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.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him. Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Edit/Update: The above kyivpost source has the interview date wrong. It doesn't detract from the interview itself though.
Switching gears from Greenland (not our 51st state) to Canada (also not our 51st state), we see that Canada's election is going to include just how well each candidate can supposedly stand up to Trump's threats:
US President Donald Trump will obviously not be on the ballot in Canada – but how each candidate proposes to deal with him is. ...
Carney describes the danger posed by Trump as existential, saying at his campaign kickoff that the US president wants to “break us so America can own us.” “I’m asking Canadians for a strong, positive mandate to deal with President Trump and to build a new Canadian economy that works for everyone because I know we need change, big change, positive change,” added Carney Sunday, as he began a five-week campaign that will end with a national vote on April 28.
His Conservative Party challenger, Pierre Poilievre, sounds near identical in his tone. “I will insist the president recognize the independence and sovereignty of Canada, I will insist that he stop tariffing our nation, and at the same time I will strengthen our country so that we can be capable of standing on our own two feet and standing up to the Americans where and when necessary,” said Poilievre in his first campaign speech Sunday.
Poilievre and Carney’s parties are virtually tied heading into this campaign and how they calibrate their response to Trump for voters, many of whom are equally enraged and terrified by the US leader’s threats, will likely decide this election.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
Timecode is 941 seconds (15 minutes and 41 seconds) if the timecode doesn't load for you.
You got duped by a garbage website and take it out on me for God knows what. Apologize at your convenience.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
This is not mature.
The interview date actually being in February is a fair correction. I was wrong about that date being more recent. I apologize for posting the wrong date. I've updated my previous post to clarify that.
Keep in mind that the date doesn't change the content of what was said though, both by JD Vance and by you. It seems I was indeed correct that your pivot to the date of the interview was indeed an obfuscation of the content of the interview. Saying that there exists security significance is not the same as saying we should invade Greenland, so responding to the latter with the former is not justified.
And I am happy to hear that you don't support the invasion of Greenland. Me neither. Do you also agree that the man you quoted earlier - the NATO Secretary General - also doesn't support the invasion of 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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
This is not mature.
There is only one tv and that tv is not for sale. Therefore the proposed acquisition is a proposed theft.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
Timecode is 941 seconds (15 minutes and 41 seconds) if the timecode doesn't load for you.
You got duped by a garbage website and take it out on me for God knows what. Apologize at your convenience.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
This is not mature.
There is only one tv and that tv is not for sale. Therefore the proposed acquisition is a proposed theft.
Yeah, there is some serious gaslighting going on when the leaders and the people of a country (like Canada) or territory (like Greenland) overwhelmingly want nothing to do with being added to the United States, yet Trump and Vance use terms like "acquire" or "take territorial interest", as if these places were for sale and/or not already settled. It's a huge misrepresentation by oBlade to imply that this is like window shopping for a television being sold by a shopkeeper.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
Timecode is 941 seconds (15 minutes and 41 seconds) if the timecode doesn't load for you.
You got duped by a garbage website and take it out on me for God knows what. Apologize at your convenience.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
This is not mature.
The interview date actually being in February is a fair correction. I was wrong about that date being more recent. I apologize for posting the wrong date. I've updated my previous post to clarify that.
Keep in mind that the date doesn't change the content of what was said though, both by JD Vance and by you. It seems I was indeed correct that your pivot to the date of the interview was indeed an obfuscation of the content of the interview.
Right, don't apologize for accusing me of faking a date.
On March 24 2025 23:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Saying that there exists security significance is not the same as saying we should invade Greenland, so responding to the latter with the former is not justified.
Thank God I didn't respond to the latter.
On March 24 2025 23:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And I am happy to hear that you don't support the invasion of Greenland. Me neither. Do you also agree that the man you quoted earlier - the NATO Secretary General - also doesn't support the invasion of Greenland?
You're looping. We did this on the last page. You went through great pains to prove that he didn't support the invasion of Greenland that I never said he supported, which we both stipulated. And think about what you're asking. Why would I be citing someone's supposed support of invading Greenland as something to defend my support of not invading Greenland. Your question is inconsistent bait. I'll tell you what I told WombaT. I'm truly sorry you want to give Vance a piece of your mind because you think he wants to invade Greenland but you can't get to him. But I don't have his number. You need to figure out a way to reach him yourself.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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:
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.
Are you intentionally trying to further obfuscate the issue by pretending that yesterday's interview was "2 months ago"?
"On Sunday March 23, Vice President JD Vance was interviewed by Fox News. During the interview, JD Vance raised doubts about Denmark’s stewardship over the island and suggested it was not a good ally: “Denmark, which controls Greenland, is not doing its job and is not being a good ally.” JD Vance also confirmed the territorial interest of the United States in Greenland: “If that means we need to take more territorial interest in Greenland, that is what President Trump is going to do, because he doesn’t care about what the Europeans scream at us, he cares about putting the interests of America’s citizens first.”" https://www.kyivpost.com/post/49464
Interview is here, dated the beginning of February.
Timecode is 941 seconds (15 minutes and 41 seconds) if the timecode doesn't load for you.
You got duped by a garbage website and take it out on me for God knows what. Apologize at your convenience.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The video clip I posted doesn't misrepresent what Vance and Trump want. Your partial quote of what Rutte said absolutely does misrepresent him.
Since this is apparently your hobby, explain to me how the sentence "NATO Secretary General agrees Greenland is of security significance." misrepresents him.
On March 24 2025 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Just stop. When you double-down on your defense of invading Greenland and faking other people's support for the takeover, it eventually leaves the realm of what could possibly be attributed as an honest mistake, and enters into frantic desperation and goalpost-moving.
Not a single person here supports the invasion of Greenland.
Person A: We should acquire that TV. Person X: A wants to steal the TV! Person B: Maybe there are some good reasons to acquire that TV, interesting. DPB: B supports A stealing the TV.
This is not mature.
There is only one tv and that tv is not for sale. Therefore the proposed acquisition is a proposed theft.
I find your syllogism unsound.
"Hey, nice car, what if I gave you $5k for it." "Thief."
The fundamental theorem of thousands of pages of this thread is that Republican voters are incapable of knowing/voting for what is in their best interests. The fact that x or y surveys don't support public opinion for Canada or Greenland joining the US, while true, these shouldn't be treated as thought-enders so long as our theory of mind includes the concept of "persuasion." Especially as the process might not legally require a referendum in one or the other case. And that convincing would obviously be easier if it were objectively true that being in the US was the better option for them. So they, like our good friends the Republican voters, may also simply not know what is in their best interests at the moment. America is an idea - why not work to expand it.
The fundamental theorem of thousands of pages of this thread is that Republican voters are incapable of knowing/voting for what is in their best interests.
Why would I (or we) assume it's stupidity when maliciousness fits way better? Stupidity was maybe an explanation before Trumps first term. We are way past that.
"Hey, nice car, what if I gave you $5k for it." "Thief."
This works pretty well but its missing a piece. Its more like:
"Hey, nice car, what if I gave you $5k for it." (turns to a group of watching people and very loudly says "I'm having that car no matter what he says") "Thief."
Canada, Ontario, Denmark and Greenland have all repeatedly told Trump to fuck off. Pretend like Trump is just window shopping and pitching ideas is blatant bullshit and everyone knows it.
On March 24 2025 23:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Saying that there exists security significance is not the same as saying we should invade Greenland, so responding to the latter with the former is not justified.
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/1903930497270513792
Even 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.
You were just conveniently avoiding what "acquiring" truly entails.
On March 24 2025 23:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And I am happy to hear that you don't support the invasion of Greenland. Me neither. Do you also agree that the man you quoted earlier - the NATO Secretary General - also doesn't support the invasion of Greenland?
You're looping. We did this on the last page. You went through great pains to prove that he didn't support the invasion of Greenland that I never said he supported, which we both stipulated. And think about what you're asking. Why would I be citing someone's supposed support of invading Greenland as something to defend my support of not invading Greenland.
It is not lost on me that you're still unwilling to answer my very simple question (hence the looping). The answer, by the way, should have been "Yes".
As for your question: You incorrectly citing the NATO Secretary General as a supporter of Trump's Greenland desires doesn't mean you necessarily agree with Trump's Greenland desires. I never said that it "defended your support of not invading Greenland". When I correctly cited that Vance supports Trump's Greenland desires, that doesn't mean I'm talking about myself in any way.
I do agree with you that we're looping at this point. I'm happy to move on.
I don't get where people think that they want to turn Greenland and Panama into states.
They want to turn them into nonvoteing territories like pr and Guam. Oblade trying to dance around Greenland just being important to trump for its ability to claim artic space under the current system exposes the rot of their thinking. If you refuse to follow the system of self determination that the western world agrees on, that Greenland and Denmark have followed and respected, then you don't get to follow the other rules of the system.
I've been to Greenland for the record. It's not even the size of a metropolitan zone. They had a legitimate Independence struggle where they had to come to terms with the Scandinavian immigrants and the native peoples. They cannot sustain being a fully independent nation and are very happy with the arraignment they made with Denmark and the EU.
On the plus side Denmark and the EU are talking about making a serious indoor stadium for Greenland to play in concacaf with this new attention so it's not all horrific imperialism.
National Security Advisor accidentally adds jounalist to Signal conversation with highest-level government officials (VP, secretaries) to discuss bombing Houthis.
National Security Advisor accidentally adds jounalist to Signal conversation with highest-level government officials (VP, secretaries) to discuss bombing Houthis.
[operation security]
"Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan"
Yikes.
Not to minimize the leak here, but I kind of just assumed that by now, Trump was probably revealing classified information on social media and to his friends, just to show off how cool he is.
National Security Advisor accidentally adds jounalist to Signal conversation with highest-level government officials (VP, secretaries) to discuss bombing Houthis.
[operation security]
edit: better quote
This is the perfect picture to sump both the last two months and the next four years.
There's one part which is that the journalist was invited in and nobody seemed to know or remember. The other part is that they are using Signal in the first place for their classified information.
What's that all about? Actively avoiding FOIA requests no doubt, especially as messages were set to be deleted after one week and four weeks.
Trump found the best people, people you wouldn't even believe. He's right on the second part. The degree and extent of this administration's incompetence beggars belief.
The group chat screenshots read like some teenagers chatting about weekend plans jesus christ. This would be grounds for immediate dismissal in any other administration but i suppose all that's going to happen is Trump will praise them and say the woke leftist are trying to DEI his patriotic department of defense.
On March 25 2025 05:04 decafchicken wrote: The group chat screenshots read like some teenagers chatting about weekend plans jesus christ. This would be grounds for immediate dismissal in any other administration but i suppose all that's going to happen is Trump will praise them and say the woke leftist are trying to DEI his patriotic department of defense.
The sad part, of course, is that Pete Hegseth is an unqualified white man gifted the position instead of anyone qualified (regardless of sex or race). DEI could have actually prevented this snafu from happening, because then the job would have been given to someone who knew what they were doing.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/873255349648523268/1353787711441473546/image.png?ex=67e2ec8e&is=67e19b0e&hm=efde16701884463b9ef70e17042f51a0123929b810148be69779be4859acf3de&)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/807392186215170070/1353780371346690128/image.png?ex=67e2e5b8&is=67e19438&hm=64d2564b5ffe511876d119d9d8c89a86e1af946af935cf803a368cf169f89f28&)
