Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Hestia11

Denmark

Recommended Posts

I really didn't think in 2016 that we'd be sitting here, watching our President feud with not only an ally, but one that usually can't provoke any reaction from a single American besides, "Oh, I like their food." This is honestly one of the most disgusting things I've seen (mostly because it's so shocking). One of the most stupid things, I should correct myself. No one believed Denmark would sell Greenland (not to even point out that Greenland is an autonomous island), and yet he still has this reaction. I didn't think we'd see an American President being a bully, trying to make people give us land 'or else'. That's not what America does, that's what Russia does. The Danes were not disrespectful, they were even measured in their response. This is not diplomacy, and certainly not the America I believe in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I really didn't think in 2016 that we'd be sitting here, watching our President feud with not only an ally, but one that usually can't provoke any reaction from a single American besides, "Oh, I like their food." This is honestly one of the most disgusting things I've seen (mostly because it's so shocking). One of the most stupid things, I should correct myself. No one believed Denmark would sell Greenland (not to even point out that Greenland is an autonomous island), and yet he still has this reaction. I didn't think we'd see an American President being a bully, trying to make people give us land 'or else'. That's not what America does, that's what Russia does. The Danes were not disrespectful, they were even measured in their response. This is not diplomacy, and certainly not the America I believe in. 

Yes, no U.S. President has actively done the "give us your land or else" thing since McKinley (and he's one of my personal least favourite U.S. Presidents), and it's not a good thing. Plus, does Trump really expect Congress to cough up the "purchase price" to a big island of tundra with a melting icecap, anyways? But Trump lacks the statesmanship and maturity of Obama, the charm of Clinton or Carter, the disarming handshake of Reagan, or even the driving purpose (however I disliked his purpose) of Bush. He is NO leader and no diplomat, and not WORTHY to represent the American people or nation - or any sane, self-respecting people or nation - abroad, but he is (or should be, in come case) an embarrassment to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jayavarman said:

Greenland needs to be liberated from the Kingdom of Denmark.

[âIMG]

Is it a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Greenland needs to be liberated from the Kingdom of Denmark.

[âIMG]

Well, since Trump's not at all a liberator - not even remotely so - if it REALLY did need "liberation," Trump would not be not be up to the job. In fact, he'd probably make things far worse there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Don't you guys know that Trump is a real estate developer I thought y'all were smart smh

Have you seen the boardwalk in Atlantic City, where all those Trump-owned hotels and casinos are all boarded up and closed after bankruptcy. Also, the issue at hand is not about real estate at all, but I thought CLAIMED to be smart enough to know THAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Don't you guys know that Trump is a real estate developer I thought y'all were smart smh

He can build a Trump Tower on land not owned by the US. 

On 8/21/2019 at 8:14 PM, Hestia11 said:

I really didn't think in 2016 that we'd be sitting here, watching our President feud with not only an ally, but one that usually can't provoke any reaction from a single American besides, "Oh, I like their food." This is honestly one of the most disgusting things I've seen (mostly because it's so shocking). One of the most stupid things, I should correct myself. No one believed Denmark would sell Greenland (not to even point out that Greenland is an autonomous island), and yet he still has this reaction. I didn't think we'd see an American President being a bully, trying to make people give us land 'or else'. That's not what America does, that's what Russia does. The Danes were not disrespectful, they were even measured in their response. This is not diplomacy, and certainly not the America I believe in. 

 

On 8/21/2019 at 8:26 PM, SilentLiberty said:

Perhaps there is something else going on and this is a way to divert our attention.

 

tin foil hat activated

 

13 hours ago, Patine said:

Have you seen the boardwalk in Atlantic City, where all those Trump-owned hotels and casinos are all boarded up and closed after bankruptcy. Also, the issue at hand is not about real estate at all, but I thought CLAIMED to be smart enough to know THAT.

I think the Greenland thing was mostly pyrotechnics. I think he thinks he could somehow strike a deal, because he has a really false belief in his abilities. However, I think the underlying reason is that he's desperate to make some positive mark on US history. He's enthralled with expansionists and expansionism--real estate as well. His heroes are expansionists. With climate change, Greenland becomes more important as not only a base, but a sea lane for commerce. The arctic will probably be more of a geopoltical battlefield in the future (unless climate change kills us first). It isn't a stupid desire from a geopolitical standpoint if we figure out a way to survive through rising arctic temperatures. 

Trump wants to be great, but he's proven to be far from that. If he could acquire Greenland, then he could better claim greatness. We reward our expansionists, like James K Polk, for instance. 

Were I the Prime Minister of Denmark, I would give a counter-offer for the United States as a joke decline of Trump's offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He can build a Trump Tower on land not owned by the US. 

 

 

I think the Greenland thing was mostly pyrotechnics. I think he thinks he could somehow strike a deal, because he has a really false belief in his abilities. However, I think the underlying reason is that he's desperate to make some positive mark on US history. He's enthralled with expansionists and expansionism--real estate as well. His heroes are expansionists. With climate change, Greenland becomes more important as not only a base, but a sea lane for commerce. The arctic will probably be more of a geopoltical battlefield in the future (unless climate change kills us first). It isn't a stupid desire from a geopolitical standpoint if we figure out a way to survive through rising arctic temperatures. 

Trump wants to be great, but he's proven to be far from that. If he could acquire Greenland, then he could better claim greatness. We reward our expansionists, like James K Polk, for instance. 

Were I the Prime Minister of Denmark, I would give a counter-offer for the United States as a joke decline of Trump's offer. 

Probably likely this for sure.

 

I will counter though with that Trump, no matter what he does or did, will never be viewed as great. To his credit though he will always be viewed as polarizing. One thing I think he will do is try to leave a mark on history, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see him win re-election and then just retire at some point during his second term. He's already said something along the lines of he'd tell younger him not to run for President. I've said it once and I'll say it again; I genuinely believe Trump will enjoy being a former President much more than being the President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar maybe a swapsies, Greenland for Maine 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

To his credit though he will always be viewed as polarizing.

I don't consider this trait to be to any leader's credit, but only a blackmark and detriment, especially in the modern day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vcczar said:

We reward our expansionists, like James K Polk, for instance.

Not always.  Andrew Johnson purchased Alaska for a very good price.  Franklin Pierce authorized the Gadsden purchase.  Neither is fondly remembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't consider this trait to be to any leader's credit, but only a blackmark and detriment, especially in the modern day and age.

Perhaps credit was the wrong word, memorable, which is more what Trump is likely worried about. Even if he wants to be remembered as great. I think he'd settle for polarizing and being loved by his base.

 

Both Obama and Bush are viewed in the top 5 most polarizing Presidents, right up there with Trump, Nixon, and Andrew Jackson. So it seems like the trend, at least in the US, is that leaders will only continue to be more polarizing. I'm sure President AOC will be far more polarizing than President Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar maybe a swapsies, Greenland for Maine 😛

I'd be okay with swapping for MS and AL. They get more federal funding per capita than any state in the nation (at least last I checked); yet, they hate the federal government. They could be part of Denmark, probably get more funding from high taxes and hate that country's government even more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering let's say Greenland is bought and becomes a state. What would the political makeup look like? I figure they're more leaning towards the Democratic ideals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I'm just wondering let's say Greenland is bought and becomes a state. What would the political makeup look like? I figure they're more leaning towards the Democratic ideals.

Denmark doesn't even the power to sell it by the home rule agreements it made with Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Not surprisingly, Trump, whose "too smart for intelligence briefings," had no idea of this. And, to answer your question, Greenland already has it's own political parties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Greenland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Denmark doesn't even the power to sell it by the home rule agreements it made with Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Not surprisingly, Trump, whose "too smart for intelligence briefings," had no idea of this. And, to answer your question, Greenland already has it's own political parties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Greenland

You actually didn't answer the question, you answered it as it stands, not if they joined the States...Not surprisingly though you did use the opportunity to dog on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You actually didn't answer the question, you answered it as it stands, not if they joined the States...Not surprisingly though you did use the opportunity to dog on Trump.

Is there an electoral or Constitutional law saying they'd have to abandon their endemic parties and replace them wholesale with affiliates of the Democratic and Republican Parties of the United States. Certainly Puerto Rico hasn't done that. Also, Greenlandic politics doesn't fit well or cleanly on the American view of the political spectrum, really, so it would be really hard to say. Social Democratic and Environmental economics are very popular all around in Greenland, but are divorced from Socially Conservative and Socially Liberal viewpoints, which both exist. Also, most parties are Anti-Immigration, regardless. And Inuit language and cultural rights are tied most strongly into the Socially Conservative parties. So make of that what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I'm just wondering let's say Greenland is bought and becomes a state. What would the political makeup look like? I figure they're more leaning towards the Democratic ideals.

Greenland is sparsely populated and perhaps resembles Alaska in its frontier lifestyle, i.e. Republican.

Here is an alternative timeline if Greenland was purchased in 1946:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Greenland is sparsely populated and perhaps resembles Alaska in its frontier lifestyle, i.e. Republican.

Here is an alternative timeline if Greenland was purchased in 1946:

 

Of course, completely ignoring the already present and entrenched political paradigm in Greenland I just detailed above and comparing it to Alaska in overly simplified and braindead application of Aristotlean logic. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 2:48 PM, SilentLiberty said:

You actually didn't answer the question, you answered it as it stands, not if they joined the States...Not surprisingly though you did use the opportunity to dog on Trump.

 

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 3:04 PM, Patine said:

Is there an electoral or Constitutional law saying they'd have to abandon their endemic parties and replace them wholesale with affiliates of the Democratic and Republican Parties of the United States. Certainly Puerto Rico hasn't done that. Also, Greenlandic politics doesn't fit well or cleanly on the American view of the political spectrum, really, so it would be really hard to say. Social Democratic and Environmental economics are very popular all around in Greenland, but are divorced from Socially Conservative and Socially Liberal viewpoints, which both exist. Also, most parties are Anti-Immigration, regardless. And Inuit language and cultural rights are tied most strongly into the Socially Conservative parties. So make of that what you will.

So, I take it you were unable to make a coherent favouratism on the strictly-American-based political spectrum for the Greenlandic political tendencies. Well, neither was I. That's probably because, as I said, Greenlandic politics and tends are not really a fit for the American view of the political spectrum. Which is a good argument for increased awareness and understanding in rhetoric for context and perspective, traits (like so many others) often cast to the wind nowadays, especially in many American socio-political circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Do you ever go back and look over your messages and think "wow I do sound angry and ranting"

Did you ever take a good look at the world today - a REALLY GOOD LOOK - and how much shit is in it so many have no problem when they REALLY SHOULD, and them not seeing the problems - the REALLY BIG PROBLEMS, the massive "elephants in the room" - and realize why I'm always so angry and make these long tracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...