84
So to all the folk who voted for Trump because they thought he was the guy who was going to get us out of the endless wars, how to you feel now? You buffoon. You simpleton. You absolute imbecile.
"No, he was going to fix the BIDENflation, ya'll!"
These absolute morons don't realize we are currently experiencing the inflation THAT THE TRAITOR CAUSED.
Jesus christ this country is fucking insanely stupid.
It is very sad that undecided voters couldn’t do the bare minimum of a google search as to why inflation was so bad.
Could it be because during trumps presidency he approved the printing of trillions of dollars to keep the economy afloat and cut taxes that were set to expire during Bidens presidency?
No had to be because Biden is old.
Promising a “Golden age of America,” Trump also said he would move to try to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” saying that has a “beautiful ring to it.”
What a dumbass
What can I say, though, he knows his deplorable base. I'm not sure they could get any more hard over such performative bullshit.
I wonder how many have been bitching about the price of eggs lately, by the way? I wonder if eggs went through the same miraculous transformation that fair elections did, post donvict's win.
with a de facto totalitarian who attempted a coup at the helm, americans will finally understand for the first time what it means to be "free". It will be like pulling out a rotten tooth: painful but it will get better. Once the civil war that is required to get trump out of office in 10 years is finished.
Fix your fucking country. You’re going to hurt a lot people because you worship stupidity, bravado, power, and money.
A lot of us tried, but we were outnumbered.
Give us a moment. The sane among us are still trying to figure out which of our friends and family are still worth a shit.
I would love too. I really don't think America should invade any country. One thing everyone can do no matter what country they live in you can boycott Tesla and Twitter. Musk is going to be a major funder of the GOP so ending his propaganda megaphone and wealth could change the course of events.
I was not expecting a World War over Greenland and or Panama. WTF Donny?
Oh, I'm not seeing a world war. I'm more envisioning a corrupt bargain:
Russia grabs Ukraine
China grabs Taiwan
US grabs Greenland, Panama, and maybe even Cuba
And they all agree to just let it happen.
yeaaaah, I doubt that Greenland, Denmark or NATO will just sit idly when Greenland is about to be annexed.
In this era, what seems to be an era of might makes right, if the US wanted to annex Greenland militarily, who exactly is going to do what to stop them? With what military?
Somehow I don't think the Danish military is going to be a substantial barrier to the US military. How many carrier groups does Denmark maintain? Danish military expenditure is about $8 billion USD per year. The US is more like $900 billion. The Danish military has 25,000 soldiers. The State of Texas alone, just in the minor military forces under the direct control of the Governor of Texas, has 23,000 troops. Texas alone, even without any federal support, could probably win a war against Denmark. That is how comical the difference in power here is.
And NATO? Well look at how good of a job NATO is doing at preventing the US from supporting Israel, or how effective NATO was at preventing the US from invading Iraq. In this scenario, Trump would effectively be walking away from NATO anyway. Without the US, NATO is pretty toothless. The US is the only NATO power that maintains a substantial expeditionary pressure, with some exceptions in the French and British. Almost every NATO power has a purely defensive military - their job is to defend against Russian aggression, not extend NATO power around the globe.
But moreover, even by the letter of the NATO treaty, NATO is powerless to intervene in intra-NATO conflicts. When a NATO country is invaded, the rest of NATO isn't automatically at war with the country that invaded. Rather, that country can quickly bring a resolution in front of NATO to invoke Article V of the charter. And adopting that resolution requires unanimous approval of all NATO members. So the US invades Greenland, Denmark tries to invoke Article V, and the US just vetoes the resolution. The NATO treaty is not meant to address intra-NATO conflict. Greece and Turkey have fought numerous territorial spats while both being members of NATO.
The law is a piece of paper. In reality, if the US wanted to invade Greenland, the only powers that could even theoretically do anything about it would be Russia and China. And in this scenario, they would agree to the plan, as they get their own annexation prizes in return.
The US just elected a fascist into power. Making agreements like this is par for the course for fascists.
So the US invades Greenland, Denmark tries to invoke Article V, and the US just vetoes the resolution.
that's some serious flaw, but I guess back then NATO didn't envisioned some unhinged Leader to attack another NATO Country.
And what the hell are they going to do about it? The US might be being led by a megalomaniac with dementia, but that megalomaniac still commands the most powerful military on the planet, and it isn't even close.
I'm not trying to sound arrogant, but the reality is that if the US truly decided to put their military might into annexing Greenland or the Panama Canal, there's not a whole hell of a lot that Denmark is going to be able to do about it, even with the backing of the rest of Europe.
What's NATO going to do about it? Kick out the US? Russia would absolutely love that. Trump would just sit back and watch as Putin starts marching across Europe. Economic sanctions? The US is the cornerstone of the global economy, and any sanctions would either be ignored or end up doing more harm to Europe than the US. How many sanctions against Russia has the EU all but ignored because enforcing them would be too detrimental to their own economies? If they're not willing to enforce them against Russia, they're certainly not going to enforce them against the US.
this only showcases that Europe really needs to invest in a Pan-European (standing) Army so we aren't so easy to bully into submission (and this would be a road to WW3).
This is correct. Europe as a whole got way, way too complacent after WWII by letting the US essentially oversee security for the whole continent instead of investing in their own. They simply naively believed that the US woud sincerely be looking out for their best interests forever and ever and ever amen, and never considered that the US would never be led by a corrupt megalomaniac with no understanding of the world around him. They are paying for that now.
yeah... we suck :/
I'm surprised by nothing when it comes to that guy.
Any other asshole in Washington would be laughed out of office for saying shit like this. This particular asshole gets sanewashed and taken seriously. Why?
He's a cult leader. They get to do crazy stuff with no consequences.
Surely 100 dollars out of your yearly taxes to start a pointless war on two fronts is better than 20 cents out of your yearly taxes to stop the greatest threat to human rights, ability for people to self govern and peace in europe against an enemy who has been interfering in everyones internal politics and threatening everyone with nukes constantly.
What happens when the military just goes "nope"?
Easy: People within its ranks will begin to make choices. Not necessarily take action, just make choices. If things continue small insubordinations will occur and eventually rifts at nearly every level.
If things got really bad the military would split into three:
- Pro Trump
- Pro United States
- Undecided/Everyone else.
If this happens it will be a test of the quality of leadership on both major sides. A fundamental breaking of the chain. It's why Trump wants to replace current military leadership: They've told him no. A pattern we'll continue to see for at least two years.
Surely the dems would have been just as bad right?
I read headlines like this and sometimes wonder if someone slipped me crazy pills. It's just so bonkers. Greenland? WTF? Panama, I kind of understand, because reactionary old assholes have been butthurt about Panama being planned to be handed over, then actually handed over, for fucking decades and donvict is the exact type of crotchety and butthurt old dumbass that I've been hearing whine about it for as long as I can remember.
But why the fuck would America use military force to take either? Other than gender-affirming for someone like donvict, what do we stand to gain?
Greenland has oil, and it'll be prime real-estate in a decade or two once the equatorial regions are inhospitable.
People would say that call of duty was extremely unrealistic this time around if they used this as a plot element haha
Literally the only reason he's doing this is because he sees his idols taking other territories while everyone stands around wringing their hands.
The fuck does he even want with Greenland. How did this become a thing. Who planted the idea in his tiny head. Is this some Russian plot putin is making him do.
Greenland is rich in mineral resources. One of his dozen billionaires got into his empty head.
Gee, I wonder which insecure shitbag with the jr. high mentality it is?
I highly doubt this but they could be looking at it as a future refuge when climate change makes most the land around the equator completely uninhabitable. Though, since half of them are already old ghouls I highly doubt they're thinking that far into the future.
I'm guessing to build a resort for them and their rich friends so they can be safe and isolated from the rest of us peasants. Maybe get some natural resources as well with exploitative and unethical labor practices
hahahahahahahahahha
The oanaman canal I understand. I vehemently disagree with that but I understand the desire for control there.
What the fuck did Greenland do to deserve this?
What the fuck did Greenland do to deserve this?
It shouldnt have been so large on the map. Obviously it's a giant threat to "America" in the north.
Another instance of Trump not understanding maps, when you realize Greenland is much MUCH smaller than it appears xD
Everyone said naming the good country Iceland and the shitty one Greenland wouldn't actually trick anyone...
Yet here we are in 2025 and the US president is falling for it.
As the glaciers melt they think there will be new reserves of natural resources. Plus it will gives control of newly opened Arctic sea routes.
It would make some sense if it wasn’t controlled by an ally.
What the fuck did Greenland do to deserve this?
It likely has a lot of mineral wealth. It's best to get control of that wealth, before some dirty locals try to setup their own government with rules about respecting them, their culture or property.
/s on that last bit, for the terminally stupid.
At least Greenland, being part of Denmark, is also a part of NATO, which basically rules out military force. Unless you literally want to start another world war. Don't do it, Donnie.
I believe the "rationale" (for lack of a better word) is that the land of Greenland will become much more valuable in a post-climate-change world. Much of greenland will become warmer and therefore more comfortable to live in and more suitable for farming. So the idea is to take it now while it's still largely a chunk of uninhabitable ice rather than wait until later when everybody else is fighting for it too.
At least, that's my understanding of it.
With global warming, it's about to be prime real-estate.
With Greenland, he wants control of the Arctic. China and Russia are also competing for control. But this is just the wrong way to go about it in every sense of the word.
Is he out of his fucking mind? (Of course he is)
Hypotehtically say he sent the amilitary to take Greenland what would the outcome be
I mean
Good question
Essentially that would be the US invading another NATO country (Denmark) and annexing it's territory. Which I think would call for article 5 (In this case an act of war against all of NATO by the largest military of NATO). In practice, would Denmark and the rest of NATO just not call it an invasion? Send a bunch of strongly worded letters about an "unauthorized intrusion" or something? I have no idea.
I mean I think Trump is probably saying these things just to stay in the spotlight or distract from other news, like he often does.
Would probably get Greenland and the US would face a lot of hostility. But he doesn't seem to care about consequences much.
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
84 points (94.7% liked)
politics
19360 readers
938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS