industries. China already dominates global rare earth production, and Washington is determined to prevent Beijing from gaining a foothold in Greenland.
Denmark. It legally controls Greenland’s foreign policy and defense but has been hesitant to invest heavily in Arctic security. U.S. frustration with Copenhagen’s approach is mounting—hence Vice President JD Vance’s recent pressure campaign.
But what does Greenland want? It’s a country with a tiny population of 56,000 mainly Inuit hunters and fishermen. The island’s government seeks full independence, yet it relies on Danish subsidies. The U.S. could exploit this economic gap, offering direct investment in exchange for strategic alignment—bypassing Denmark entirely.
This raises difficult questions: Is Greenland willing to trade autonomy for Trumps vague promise of economic opportunity? Does Denmark have a say in the matter, and what happens to NATO and Article 5? How will China respond if the U.S. locks it out of Greenland’s resource game? And is all of Trumps cozying up to Putin, and allowing him to take parts of Ukraine part of a bigger deal to negotiate the annexation of Greenland?
What’s clear is that Greenland’s future is no longer a niche issue—it’s a case study in 21st-century geopolitical realignment. The coming months will test whether Arctic sovereignty is respected or simply another casualty of great-power politics.
Thoughts?
@astraiaintel So they should! Ukraine should not be bullied into giving up their mineral wealth. America has no right to do this. I am being polite here! #trumptwat#vanceignorant#SlavaUkraini
Instead of stealing Greenland from Denmark, let’s steal some of their policies.
In Denmark:
- Health care and college are free.
- The starting wage is $22/hr.
- Paid parental leave is 1 year.
- Paid vacation is 6 weeks.
- All workers get pensions.