Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
42 Posts 31 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Guest

    @futurebird
    If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.

    myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
    myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
    myrmepropagandist
    wrote last edited by
    #28

    @pthane

    Do they think that far into the future?

    They won't be alive then.

    Raptor's Nest (He/Him)D 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Big Kumera EnergyD Big Kumera Energy

      @futurebird set up weird slave cities for american billionaires

      Link Preview Image
      Like Trump, Silicon Valley wants Greenland, too - for a Big Tech utopia

      Wealthy tech investors are promoting Greenland as the site for a libertarian utopia with minimal corporate regulation.

      favicon

      USA TODAY (www.usatoday.com)

      FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
      FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
      Franchesca
      wrote last edited by
      #29

      @depereo @futurebird they will use it to figure out how to oppress people on Mars. Reminds me of this song:

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

        There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.

        I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.

        But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.

        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Guest
        wrote last edited by
        #30

        @futurebird that may be a factor in this

        but we need to keep in mind that the set of people actually involved in trying to warmonger about Greenland is literally less than a dozen people. They've pushed away everyone who would have possibly pushed back on rank idiocy, they do not have the time in the day to come up with a coherent reasoning

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

          What do you get?

          DebbieDoomerD This user is from outside of this forum
          DebbieDoomerD This user is from outside of this forum
          DebbieDoomer
          wrote last edited by
          #31

          @futurebird
          The us wants to be able to be a free agent and so donald trump is cashing out all the us based international structure possible. I mean, its about a lot of stuff but also, Sometimes i think these idiots literally think like a big map game and want to get the continent bonus or some shit

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

            There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.

            I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.

            But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.

            CarstenE This user is from outside of this forum
            CarstenE This user is from outside of this forum
            Carsten
            wrote last edited by
            #32

            @futurebird

            In Denmark we feel the US is trying to kick in an open door, the only thing I can think of RE mineral rights is that we probably have stricter environmental protection laws then the US.

            But overall it's not economical to mine in Greenland, the Greenland government has been desperate for investments for decades and yet there are no major mining operations in place.

            I think it's just because it would Look Cool to have a new territory added to the US.

            That said, the Greenlanders should decide who to associate with. They might dislike Denmark - and for mostly good reasons - but I doubt they're gonna look at their kin in Alaska and think "they look like they're having a great time!".

            myrmepropagandistF 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • CarstenE Carsten

              @futurebird

              In Denmark we feel the US is trying to kick in an open door, the only thing I can think of RE mineral rights is that we probably have stricter environmental protection laws then the US.

              But overall it's not economical to mine in Greenland, the Greenland government has been desperate for investments for decades and yet there are no major mining operations in place.

              I think it's just because it would Look Cool to have a new territory added to the US.

              That said, the Greenlanders should decide who to associate with. They might dislike Denmark - and for mostly good reasons - but I doubt they're gonna look at their kin in Alaska and think "they look like they're having a great time!".

              myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
              myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
              myrmepropagandist
              wrote last edited by
              #33

              @EvilCartyen

              "That said, the Greenlanders should decide who to associate with."

              Absolutely.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                @pthane

                Do they think that far into the future?

                They won't be alive then.

                Raptor's Nest (He/Him)D This user is from outside of this forum
                Raptor's Nest (He/Him)D This user is from outside of this forum
                Raptor's Nest (He/Him)
                wrote last edited by
                #34

                @futurebird @pthane Maybe they don't have a good sense of timescale so they think the ice would melt in a couple of years?

                myrmepropagandistF 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • Raptor's Nest (He/Him)D Raptor's Nest (He/Him)

                  @futurebird @pthane Maybe they don't have a good sense of timescale so they think the ice would melt in a couple of years?

                  myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
                  myrmepropagandistF This user is from outside of this forum
                  myrmepropagandist
                  wrote last edited by
                  #35

                  @drmambobob @pthane

                  I think it's important to remember that you can know something is a bad idea even if you can't make sense of the motivations of the people trying to do it.

                  Because it's possible their motivations make no sense. No one can explain this to me sufficiently. It's a bad idea.

                  It's bad that it even is "an idea" it's not worth thinking about.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • ? Guest

                    @futurebird
                    If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.

                    FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
                    FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
                    Franchesca
                    wrote last edited by
                    #36

                    @pthane @futurebird can’t work like that though, it will still be hellishly dark in the winter months

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                      There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.

                      I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.

                      But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.

                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                      gbsills
                      wrote last edited by
                      #37

                      @futurebird These are all good theories but I believe this is nothing more than Trump wanting to leave his mark. People supporting him in this affair are all just sucking up.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • ? Guest

                        @futurebird
                        If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.

                        FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
                        FranchescaF This user is from outside of this forum
                        Franchesca
                        wrote last edited by
                        #38

                        @pthane @futurebird whoever is pulling the strings just drops these ideas into his head and he gets fixated on them. Someone else is always doing the thinking here (not that they are intelligent, just ruthless).

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                          What do you get?

                          ? Offline
                          ? Offline
                          Guest
                          wrote last edited by
                          #39

                          @futurebird the Greenlanders have shitloads of resources. There is strong, almost universal opposition to extraction, due to the environmental costs. These costs are amplified by the weather conditions.

                          There is one (1) mine operational which extracts rare earth minerals. This mining corp refused a US buyout, and sold some minerals to a Chinese company, despite significant US diplomatic pressures.

                          The US doesn't want to have to compete for these resources, and they have a compliant idiot in the White House.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                            Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                            Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                            Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                            It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                            What do you get?

                            ? Offline
                            ? Offline
                            Guest
                            wrote last edited by
                            #40

                            @futurebird They keep claiming it's about defence, but as pointed out by a former Danish minister on the radio the other day, they already have the right to station as many troops there as they want.

                            It's almost certainly about exploiting natural resources and / or Trump wanting to feel powerful. Most things he does seem to be about boosting his ego.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                              @EugestShirley

                              Everyone wants to be a little big man instead of actually doing amazing big things. The lack of imagination depresses me.

                              ? Offline
                              ? Offline
                              Guest
                              wrote last edited by
                              #41

                              @futurebird @EugestShirley in many respects Russia’s wrecked and he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know how to fix it. The geopolitical game continues; what is Russia to do?

                              Trump continues because Russia and China want him there, for very different reasons.

                              It _is_ depressing isn’t it. There’s so much to do.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • myrmepropagandistF myrmepropagandist

                                There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.

                                I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.

                                But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.

                                MidgePhotoP This user is from outside of this forum
                                MidgePhotoP This user is from outside of this forum
                                MidgePhoto
                                wrote last edited by
                                #42

                                @futurebird
                                Anyone in US government who is a Russian agent would feel very successful if they disrupted NATO.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0

                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • 1
                                • 2
                                • 3
                                • Login

                                • Don't have an account? Register

                                • Login or register to search.
                                Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • World
                                • Users
                                • Groups