|
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 March 23 2025 10:10 decafchicken wrote:Anyone read further into the claims by the election truth agency? I'm equally skeptical and believing https://electiontruthalliance.org/
I think it's reasonable to expect this narrative to show up at some point. Trump accuses others of the crimes he's committing, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if election fraud theories pop up eventually.
That said, I'm glad the general response was 'we lost a reasonably fair election' and not diving for the nearest convenient excuse.
|
In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem":
https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792
Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland".
|
On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland".
My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius.
|
On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland".
This is literally the same sort of justification Hitler and Putin used. Trump and Putin think they will divide the world into some spheres of influence and that we will just roll over. Republican morons thought they were voting for a "peacemaker". Now we're closer to WW3 than we've ever been since the end of Cold War.
|
Belgium4985 Posts
In less than 3 months. Incredible.
Also says alot about the frailty of our alliances. Humans are truly feeble organisms unable to keep it together.
|
On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius.
NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance.
We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there.
Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement.
|
On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. Show nested quote +We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement.
Since when was the sovereignty of a country dependent on serving everyone else's needs?
|
On March 24 2025 19:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement. Since when was the sovereignty of a country dependent on serving everyone else's needs?
Since you began strawmanning.
|
On March 24 2025 19:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 19:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement. Since when was the sovereignty of a country dependent on serving everyone else's needs? Since you began strawmanning.
You talk about a 'new arrangement' in reply to a post that says:
"Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland"
I just assumed your post wasn't a complete non-sequitur. Apparently I was wrong!
Important question for you to answer now oblade:
Would you support America annexing Greenland if it came to that?
BTW leaving your posts as vague as possible so any response can be called a strawman if you can't think of an answer is one way to do things, but its extremely obvious to everyone else.
|
You have projected the word "else" onto a statement tacitly assuming that a new arrangement might not be better also for both Greenland, which is not sovereign, and for Denmark.
|
On March 24 2025 19:38 oBlade wrote:
You have projected the word "else" onto a statement tacitly assuming that a new arrangement might not be better also for both Greenland, which is not sovereign, and for Denmark.
okay.
Would you support America annexing Greenland if it came to it?
|
On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. Show nested quote +We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement.
Please don't misrepresent the NATO Secretary General's words on the matter. You seem to have quote-mined him:
"Rutte agreed that Greenland and the Arctic Circle are critical for security reasons, noting that China and Russia have a growing presence in the region. But he said any discussion about Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland were outside of his purview. “I don’t want to drag NATO in that,” Rutte said."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5193242-trump-greenland-nato-secretary/
You citing Mark Rutte here as an advocate for Trump wanting to steal Greenland is actually implying the opposite of what Mark Rutte wants. Rutte isn't advocating for that at all, and doesn't think he/NATO should be involved:
"Rutte told Trump that he would leave the question of Greenland's future to others and that, "I don't want to drag NATO" into the debate." https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-expresses-confidence-that-us-will-annex-greenland-2025-03-13/
From the above Reuters article, these individuals are far more relevant:
"The comments drew a swift rejection from the outgoing prime minister of Greenland. "The U.S. president has once again aired the thought of annexing us," Mute Egede said in a Facebook post. "Enough is enough." Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of the island's pro-business Demokraatit party, which won Greenland's parliamentary election on Tuesday, also rejected the comments. "Trump's statement from the US is inappropriate and just shows once again that we must stand together in such situations," Nielsen wrote on Facebook."
|
There is a gap the size of the Atlantic ocean between "Greenland has strategic significance" and "therefor the US should control it"
|
On March 24 2025 19:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement. Please don't misrepresent the NATO Secretary General's words on the matter. You seem to have quote-mined him: "Rutte agreed that Greenland and the Arctic Circle are critical for security reasons, noting that China and Russia have a growing presence in the region. But he said any discussion about Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland were outside of his purview. “I don’t want to drag NATO in that,” Rutte said." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5193242-trump-greenland-nato-secretary/ You citing Mark Rutte here as an advocate for Trump wanting to steal Greenland is actually implying the opposite of what Mark Rutte wants. Rutte isn't advocating for that at all, and doesn't think he/NATO should be involved: "Rutte told Trump that he would leave the question of Greenland's future to others and that, "I don't want to drag NATO" into the debate." https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-expresses-confidence-that-us-will-annex-greenland-2025-03-13/ From the above Reuters article, these individuals are far more relevant: "The comments drew a swift rejection from the outgoing prime minister of Greenland. "The U.S. president has once again aired the thought of annexing us," Mute Egede said in a Facebook post. "Enough is enough." Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of the island's pro-business Demokraatit party, which won Greenland's parliamentary election on Tuesday, also rejected the comments. "Trump's statement from the US is inappropriate and just shows once again that we must stand together in such situations," Nielsen wrote on Facebook."
You are having a hard time again.
At no point did I cite him as a reason to steal Greenland, nor suggest that he advocated for stealing Greenland, nor advocate stealing Greenland. On the issue of what if any country Greenland should be a part of, he professionally and diplomatically stayed out rightfully acknowleding it's not his place to say either (any) way.
But you seem read on the issue. How do you view the security concerns related with Greenland that he referred to, and how would you handle them within the status quo framework of NATO and RedWhiteAndBlueLand as it is?
1) Nonexistent/overblown
2) Manageable in ways you can specify
3) Other?
|
On March 24 2025 20:15 Gorsameth wrote:
There is a gap the size of the Atlantic ocean between "Greenland has strategic significance" and "therefor the US should control it"
Also, note that before about three months ago, if the US wanted to build any base of any kind in Greenland, they just had to ask. So any strategic signifcance that Greenland might have or not have would not be a problem for America.
|
On March 24 2025 20:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 19:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement. Please don't misrepresent the NATO Secretary General's words on the matter. You seem to have quote-mined him: "Rutte agreed that Greenland and the Arctic Circle are critical for security reasons, noting that China and Russia have a growing presence in the region. But he said any discussion about Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland were outside of his purview. “I don’t want to drag NATO in that,” Rutte said." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5193242-trump-greenland-nato-secretary/ You citing Mark Rutte here as an advocate for Trump wanting to steal Greenland is actually implying the opposite of what Mark Rutte wants. Rutte isn't advocating for that at all, and doesn't think he/NATO should be involved: "Rutte told Trump that he would leave the question of Greenland's future to others and that, "I don't want to drag NATO" into the debate." https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-expresses-confidence-that-us-will-annex-greenland-2025-03-13/ From the above Reuters article, these individuals are far more relevant: "The comments drew a swift rejection from the outgoing prime minister of Greenland. "The U.S. president has once again aired the thought of annexing us," Mute Egede said in a Facebook post. "Enough is enough." Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of the island's pro-business Demokraatit party, which won Greenland's parliamentary election on Tuesday, also rejected the comments. "Trump's statement from the US is inappropriate and just shows once again that we must stand together in such situations," Nielsen wrote on Facebook." You are having a hard time again. At no point did I cite him as a reason to steal Greenland, nor suggest that he advocated for stealing Greenland, nor advocate stealing Greenland. On the issue of what if any country Greenland should be a part of, he professionally and diplomatically stayed out rightfully acknowleding it's not his place to say either (any) way. But you seem read on the issue. How do you view the security concerns related with Greenland that he referred to, and how would you handle them within the status quo framework of NATO and RedWhiteAndBlueLand as it is? 1) Nonexistent/overblown 2) Manageable in ways you can specify 3) Other?
You cited him as a direct counter to how absurd it is for Trump to invade Greenland. I appreciate the backtracking now, and the eventual acknowledgement that "he professionally and diplomatically stayed out", after you got caught misrepresenting him.
I don't have any further thoughts on the Greenland matter, at this time. Just please be more careful.
|
There is already one US military base in Greenland en.wikipedia.org and there used to be another, but it was closed. So yeah US doesnt need to own Greenalnd to have bases there.
|
On March 24 2025 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2025 20:20 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 19:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 24 2025 19:09 oBlade wrote:On March 24 2025 10:57 Dan HH wrote:On March 24 2025 10:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:In a recent interview, JD Vance said that Greenland and Denmark were threatening our national security, and that we may need to take "more territorial interest in Greenland" to "solve that problem": https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1903930497270513792Even the Fox News chyron had "Vance: Possibility U.S. Acquires Greenland". My only surprise here is that he can keep himself from laughing when pretending there's anything more to this than Trump playing with a sharpie on the map, inspired no doubt by his idol's attempted annexation of Ukraine which he described as genius. NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance. We know that the Chinese are using this route and the Russians are using this route. And we know that we lack icebreakers. There are seven Arctic countries in the region that are actually working on this matter under US leadership, that is very important and we have to be there. Is Denmark contributing or holding back? Maybe the former, maybe the latter. Maybe everyone's needs are best served under a new arrangement. Please don't misrepresent the NATO Secretary General's words on the matter. You seem to have quote-mined him: "Rutte agreed that Greenland and the Arctic Circle are critical for security reasons, noting that China and Russia have a growing presence in the region. But he said any discussion about Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland were outside of his purview. “I don’t want to drag NATO in that,” Rutte said." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5193242-trump-greenland-nato-secretary/ You citing Mark Rutte here as an advocate for Trump wanting to steal Greenland is actually implying the opposite of what Mark Rutte wants. Rutte isn't advocating for that at all, and doesn't think he/NATO should be involved: "Rutte told Trump that he would leave the question of Greenland's future to others and that, "I don't want to drag NATO" into the debate." https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-expresses-confidence-that-us-will-annex-greenland-2025-03-13/ From the above Reuters article, these individuals are far more relevant: "The comments drew a swift rejection from the outgoing prime minister of Greenland. "The U.S. president has once again aired the thought of annexing us," Mute Egede said in a Facebook post. "Enough is enough." Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of the island's pro-business Demokraatit party, which won Greenland's parliamentary election on Tuesday, also rejected the comments. "Trump's statement from the US is inappropriate and just shows once again that we must stand together in such situations," Nielsen wrote on Facebook." You are having a hard time again. At no point did I cite him as a reason to steal Greenland, nor suggest that he advocated for stealing Greenland, nor advocate stealing Greenland. On the issue of what if any country Greenland should be a part of, he professionally and diplomatically stayed out rightfully acknowleding it's not his place to say either (any) way. But you seem read on the issue. How do you view the security concerns related with Greenland that he referred to, and how would you handle them within the status quo framework of NATO and RedWhiteAndBlueLand as it is? 1) Nonexistent/overblown 2) Manageable in ways you can specify 3) Other? You cited him as a direct counter to how absurd it is for Trump to invade Greenland.
Absolutely not.
You posted an X account's comment on a 20 second clip from an interview almost 2 months ago. The Vice President of my country said there are security issues related to Greenland. The Secretary General of NATO said the same. That's it. Everything beyond that you've said that I think and believe, especially re:"invading" is your own invention and fabrication.
On March 24 2025 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I appreciate the backtracking now, and the eventual acknowledgement that "he professionally and diplomatically stayed out", after you got caught misrepresenting him.
You misrepresented me, as you have before, and will again.
On March 24 2025 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I don't have any further thoughts on the Greenland matter, at this time. Just please be more careful.
Careful? It's physically impossible to write a post you won't find some way to misinterpret. You should get some thoughts on this one because it's a lot more interesting topic than yet again being stubbornly wrong about what I personally say and think. Analyze the underlying issues beyond the level of Drumpf wants to invade! to give yourself better context for the VP's assertion that the US could have a territorial interest in acquiring Greenland.
On March 24 2025 20:54 Silvanel wrote:There is already one US military base in Greenland en.wikipedia.org and there used to be another, but it was closed. So yeah US doesnt need to own Greenalnd to have bases there.
Here is the thing about US bases in Greenland:
Greenland may not welcome them, Denmark may not welcome Greenland welcoming them, and the US may not particularly welcome having to do it. So if it becomes a matter of sure we'll let you open a base, assuming you invest this this and this and support this, and the US says well if I invest in that, then I also need this this and this, and Greenland says then we need rights and citizenship. The advantage of Greenland being in the US is that the US extends 12 nautical miles from the shore of the US, so the US would extend 12 nautical miles from the shores of Greenland. Remember Greenland is a net economic loss for Denmark. It's possible to imagine deals that are a mutually beneficial upgrade as long as we take the time to craft thoughts about it.
|
United States43355 Posts
You can’t just annex places bud. The postwar era of peace and prosperity is built on the end of the era of imperialism and the conversion of old empires into nation states with determined boundaries. The old system wasn’t working out, both for the empires that kept fighting over places and for the places they kept fighting over.
|
On March 24 2025 23:08 KwarK wrote:
You can’t just annex places bud. The postwar era of peace and prosperity is built on the end of the era of imperialism and the conversion of old empires into nation states with determined boundaries.
He's talking around the annexation point and didn't answer a direct question about it.
I think its because EVERYONE is against annexation until it happens, then if their side is doing it then obviously its both unavoidable and sensible.
Best just wait and see, and then come up with an 'opinion'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
