President Trump: Making America Normal Again

[Marener]

Nevertheless, a majority of Greenlanders are open to joining the USA. Both China and Russia are eyeing Greenland and China is already heavily investing there. It would not be a good thing for Canada or the USA for Greenland to come under the control of either China or Russia. Denmark is far less likely to prevent that than is the USA.

Why does Donald Trump think the US needs Greenland? What to know

Most of the reasons to buy Greenland boil down to two: national security and resources.

www.usatoday.com

One, I have seen nothing suggesting that China or Russia is investing in Greenland. No one seems to be investing in Greenland because, again, it doesn't seem like it's an economically viable place to invest in.

Two, even if it did happen, I have not seen any explanation as to how it would affect any of us.

Sounds like this is just wasting a ton of money we don't have on a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Foxfyre]

One, I have seen nothing suggesting that China or Russia is investing in Greenland. No one seems to be investing in Greenland because, again, it doesn't seem like it's an economically viable place to invest in.

Two, even if it did happen, I have not seen any explanation as to how it would affect any of us.

Sounds like this is just wasting a ton of money we don't have on a problem that doesn't exist.

You didn't read the link did you. It explains it pretty well.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm uncurious and unserious about disaster administration 2.0.

It's telling that they think this administration will be a return to normality.

That says a lot about them and their lives, where evidently chaos, paranoia, fourth grade vocabularies, regular ugly personal insults and name-calling from the very top down, and pugilistic, juvenile temperaments are considered "normal".

It's all about perspective.

 

[Marener]

You didn't read the link did you. It explains it pretty well.

I did. It's fascinating how much weight you're putting into the opinion of John Bolton all of a sudden.

There is no significant investment by any other country into Greenland. The concern about shipping lanes appears to be overblown as China doesn't really have a blue water navy and we are perfectly capable of keeping shipping lanes open everywhere else in the world.

If Trump wants to expand the military base we have in Greenland and revamp the security agreement, go for it. The idea we are going to annex Greenland is just foolish.

 

[flack]

One, I have seen nothing suggesting that China or Russia is investing in Greenland. No one seems to be investing in Greenland because, again, it doesn't seem like it's an economically viable place to invest in.

Two, even if it did happen, I have not seen any explanation as to how it would affect any of us.

Sounds like this is just wasting a ton of money we don't have on a problem that doesn't exist.

TITANIUM-VANADIUMKnown deposits of titanium and vanadium are in the south-west, the east, and south. Titanium is used for commercial, medical and industrial purposes, while vanadium is mainly used to produce specialty steel alloys.

 

[Marener]

TITANIUM-VANADIUMKnown deposits of titanium and vanadium are in the south-west, the east, and south. Titanium is used for commercial, medical and industrial purposes, while vanadium is mainly used to produce specialty steel alloys.

Known deposits doesn't mean it's economically viable.

If it were economically viable, sure seems like someone would be mining it already.

 

[Foxfyre]

I did. It's fascinating how much weight you're putting into the opinion of John Bolton all of a sudden.

There is no significant investment by any other country into Greenland. The concern about shipping lanes appears to be overblown as China doesn't really have a blue water navy and we are perfectly capable of keeping shipping lanes open everywhere else in the world.

If Trump wants to expand the military base we have in Greenland and revamp the security agreement, go for it. The idea we are going to annex Greenland is just foolish.

I don't know how John Bolton got into this, but you apparently didn't read the article or understand the argument I was making. Oh well. Have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[Marener]

I don't know how John Bolton got into this, but you apparently didn't read the article or understand the argument I was making. Oh well. Have a pleasant afternoon.

Apparently you didn't read the article because John Bolton is sourced as making the argument for the importance of Greenland.

How embarrassing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently you didn't read the article because John Bolton is sourced as making the argument for the importance of Greenland.

View attachment 1065615

How embarrassing.

I didn't read that far down but here's another source for you:

As Russia and China Step Up Arctic Presence, Greenland Grows In Importance For U.S.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is once again making waves with his pursuit of Greenland, this time refusing to rule out using force to gain control of the Arctic island from ally Denmark. But Washington had been interested in Greenland long before Trump came along.

www.rferl.org

 

[Marener]

I didn't read that far down but here's another source for you:

It was good of you to admit that. I did read it.

It's a lot of alarmists wanting to spend my money. If they want to sign a defense treaty with Greenland, so be it. The talk about annexing it is silly.

 

[Foxfyre]

It was good of you to admit that. I did read it.

It's a lot of alarmists wanting to spend my money. If they want to sign a defense treaty with Greenland, so be it. The talk about annexing it is silly.

Maybe. I don't know because all I can go by is what I read and hear. But Trump by far isn't the first to float the idea:

"When President-elect Donald Trump once more floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, reactions ranged from ridicule to intrigue. Critics dismissed the notion as another eccentric Trump proposal. However, history reveals that the United States’ interest in Greenland is far from new—it’s a strategy that dates back more than a century.

From territorial ambitions in the 19th century to Cold War military priorities, Greenland has repeatedly caught the attention of American policymakers. But while the U.S. has eyed Greenland as a strategic asset, the political and legal dynamics surrounding the island have evolved significantly over time. Today, Greenland has self-rule and the right to declare independence from Denmark, fundamentally altering the terms of such discussions. Arctic Today has compiled a timeline of key developments in the history of U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland. . . "

Trump's Greenland purchase plan has been a US ambition since 1868 - ArcticToday

When President-elect Donald Trump once more floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, reactions ranged from ridicule to intrigue. Critics dismissed the notion as another eccentric Trump proposal. However, history reveals that the United States’ interest in Greenland is far from new—it’s a...

www.arctictoday.com

 

[Marener]

Maybe. I don't know because all I can go by is what I read and hear. But Trump by far isn't the first to float the idea:

"When President-elect Donald Trump once more floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, reactions ranged from ridicule to intrigue. Critics dismissed the notion as another eccentric Trump proposal. However, history reveals that the United States’ interest in Greenland is far from new—it’s a strategy that dates back more than a century.

From territorial ambitions in the 19th century to Cold War military priorities, Greenland has repeatedly caught the attention of American policymakers. But while the U.S. has eyed Greenland as a strategic asset, the political and legal dynamics surrounding the island have evolved significantly over time. Today, Greenland has self-rule and the right to declare independence from Denmark, fundamentally altering the terms of such discussions. Arctic Today has compiled a timeline of key developments in the history of U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland. . . "

Trump's Greenland purchase plan has been a US ambition since 1868 - ArcticToday

When President-elect Donald Trump once more floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, reactions ranged from ridicule to intrigue. Critics dismissed the notion as another eccentric Trump proposal. However, history reveals that the United States’ interest in Greenland is far from new—it’s a...

www.arctictoday.com

It's a good link, but the fact that it hasn't been seriously discussed since 1946 would be indicative that this has very little relevance in this day and age.

Again, there's nothing that we want that necessitates annexing Greenland.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a good link, but the fact that it hasn't been seriously discussed since 1946 would be indicative that this has very little relevance in this day and age.

Again, there's nothing that we want that necessitates annexing Greenland.

Well should I bow to the expertise of those who are in a position to know what is actually going on or to yours? Hmm. That is a puzzlement.

 

[Marener]

Well should I bow to the expertise of those who are in a position to know what is actually going on or to yours? Hmm. That is a puzzlement.

One thing I know for sure, Greenland doesn’t make the list of things important to deal with at this time. It’s not even close.

The fact Trump keeps bringing it up is bizarre.

 

[Foxfyre]

One thing noted by many recently is the youthful aspect of the Trump appointees so far. We haven't had a presidential group with so young a median age since the GHWB administration. At the same time these aren't inexperienced teeny boppers either, but there is a sense of the next generation with a wonderful MAGA vision taking over.

The conventional wisdom at this time is that all the appointees will be confirmed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's how the Democrats conducted themselves in the Hegseth hearing yesterday:

 

[Foxfyre]

As if there was ever any question, this is what Trump and his team will be dealing with re deep state operatives within the federal government. It is reported on Social Media that Mannina has been fired over this but I haven't confirmed that yet.



I want Congress to pass a law that person who is caught and confirmed trying to undermine the elected Administration can be summarily fired on the spot and is entitled to no benefits. Federal employees should work for the people's choice of leaders and if they cannot do that, they should resign. If they don't do that they are out.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I see more and more posts all over the internet trashing Trump's cabinet picks, it seems RFK Jr's comments re regulation of high fructose corn syrup has stirred up the most controversy today. The opinions are all over the map re the pros and cons of the stuff but if RFK Jr doesn't utilize the 'gold standard of science' in evaluating that as he has promised to do with everything regulated or banned, then criticism would be warranted. He deserves a chance to check the stuff out.

It is not banned in the EU but they are looking at the downsides too.

The hypocrisy is that if Rachel Levine had come up with that concern, as it should have come up with that concern, the Biden supporters/anti-Trumpers/left would have been passionately defending it.

But Rachel Levine was much more concerned about transgendering kids than apparently it was concerned about toxins in our food and medical supply.

Monday noon can't come soon enough.

 

[Nostra]

The majority of Americans who voted for President Trump did so because of the MAGA vision of a strong, secure, free America that offers maximum liberty, options, choices, opportunity and prosperity for all.

That is what is normal America to those people.

So far the cabinet President Trump is putting together are all committed to that vision, but wow, they sure are causing a lot of heads to explode. Nevertheless Trump is moving forward to make the MAGA vision a reality and is putting together the most unusual, interesting, unexpected and unlikely team in American history to accomplish it.

I am a bit curious if the most hard core left aren't at least a little bit curious and interested in how this will all work out. I sure am.

What does a normal America look like to you? Is the Biden Administration agenda and results what you think should be normal? Or are you willing to give the MAGA team the majority of voters voted for a chance?

Setting aside the talking points, partisan rhetoric and propaganda, aren't you a little hopeful that the MAGA agenda, the MAGA team heading government, the resolve to make America great again, will yield good things? Or are you hoping it fails?

The only dresses in the WH will be worn by women.

Board libs may have to search that last word to see what it means.

 

[flack]

I hope these threads don’t peter out and die.