Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

[mqt]

Pretty easy - Stop sending money to Ukraine because PUTIN BAD!

The extracted value of owning Greenland will produce an incredible IRR>

What if Greenland and Denmark say no?

 

[thethe]

Ah yes, because Trump’s proposed tariffs are the business-first solution that has other world leaders just happy to be at the inauguration.

Yes - THe strategic weapon of tariffs is causing world/business leaders to reshape their world views.

I'm aware that you support people liek Biden who seemed helpless in all areas. That isn't he case with the new guard.

 

[thethe]

What if Greenland and Denmark say no?

Greenland is already on board if you read the tea leaves.

And the US has tremendous leverage on NATO countries.

"Hey - Don't pay into NATO for the next 10 years and give us Greenland".

 

[thethe]

Greenland is already on board if you read the tea leaves.

And the US has tremendous leverage on NATO countries.

"Hey - Don't pay into NATO for the next 10 years and give us Greenland".

I get its very hard for a leftist to understand just how much leverage the US has because they are used to their leaders weakening us and apologizing for our existence.

But in the real world - THe US calls all the shots and the only reason it hasn[t been that way is a function of the will to do it.

 

[mqt]

Greenland is already on board if you read the tea leaves.

And the US has tremendous leverage on NATO countries.

"Hey - Don't pay into NATO for the next 10 years and give us Greenland".

Sorry, missed my tea leaf reading seminar least year.

Also, don’t NATO countries frequently just not spend enough on defense anyway? It’s not just a NATO slush fund (with some minor exceptions, but it’s not where the serious money is spent) so we’re really just telling them to give us their land or spend more on defense for us to protect them. That works up until we no longer are the country they trust to defend them and find a different protector, perhaps one attempting to grow its influence around the world.

 

[mqt]

I get its very hard for a leftist to understand just how much leverage the US has because they are used to their leaders weakening us and apologizing for our existence.

But in the real world - THe US calls all the shots and the only reason it hasn[t been that way is a function of the will to do it.

I understand the US has leverage, you dolt. I’m suggesting we don’t waste it taking sovereign land from our allies.

 

[mqt]

A whole lot of the MAGA response to criticisms about Trump’s musings on Greenland, Canada and Panama seem to boil down to ignoring there’s a difference between being able to do something and actually doing it.

 

[thethe]

I understand the US has leverage, you dolt. I’m suggesting we don’t waste it taking sovereign land from our allies.

Imagine not understanding how important Greenland is to think it’s a “waste”. Oh well.

 

[thethe]

A whole lot of the MAGA response to criticisms about Trump’s musings on Greenland, Canada and Panama seem to boil down to ignoring there’s a difference between being able to do something and actually doing it.

All the levers to pull are in the US hands. Countries really can’t do anything about it? What are they going to do? Cry to China?

 

[thethe]

Sorry, missed my tea leaf reading seminar least year.

Also, don’t NATO countries frequently just not spend enough on defense anyway? It’s not just a NATO slush fund (with some minor exceptions, but it’s not where the serious money is spent) so we’re really just telling them to give us their land or spend more on defense for us to protect them. That works up until we no longer are the country they trust to defend them and find a different protector, perhaps one attempting to grow its influence around the world.

Who else on the battlefield is to trust but the US? When you realize that answer get back to me.

 

[mqt]

Imagine not understanding how important Greenland is to think it’s a “waste”. Oh well.

If we were to purchase Greenland in a way that left Denmark and Greenland both satisfied rather than conquered, I’m not going to blindly call it a waste. If we use our “leverage” to acquire Greenland, I will object wholly. Because then there will just be a next “strategic land need” and we’ll be on our way to the next major global conflict.

 

[mqt]

All the levers to pull are in the US hands. Countries really can’t do anything about it? What are they going to do? Cry to China?

Yes, exactly that. Part of our leverage rests on being a more reliable ally than China. You don’t think other countries will be more open to hearing China out if we started invading countries whose only provocation was not agreeing the United States “needs” this land?

 

[mqt]

Who else on the battlefield is to trust but the US? When you realize that answer get back to me.

Right now? Nobody. If we show indications that we are an explicitly expansionist global power again? Perhaps China or India.

 

[thethe]

Yes, exactly that. Part of our leverage rests on being a more reliable ally than China. You don’t think other countries will be more open to hearing China out if we started invading countries whose only provocation was not agreeing the United States “needs” this land?

Hahahahaha - oh dear lord you actually think that’s the case.

Good luck.

 

[thethe]

Trump will acquire Greenland and take back Panama without a shot being fired or a soldier stepping on soil.

Imagining that this will ever happen is comical.

But I guess it’s better to be idiotic in here as opposed to trying to continue to defend DEI.

 

[mqt]

Hahahahaha - oh dear lord you actually think that’s the case.

Good luck.

A lot of the case against China right now (accurately) rests on the scary communists trying to spread communism across the world by force. If we stop being an ally to countries that don’t want that and instead become an aggressor, that changes immediately. It’s already understood the US has the military might to do whatever it wants. But we maintain allies and peace by not exercising that force against our allies.

 

[mqt]

Trump will acquire Greenland and take back Panama without a shot being fired or a soldier stepping on soil.

Imagining that this will ever happen is comical.

But I guess it’s better to be idiotic in here as opposed to trying to continue to defend DEI.

Up until like 1 month ago imagining we’d have to question whether or not American boots might need to be utilized to expand our empire into Greenland and Panama was comical, dude.

 

[thethe]

A lot of the case against China right now (accurately) rests on the scary communists trying to spread communism across the world by force. If we stop being an ally to countries that don’t want that and instead become an aggressor, that changes immediately. It’s already understood the US has the military might to do whatever it wants. But we maintain allies and peace by not exercising that force against our allies.

Amusing thjng is the parties in power in UK/France/Getmany are closer to China philosophically than us and it still hasn’t happened. When those corrupt regimes are overthrown the alliance with the US will only grow.

 

[thethe]

Up until like 1 month ago imagining we’d have to question whether or not American boots might need to be utilized to expand our empire into Greenland and Panama was comical, dude.

The only people imagining this are leftists because you’re having a mental breakdown since you’re no longer in power and the future looks bleak. Nobody rationale actually interprets any of this to mean boots on the ground.

 

[mqt]

Amusing thjng is the parties in power in UK/France/Getmany are closer to China philosophically than us and it still hasn’t happened. When those corrupt regimes are overthrown the alliance with the US will only grow.

BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT SPENT THE PAST CENTURY SUGGESTING WE SHOULD TAKE THEIR LAND.

What is so ****ing hard all of a sudden to understand that other countries have their own borders and don’t want to give it up? What would you say if China and North Korea decided to take South Korea tomorrow? Would this be okay? If not, why?