January 17, 2026

An important message to the people of Greenland. If you live in Greenland please read this.

If Greenland is taken over by Trump, he would take away your publicly funded healthcare, let you die of curable illnesses, gut medical and climate change research, put his private armed forces on your streets to sanction the shooting and beating of innocent Greenlanders, and deport some of you to a shithole in El Salvador, where you will be treated as less than human and never have any contact with the outside world. How do I know this? Because this is what he has done in America, and you can expect the same to happen in Greenland.

Do not ever entertain the idea of accepting Trump's bribes, however generous they may seem. The chances are that you will never even see the bribe money, because Trump is a conman with a history of reneging on deals and screwing people over. Even Marco Rubio called him "a con artist." There isn't a benevolent, honest, or decent cell in Trump's body. Do not do deals with the devil.

January 12, 2026

Trump styles himself as 'Venezuela's acting president' in Truth Social post with Fake Wikipedia Page

Trump has repeatedly asserted that the United States will "run" Venezuela, despite its interim President Delcy Rodríguez insisting that no foreign power was governing her country.

US President Donald Trump has referred to himself as "acting president of Venezuela" in an image of a mock-up of a Wikipedia page on his Truth Social account on Monday morning.

The post, which has been liked more than 24,000 times, is the latest in a string of claims that Trump and Washington are in charge of the South American country following the 3 January capture of Nicolás Maduro.

https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/12/trump-calls-himself-venezuelas-acting-president-in-truth-social-post

January 10, 2026

If Trump orders a military invasion of Greenland, whose side will you be on: Denmark (and most of the world) or USA?

January 10, 2026

Support for abolishing ICE hits a a new high

https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/support-for-abolishing-ice-is-at

But the topline really understates the intensity of public backlash to ICE and its tactics. In February 2025, just 19% of Americans held a strongly unfavorable view of ICE, per YouGov/The Economist. Today, 40% do. It’s not just that there has been a general move in opinion against the agency. There is a growing and intense, angry opposition to it across America.

So what happened? Americans didn’t suddenly become woke open-borders enthusiasts. My theory is that the growing backlash to ICE is a byproduct of people learning about the agency’s enforcement tactics.

Back in January 2025 (before most of the controversial raids that have taken place in the last year), AP-NORC found that 64% of Americans opposed arrests at schools and 57% opposed arrests at churches. The administration ignored these warnings, targeted migrants at church and school anyway, and it has suffered the consequences in the court of public opinion.

After one Chicago raid, in which American citizens were dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and detained for hours, a Data for Progress poll found Americans nationwide opposed detaining citizens 66 to 26%. The firm also found 70% of Americans oppose zip-tying children during raids, which ICE also did in Chicago. That 70% overall percentage includes 53% of Republicans.

The January 2026 YouGov poll asked whether ICE’s tactics are too forceful, about right, or not forceful enough. A majority of adults said too forceful — 51%. Just 10% wanted more force. That’s a five-to-one ratio. 56% of Independents agreed ICE was using too much force.

SNIP

According to Civiqs, 42% of U.S. adults now support abolishing ICE entirely, while 50% oppose getting rid of the agency. That compares to 29% in Summer 2018, when the phrase was a rallying cry for progressives, 21% on Election Day 2024, and 37% in mid 2020, during the recent peak of the social justice movement. As of Jan. 8, independents had moved 15 points toward abolishing the agency in the past year, and even Republicans had increased their support by 6 points.

https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/support-for-abolishing-ice-is-at

January 10, 2026

Is there anything or anyone who will stop Trump invading Greenland and starting a war with Europe?

It may be a cold war, economic war, or worse, but Trump has made it clear, he will take Greenland, and he is surrounded by yes-men, psychopaths, or those on the side of Putin who are not going to stop him.

January 8, 2026

I made a mistake at looking at AOL and Yahoo news forums about today's murder by an ICE agent.

Most of the posts I read on AOL blame her or defend ICE. I wanted to believe that many of these posts are trolls or bots from foreign entities who want to divide America. When I looked at Yahoo that was more on our side, but I also saw posts that were identical to some I had read of AOL. Still, either way, whether these are real MAGA posts or bots working to destroy America, it is very depressing.

January 7, 2026

Will we later look back and realize the start of 2026 was the start of a new era of American dictatorship?

I mean, we are suddenly in uncharted waters. These threats by Trump and his mob against other nations are something we have never seen before. The world is in fear, bracing itself, wondering what the hell will that crazy guy do next.

January 6, 2026

Unlikely, I know, but what would happen if Maduro was found to be "not guilty?"

January 6, 2026

Chances of US choosing to kidnap president of a nation in which a politician just won Nobel Prize: 1 in 36,000

Calculations do not take into account a psychopathic American president who is pissed that he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Calculations by ChatGPT

A “U.S. president-kidnapping intervention” happens somewhere in the world within a 4-month window (event A) and the target country is the one that, in that same 4-month window, has a politician who just won the Nobel Peace Prize (event B).

A clean way to express that is:

P(A∩B)=P(A)×P(B∣A)

Where:

P(A) = chance the U.S. kidnaps/seizes a sitting president in a randomly selected 4-month window.

P(B∣A) = chance that, given such an event happens somewhere, it happens to the Nobel-country (the single “Nobel-country” created by that year’s Nobel announcement).

1) Estimating
P(A): how often does the U.S. “seize a president” in a 4-month window?

Using a straightforward historical base-rate approach:

Nobel Peace Prize begins in 1901.

From 1901 to early 2026 is ~125 years ≈ 375 four-month windows.

How many U.S. actions clearly match “military intervention resulting in capture/seizure of the top leader”?

Panama / Noriega: Noriega surrendered and was taken into U.S. custody on Jan 3, 1990 (after the 1989 invasion).

That gives 2 events over ~375 four-month windows:

=0.00533≈0.533%

So, about 0.5% per 4-month window (roughly 1 in 188 windows), using this strict definition.

(If you include disputed/ambiguous cases, the estimate rises, but then you’re changing the definition.)

2) Estimating
P(B∣A): if such an event happens, what’s the chance it hits “the Nobel-country”?

With 193 UN member states, the probability the target matches the one Nobel-country is:

= 0.518%

3) Joint probability
P(A∩B)

Multiply the two:

0.00533
×
0.00518

0.0000276
P(A∩B)≈0.00533×0.00518≈0.0000276

As a percent:
0.0000276
=
0.00276
%
0.0000276=0.00276%

As “1 in X”:

0.0000276
≈
36,200
1/0.0000276≈36,200

Result (under the explicit base-rate + uniform-target model)

≈ 0.0028% per 4-month window (about 1 in 36,000).

January 5, 2026

Do you think we have a right to know how many people Trump has killed?