|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 03 2025 21:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa? Because "not giving up" something that you don't actually own just means stealing it. Why is it necessary for me to give up all the money in your wallet, but no one demands that i give up the money in my own wallet? Why is it necessary for me to give up your house, but no one demands that i give up my own house? And honestly, i don't really believe that you are this stupid. So you must willfully be acting stupid.
Those are all territories owned by the US.
|
On February 03 2025 21:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 21:23 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa? Because "not giving up" something that you don't actually own just means stealing it. Why is it necessary for me to give up all the money in your wallet, but no one demands that i give up the money in my own wallet? Why is it necessary for me to give up your house, but no one demands that i give up my own house? And honestly, i don't really believe that you are this stupid. So you must willfully be acting stupid. Those are all territories owned by the US.
The Philippines is not a U.S. territory. We don't own Greenland either. Or Cuba.
|
On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying.
You're probably overthinking it. Being bigger on the map is a common nationalist dream, Orban keeps parading Greater Hungary maps, our nationalists are obsessed with reunification with Moldova, and so on.
Trump at some point likely asked his advisers "why don't the bigger countries simply eat the smaller countries?" and wasn't satisfied with the answer.
|
Norway28552 Posts
On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa?
Principle of sovereignty is pretty key. Imo if Puerto Ricans, Guamese, people of the Virgin Islands or American Samoa want independence, they should be granted independence. Whereas forcefully annexing countries / regions that want to be independent is abhorrent in every way. The principle of not wanting to be ruled by a ruler you don't want to be ruled by should be fairly easy to grasp for americans, tbh.
|
On February 03 2025 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 21:33 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 21:23 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa? Because "not giving up" something that you don't actually own just means stealing it. Why is it necessary for me to give up all the money in your wallet, but no one demands that i give up the money in my own wallet? Why is it necessary for me to give up your house, but no one demands that i give up my own house? And honestly, i don't really believe that you are this stupid. So you must willfully be acting stupid. Those are all territories owned by the US. The Philippines is not a U.S. territory. We don't own Greenland either. Or Cuba.
You have not read the post, my question, or history. It's embarrassing for you because it wasn't that hard, at all.
The question is simple.
WombaT has stated that a "Democrat" or "sane Republican" would just give Greenland right back anyway.
My question is, although the US has "given up" Cuba and the Philippines, and would allegedly give up Greenland, why have Democrats not given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, despite given ample opportunity?
What's the difference?
Why am I to believe they would do that with Greenland, and what differentiates Greenland that it puts it in the category of Cuba and Philippines, and not the category of the others (that happens to include - what would really blow your mind since I see history isn't your forte - the annexation of Hawaii).
|
On February 03 2025 21:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 03 2025 21:33 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 21:23 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa? Because "not giving up" something that you don't actually own just means stealing it. Why is it necessary for me to give up all the money in your wallet, but no one demands that i give up the money in my own wallet? Why is it necessary for me to give up your house, but no one demands that i give up my own house? And honestly, i don't really believe that you are this stupid. So you must willfully be acting stupid. Those are all territories owned by the US. The Philippines is not a U.S. territory. We don't own Greenland either. Or Cuba. You have not read the post, my question, or history.
I have indeed.
It's embarrassing for you because it wasn't that hard, at all.
I appreciate the projection. Take a look at all the responses that your silly question has elicited, and reconsider who should be embarrassed.
The question is simple.
WombaT has stated that a "Democrat" or "sane Republican" would just give Greenland right back anyway.
My question is, although the US has "given up" Cuba and the Philippines, and would allegedly give up Greenland, why have Democrats not given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, despite given ample opportunity?
What's the difference?
Why am I to believe they would do that with Greenland, and what differentiates Greenland that it puts it in the category of Cuba and Philippines, and not the category of the others (that happens to include - what would really blow your mind since I see history isn't your forte - the annexation of Hawaii).
Drone just answered that question. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico or Guam or any other U.S. territory voting for independence. That has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to steal other countries back from being independent from us. You might as well be asking England if they casually feel like re-owning the United States of America, without first consulting the United States of America.
|
On February 03 2025 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +The question is simple.
WombaT has stated that a "Democrat" or "sane Republican" would just give Greenland right back anyway.
My question is, although the US has "given up" Cuba and the Philippines, and would allegedly give up Greenland, why have Democrats not given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, despite given ample opportunity?
What's the difference?
Why am I to believe they would do that with Greenland, and what differentiates Greenland that it puts it in the category of Cuba and Philippines, and not the category of the others (that happens to include - what would really blow your mind since I see history isn't your forte - the annexation of Hawaii). Drone just answered that question. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico or Guam or any other U.S. territory voting for independence.
Drone answered it with his opinion because he didn't need help figuring out what it meant. If you ever ask me why I think Russia is less dangerous than the USSR, I'm just going to say because the USSR doesn't exist. That's the effort you're putting in when you think "The Philippines is not a U.S. territory" is a fact anyone is unaware of, instead of realizing before posting it that maybe you're the one who missed something blindingly obvious.
In the case of Hawaii it took a while and they warmed up to becoming a state, because the choice was either statehood or perpetual territory status and there was no independence on the table. Puerto Rico has been a territory even longer and is still languishing in perpetual lack of statehood, despite multiple cases of Democrats controlling the entire federal government, so I again doubt WombaT's idea that Democrats would contradict a US expression of manifest destiny in the 21st century.
On February 03 2025 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to steal other countries back from being independent from us. You might as well be asking England if they casually feel like re-owning the United States of America, without first consulting the United States of America.
The scope of what I'm asking may have nothing to do with something that you're talking about which isn't related to what I'm asking, that's true, because my words are about what I want them to be about by virtue of being mine. But remember, the US is independent, Greenland isn't.
What do you think GreenHorizons? Would Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Hakeem Jeffries, likely return Greenland to Denmark or to its own independence (which Greenland wants but hasn't gotten from Denmark either)?
|
Do you have some disorder?
Greenland isn't in the US, it doesn't belong to the US.
So does Canada, Cuba and whatever other places you randomly included or not into your "argument".
But it's telling that the orange man can spout random bullshit and american right wingers suddenly find it totally ok and worth pursuing.
As a Bonus: How the fuck do you make this about Democrats?
|
On February 03 2025 22:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:The question is simple.
WombaT has stated that a "Democrat" or "sane Republican" would just give Greenland right back anyway.
My question is, although the US has "given up" Cuba and the Philippines, and would allegedly give up Greenland, why have Democrats not given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, despite given ample opportunity?
What's the difference?
Why am I to believe they would do that with Greenland, and what differentiates Greenland that it puts it in the category of Cuba and Philippines, and not the category of the others (that happens to include - what would really blow your mind since I see history isn't your forte - the annexation of Hawaii). Drone just answered that question. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico or Guam or any other U.S. territory voting for independence. Drone answered it with his opinion because he didn't need help figuring out what it meant. If you ever ask me why I think Russia is less dangerous than the USSR, I'm just going to say because the USSR doesn't exist. That's the effort you're putting in when you think "The Philippines is not a U.S. territory" is a fact anyone is unaware of, instead of realizing before posting it that maybe you're the one who missed something blindingly obvious. In the case of Hawaii it took a while and they warmed up to becoming a state, because the choice was either statehood or perpetual territory status and there was no independence on the table. Puerto Rico has been a territory even longer and is still languishing in perpetual lack of statehood, despite multiple cases of Democrats controlling the entire federal government, so I again doubt WombaT's idea that Democrats would contradict a US expression of manifest destiny in the 21st century. Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 22:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to steal other countries back from being independent from us. You might as well be asking England if they casually feel like re-owning the United States of America, without first consulting the United States of America. The scope of what I'm asking may have nothing to do with something that you're talking about which isn't related to what I'm asking, that's true, because my words are about what I want them to be about by virtue of being mine. But remember, the US is independent, Greenland isn't.
Being independent doesn't mean you can just steal other people's territories. Greenland isn't just up-for-grabs lol. Greenland is a territory of Denmark. We'd be stealing from Greenland/Denmark, if we stole Greenland. Something something "fact anyone is unaware of". You're allowed to reread your posts, or pose things as questions, or Google things first, if you legitimately don't know things about Greenland or the Philippines or Cuba. No one here is an expert on everything, but you seem to enjoy taking that to the extreme.
Glad that Drone and everyone else were able to clear things up for you.
|
On February 03 2025 22:39 Velr wrote:
Do you have some disorder?
Greenland isn't in the US, it doesn't belong to the US.
So does Canada, Cuba and whatever other places you randomly included or not into your "argument".
But it's telling that the orange man can spout random bullshit and american right wingers suddenly find it totally ok and worth pursuing.
As a Bonus: How the fuck do you make this about Democrats?
I have recently been watching the series “what we do in the shadows”. In that series,the character Colin Robinson is an Energy Vampire who feeds by draining peoples energy through being boring and/or annoying. In one episode, he starts doing that online by trolling various forums and social media. “If they call you a dumbass, you know you got them.”
I find this to be the best explanation.
|
"Does the USA own...?"
the Phillipines
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/2be7162785bec7d30dd5343140b0d738.png)
Cuba
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/45c7a94817422a66df2901db5a0795ea.png)
Greenland
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/7edd7198e264d5d0c36bfaeaec558ff1.png)
PS: Denmark doesn't own Greenland. Greenland is fully autonomous. Yet it also remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. I know these nuances aren't easy to grasp for Trump-minded individuals, but perhaps something gets through every so often.
Cuba's governance is more complicated, but it is certainly not owned or run by the US.
The Philippines are fully self-governing.
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On February 03 2025 21:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 03 2025 21:33 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 21:23 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2025 21:13 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2025 10:52 WombaT wrote:On February 03 2025 10:15 Sadist wrote:
Im seriously wondering if Trump wants Canada and Greenland due to long term climate change impacts. Hed would be dead obviously by the time shit really hit the fan but Id imagine Canada and Greenland could be hedges against some of the worst case scenarios.
If he is considering that it would be truly terrifying. If it wasn’t Donald Trump, I mean sure it’s an intriguing hypothesis. He’s neither shown a propensity to give much of a fuck beyond his own station in life, or his immediate nearest and dearest, nor to taking climate change as a serious threat. Perhaps his climate skepticism is performative to appeal to his base, but alas I lack the ability to look into the souls of man. Obviously not, because well, geography in this case. It’s the kind of thing I could see China doing because they’re structurally positioned to make those kind of very long-term plans, regardless of one’s opinion on those structures. Not saying they’d want to pursue such a plan either, just they have the capacity to plan and operate on a scale of decades+ in a way Western democracies can’t reliably do. I mean hell on 4 year cycles the US goes more isolationist and unilateral, leaves the WHO, withdraws from the Paris Accords. Then it’s less so, and it’s back! Then it’s away again. Amongst other things. Even if Trump somehow engineered an annexation of Greenland, the next time a Dem’s in or hell, an (increasingly unlikely) sane Republican is gonna hand it back. Any ideas why it's necessary for the US to give up the Philippines and Cuba, and Greenland if that came to pass, but Democrats haven't given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa? Because "not giving up" something that you don't actually own just means stealing it. Why is it necessary for me to give up all the money in your wallet, but no one demands that i give up the money in my own wallet? Why is it necessary for me to give up your house, but no one demands that i give up my own house? And honestly, i don't really believe that you are this stupid. So you must willfully be acting stupid. Those are all territories owned by the US. The Philippines is not a U.S. territory. We don't own Greenland either. Or Cuba. You have not read the post, my question, or history. It's embarrassing for you because it wasn't that hard, at all. The question is simple. WombaT has stated that a "Democrat" or "sane Republican" would just give Greenland right back anyway. My question is, although the US has "given up" Cuba and the Philippines, and would allegedly give up Greenland, why have Democrats not given up Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, despite given ample opportunity? What's the difference? Why am I to believe they would do that with Greenland, and what differentiates Greenland that it puts it in the category of Cuba and Philippines, and not the category of the others (that happens to include - what would really blow your mind since I see history isn't your forte - the annexation of Hawaii).
History? A relative degree of bipartisan policy towards these locales?
If the GOP and Dems had long yearned for Greenland’s verdant greenery and Trump is the guy at the helm when the prize is finally obtained, it’d be completely different.
As it is it’s something Donald wrote on the back of a packet of fags as a good idea and decided to tell everyone about it.
There’s broadly consistent foreign policy, with some deviation sure, and then there’s something Donald Trump is blathering about with no real wider appetite that also would massively complicate relations with allies that both parties have cultivated strong bonds with for 70+ years.
Of course it would be immediately reversed at the first opportunity.
It’s got little to do with my personal opinion on various locales or policies themselves. There’s a general bipartisan support for Israel, I don’t agree with many facets of that, but I can acknowledge its existence.
Questions such as the fate of Puerto Rico or American Samoa are largely irrelevant to this Greenland example.
1. It’s not been a wider, long-term US foreign policy aim. It’s not got big cohorts who have lobbied for it, nor an electorate clamouring for it.
2. It would damage decades of actual US foreign policy.
3. The US has no legitimate claim to the territory outside of ‘that would be useful’ and ‘might is right’.
4. The US has no real history in the rolling forests of Greenland either.
History and time has a certain power all of its own, regardless of how legitimately territory was obtained in the past, if enough time passes its bloody difficult to revert, or folks may not want to even attempt it. See - my location.
I’m a self-determination kinda guy, but it’s often a slow process. Even when that tide does turn, often the parent country/Empire takes a long time to turn with it, if at all.
But it’s really not the crux of my point at all.
The central point is simply that Donald Trump doing things unilaterally that actively contradict long-term US foreign policy would just be reversed, unless the Overton window shifts even further. Which is pretty possible.
If say, Russia were the ones holding claim to the place, it’d still be a blatant territorial grab but I imagine folks would find it less objectionable.
But well, it is not. You’re pissing on European cornflakes, and a big chunk of NATO. Next lot in will want to repair that damage.
As an aside, while European unity and solidarity can be overstated, I think Trump massively underestimates it to a huge degree.
|
On February 03 2025 22:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 22:39 Velr wrote:
Do you have some disorder?
Greenland isn't in the US, it doesn't belong to the US.
So does Canada, Cuba and whatever other places you randomly included or not into your "argument".
But it's telling that the orange man can spout random bullshit and american right wingers suddenly find it totally ok and worth pursuing.
As a Bonus: How the fuck do you make this about Democrats? I have recently been watching the series “what we do in the shadows”. In that series,the character Colin Robinson is an Energy Vampire who feeds by draining peoples energy through being boring and/or annoying. In one episode, he starts doing that online by trolling various forums and social media. “If they call you a dumbass, you know you got them.” I find this to be the best explanation.
I had a vision of Trump's jackboots breaking through the door only for lib/Dems to be like "wait, wait, wait!, I have to tell oBlade how stupid he is for thinking Trump has the right to send jackboots to my house. What a dumbass lol!"
|
|
|
The silver lining I guess is that this level of lies and deceit leads us to research facts about history, geography etc. It educates us by provoking our curiosity.
But gotta be careful not to get carried away by the hostility, as it can become consuming.
|
United States41934 Posts
I think it’s a tariff point and you’re all being plusCRT about it. What really is the difference between Greenland and Cuba.
|
Northern Ireland23721 Posts
On February 03 2025 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 22:49 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2025 22:39 Velr wrote:
Do you have some disorder?
Greenland isn't in the US, it doesn't belong to the US.
So does Canada, Cuba and whatever other places you randomly included or not into your "argument".
But it's telling that the orange man can spout random bullshit and american right wingers suddenly find it totally ok and worth pursuing.
As a Bonus: How the fuck do you make this about Democrats? I have recently been watching the series “what we do in the shadows”. In that series,the character Colin Robinson is an Energy Vampire who feeds by draining peoples energy through being boring and/or annoying. In one episode, he starts doing that online by trolling various forums and social media. “If they call you a dumbass, you know you got them.” I find this to be the best explanation. I had a vision of Trump's jackboots breaking through the door only for lib/Dems to be like "wait, wait, wait!, I have to tell oBlade how stupid he is for thinking Trump has the right to send jackboots to my house. What a dumbass lol!"
Ok I actually laughed out loud at both of these posts, GG WP you two
|
I don't think Oblade understands the complexity of global relations and wants to boil everything down to ownership and control. Gitmo in Cuba is suppose to be land that we rent, not own. The cuban government after the revolution wanted to tear up the renal agreement and has never cashed the rent checks for the land but the US clings to the agreement it signed with the cuban government that gives them the legal cover to do what they want anyway. This treaty only mattering to America because global laws are a joke.
Greenland has an independence story from its effort to become independent from Denmark. It came to the point of "yeah you're independent now but we don't need to do foreign policy because we're a few hundred thousand people". The Territories of the United states are much like that, if they wanted to become independent they're more than free to pursue self-determination but they don't, they also don't want to become more integrated into the United states which would be necessary to gain representation. There have been election in PR about this and there hasn't been the kind of conclusive result to determine their future. They don't want to remain a territory but they also don't know if they want independence or to become a state.
The Philippines is a straight-up colony that we have an abusive relationship with. Don't look up the history of the Philippine Revolution, its where America learned that shotguns were pretty effective before WW1. They eventually got their independence but are now a quasi-American colony where they will host a massive US military base and their people enlist in the US navy en mass.
But for the record every case has its own differences and its own story behind it. If you're too ignorant to understand Greenlands story but still want it for nothing other than the love of Imperialism you can just state that. You are allowed in America to make the argument that Imperialism is good and we should be doing more Imperialism to create a single trade sphere to better all parties.
Does anyone want to debate with me about Imperialism would actually be good for people? I unironically think a north American super state would be best, even if I don't know how we could get there.
|
What in the last ~25 years made you think: "Yes, we need more places like America?" How is (even "soft power") annexing (mostly) poorer countries improving anything for anyone?
Especially because with Trump you have proven twice, that treaties the US signs aren't worth the paper they are written on.
|
United States41934 Posts
That reminds of me of the the urban legend about a US general using pig blood smeared on bullets to shoot Muslims in the Philippines that Trump repeated believing it was both true and an excellent idea.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40969475
It's been a long few years but it's always fun to remember that Trump gets his understanding of the world and it's history from facebook memes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
