Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?

[Dr Grump]

A Democracy has but one form. America is a Republic.

When you pledge allegiance, does it say to the Democracy or to the Republic?

The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic statement recited in the United States, expressing loyalty to the flag and the nation.

Text​

The current version of the Pledge of Allegiance reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

America is a Republic, but also a form of democracy. What are the advantages of being a Republic?

 

[berg80]

A member of the US congressional envoy that went to meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials in Copenhagen said she was told some children in Greenland go to bed in fear of the US. Why wouldn't they? We are being lead by someone who is not in his right mind.

 

[Godboy]

You mean nothing was happening in Europe between Sept 1, 1939 and Dec 7, 1941? Oh that's right, Britain had already WON the Battle of Britain and the Krauts were getting bogged down in the Eastern Front.

Greenland is not that far from Europe. Importantly, it is literally thousands of miles from China. Greenland is part of NATO. Ukraine is not. Do I have to say this every time we talk about this? When are you going to understand that?

They wont do a god damn thing against China without the backing of the US. Theres nothing they could do. They cant defeat China, nor do they have the balls to try.

 

[Dr Grump]

They wont do a god damn thing against China without the backing of the US. Theres nothing they could do. They cant defeat China, nor do they have the balls to try.

I'm done. I'm gonna mention the N word one more time, and if you don't get it, you don't get it. NATO. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No they are not. Facts and facts and there is no disagreement with what they are. Opinions are in the millions and generally none are based on fact

Almost all of the articles you see on CNN are opinion

 

[Dr Grump]

Almost all of the articles you see on CNN are opinion

Fox is the same. Not many good media outlets these days. Short attention span of the audience.

 

[Robert W]

America is a Republic, but also a form of democracy. What are the advantages of being a Republic?

What form of democracy?

 

[Luckyone]

Almost all of the articles you see on CNN are opinion

That is misinformed biased bullshit. They do have a left bias but in 5 years they have failed only TWICE to report the facts. In addition and under the new leadership, they have moved more to the center than in previous years

Overall, we rate CNN moderately left-center biased based on editorial positions by TV hosts that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls just left of center through bias by omission. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than high due to two failed fact checks in the last five years.

AI Overview

CNN generally operates as a source of fact-based reporting in its news segments but is frequently categorized as having a left-leaning bias in its selection of stories, framing, and opinion-driven analysis
. As of 2024–2025, the network has been attempting to pivot towards a more centrist, "fact-first" approach, although it continues to be perceived as more liberal, particularly in its prime-time analysis.
Degree of Opinion vs. Facts

• Fact-Based Reporting: CNN is largely considered a reliable source for breaking news and 24-hour news updates. Its reporting, especially by dedicated journalists, generally follows standard, fact-based journalistic practices.
• Analysis and Editorial Bias: Studies generally categorize CNN's editorial stance as "left" or "left-center". Critics often argue that the network mixes opinion with news, particularly during evening, high-profile talk shows.
• Comparison to Other Networks: While often criticized by conservative audiences as being partisan,, some analyses suggest its news segments are more objective than its opinion or panel segments, and that it leans less far left than some of its competitors.

Factors Affecting Perception

• 2024-2025 Shift: Under new leadership (Mark Thompson), CNN has been making efforts to reduce liberal bias and increase focus on objective reporting, encouraging reporters to avoid "pre-judging" political figures.

 

[candycorn]

What is the personal and economic benefit of getting Greenland for Americans. Will our economic, health, or income become better if we get it?

Trump said we need Greenland for our National Security:



but this map does not explain why we need it. After all, we have Alaska that is next to Russia, whereas Greenland is not close to Russia and even then, there are many other nations between Russia and Greenland and they are not supporting us taking over, even though if we took it over, they would have closer protection from us than they presently have:

View attachment 1207958

By getting Greenland, no Americans are going to get any additional benefits for their lives. In fact, the expense of getting Greenland and defending it (against Russia and China) would actually take away benefits we need, such lower cost of Health Insurance, etc.

AI Overview

If the U.S. were to acquire Greenland, Americans would likely lose stability in NATO alliances and international trust, face significant economic burdens from managing a remote territory with high social costs, risk retaliatory trade wars (tariffs) from European allies, and deal with potentially complex internal secessionist movements inspired by Greenland's own independence drive.

Why then should we (Americans) support Trump's own STRONG desire to take over Greenland if the only benefit is for supporting his ego?

Who knows?

I imagine nobody thought Alaska was worth a damn when we bought it. Seward's Folly was what it was called as I recall.

Nothing wrong with trying to acquire Greenland. As always, the issue with the blob is the manner in which he operates; threats and intimidation. He's just a lousy person.

 

[Luckyone]

Who knows?

I imagine nobody thought Alaska was worth a damn when we bought it. Seward's Folly was what it was called as I recall.

Nothing wrong with trying to acquire Greenland. As always, the issue with the blob is the manner in which he operates; threats and intimidation. He's just a lousy person.

If something is "For Sale" then purchasing it can be considered a proper thing to do. Nonetheless, it has been made clear that Greenland is not for sale and that makes the OP 100% valid and your post useless.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?​

Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex need more natural resources. Trump is obligated to deliver whatever his donors demand.

 

[candycorn]

If something is "For Sale" then purchasing it can be considered a proper thing to do. Nonetheless, it has been made clear that Greenland is not for sale and that makes the OP 100% valid and your post useless.

Bullshit.

What you say is right...Greenland is not for sale...if Denmark doesn't want to sell it...that's the ballgame. Taking it by any means other than fair market value is illegal and UnAmerican.

The question you asked in the title is this:

"Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?"

Who knows what is under the ice in Greenland...what could happen with climate change, development, etc... I don't know and neither do you. So not only is the correct answer but the ONLY answer is what I said..."Who Knows?"

If you don't want the answer...don't ask the question.

 

[forkup]

Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?​

Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex need more natural resources. Trump is obligated to deliver whatever his donors demand.

That makes little sense.

Exploiting the recources in Greenland is prohibitively expensive at the moment. And risking a trade war if not a hot one for it, is bad for business.

I think it's pretty clear what the motive is at this time.

It's about the hurt ego of a man who's willing to do anything and everything for any slight, real or imagined.

A man who as far as I can see, has noone to stop him.

This text he send the Danish PM should tell you all you need to know.

And about more than Trump's mental state.

The fact that it was allowed to go out at all, shows that he has no impulse control, no idea how adults, let alone heads of state are supposed to interact, and no State department being willing or able to stop him from making a fool of himself or the United States.

 

[Luckyone]

Bullshit.

What you say is right...Greenland is not for sale...if Denmark doesn't want to sell it...that's the ballgame. Taking it by any means other than fair market value is illegal and UnAmerican.

The question you asked in the title is this:

"Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?"

Who knows what is under the ice in Greenland...what could happen with climate change, development, etc... I don't know and neither do you. So not only is the correct answer but the ONLY answer is what I said..."Who Knows?"

If you don't want the answer...don't ask the question.

I also said in the OP that taking over Greenland in a way that is by force, opens up a lot of negatives, It allows other countries to feel they can do the same without consequences and that means Democracy dies and Autocracy takes over. In addition, it generates new and more enemies against us in the world and destroys the idea that we are the pillar of human rights in the world. That is a worse consequence than any physical benefits we can obtain from it.

 

[Luckyone]

Is having Greenland something that Americans will gain some personal benefit from? If not, why is Trump set on getting it?​

Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex need more natural resources. Trump is obligated to deliver whatever his donors demand.

No matter the costs involved?

 

[candycorn]

That makrs little sense.

Exploiting the recources in Greenland is prohibitively expensive at the moment. And risking a trade war of not a hot one for it, is bad for business.

I think it's pretty clear what the motive is at this time.

It's about the hurt ego of a man who's willing to do anything amd everything for amy slight, real or imagined.

A man who as far as I can see, has noone to stop him.

This text he send the Danish PM shoild tell you all you need to know.

And about more than Trump's mental state.

The fact that it was allowed to go out at all, shows that he has no impulse control, no idea how adults, let alone heads of state are supposed to interact, and no State department being willing or able to stop him from making a fool of himself or the United States.

I think you're right about that too.

Trump couldn't give two shits if the acquisition helps anyone. Causing turmoil is the only goal it seems.

All that being said, they're not making any more of it (land)....if the question is whether or not having it would help or hurt Americans...who knows. I can't imagine it would hurt America or Americans if we pay fair market value and did whatever exploitation we could of the natural resources. Its not like we were going to use that money to fund the arts or pay down debt and we have more warships and warplanes that we could ever need already.... LOL

 

[candycorn]

I also said in the OP that taking over Greenland in a way that is by force, opens up a lot of negatives, It allows other countries to feel they can do the same without consequences and that means Democracy dies and Autocracy takes over. In addition, it generates new and more enemies against us in the world and destroys the idea that we are the pillar of human rights in the world. That is a worse consequence than any physical benefits we can obtain from it.

No argument there.

 

[SaxonJackson]

That makrs little sense.

Exploiting the recources in Greenland is prohibitively expensive at the moment. And risking a trade war of not a hot one for it, is bad for business.

I think it's pretty clear what the motive is at this time.

It's about the hurt ego of a man who's willing to do anything amd everything for amy slight, real or imagined.

A man who as far as I can see, has noone to stop him.

This text he send the Danish PM shoild tell you all you need to know.

And about more than Trump's mental state.

The fact that it was allowed to go out at all, shows that he has no impulse control, no idea how adults, let alone heads of state are supposed to interact, and no State department being willing or able to stop him from making a fool of himself or the United States.

There are a number of large companies that have set up shop in Antarctica. I doubt they're there for the fun of it. There has to be a certain amount of profit in living in the harshest environment on earth.

As for the "expense" of setting up shop in Greenland ... all Trump, Congress, and the Federal Reserve have to do is print a few $Trillion dollars and the cost becomes quite affordable.

 

[forkup]

There are a number of large companies that have set up shop in Antarctica. I doubt they're there for the fun of it. There has to be a certain amount of profit in living in the harshest environment on earth.

As for the "expense" of setting up shop in Greenland ... all Trump, Congress, and the Federal Reserve have to do is print a few $Trillion dollars and the cost becomes quite affordable.

Give some examples of.those companies. Also of.cours Amtatica is litterally the other side of the world to Greenland.

Can you tell me why you have this quite complicated explanatiom whem Trump himself.has stated an (insane) motivation for.this obsession with Greenland?

 

[forkup]

I think you're right about that too.

Trump couldn't give two shits if the acquisition helps anyone. Causing turmoil is the only goal it seems.

All that being said, they're not making any more of it (land)....if the question is whether or not having it would help or hurt Americans...who knows. I can't imagine it would hurt America or Americans if we pay fair market value and did whatever exploitation we could of the natural resources. Its not like we were going to use that money to fund the arts or pay down debt and we have more warships and warplanes that we could ever need already.... LOL

First, it would hurt America if it causes a trade war. It would hurt Europe too, of course but thinking the result would be neutral is folly in my opinion.

Unless of course Europe rolls over. Something I doubt gaging the response from what I see living in Europe.

We aren't talking about a simple real-estate deal.We are talking about the hostile takeover of territory belonging to another country.

This by a man who has shown on more then one occasion that any agreement he makes is subject to change by him on a wim. You don't negoiate with someone like that.