FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.

President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026

---

The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.

---

Geez, the tariffs are on our side, which means we will buy fewer products from those countries because their products just go more expensive.

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

Like I said. You are completely out of your depth here.

Greenland is on a pathway to independence, at which point it will be available to the highest bidder, because it is most certainly not a viable economic unit. Trump is merely trying to secure it before the bidding starts. That is eminently wise.

We made a mistake in giving it back to Denmark after WWII.
Denmark made a mistake putting Greenland on a pathway to independence.
Trump is fixing both problems.

---

Ok, let's say that is true and Denmark grants their Independence in the next 10 years, ballpark.

I don't think your strategy is having the effect you think. Greenland AND Denmark have gone from being staunch US allies and friends to hating us. As we, or I, have tried to discuss is once again with this group, it is not the what or the why, it is the how. Everything they are touching that SHOULD be huge positives are turning into negatives because of the heavy handed, authoritarian tactics. You won't discuss it, only defend it or deny it.

The one thing both Greenland AND Denmark AND the EU now agree on is not to letting the US and Trump have Greenland. Bravo, quite the achievement to get Greenland/Denmark and the EU agreeing.

The same as Immigration, they are turning positives to negatives. People, all people, will push back on heavy handed tactics. Or, you are going to have to break them. Is that where we are? We want to break people physically, financially or spiritually to get them to comply?

---

We must appease European liberal progressives. Apparently that is your mentality.

Anything that upsets an ally is our fault and should be avoided.

We don't like the trade deals with an ally - ally gets upset and actively works against us. We must appease.

Our allies are clearly only friends as long as we fund their lifestyle and defenses.

Let the appeasement gravy train continue! Long live the progressive globalists! Long live dystopia!

Lol

---

Yeah, let's not appease. We are taking Greenland, you can sell it or we Invade...

You really see nothing wrong with this?

---

I don't believe we will invade, so I reject that premise. But I absolutely do know that we cannot rely on a liberal progressive world order to defend the US. They will always work against American traditional values.
Additionally, the US must break the progressive control of Canada and Europe, because long term it is the only way for us to remain "close" allies - well that or we submit to them. Trump is fighting that war. He is trying to affect change in their progressive stranglehold on politics. The world is now better because of him. You are just afraid of change, you believe our allies care about us and would sacrifice for us. Delusional but that is public school programming. They won't at the end of the day.

I get you don't get it. But it's obvious for those looking long term, if we don't actively fight to weaken the globalists here and in Europe, it's over for US exceptionalism and liberty. Appeasing progressives never work. Relying on them to defend liberty never works.
I'm OK with the US applying whatever pressure is needed. I mean we should have earned some deference over the years.

---

We have a treaty now. We can put as much as we want there. During the Cold War had 5 times as many troops. It is not a problem.

The security thing is BS. There is something else driving this. If we are not going to invade, Trump and his minions need to stop saying we are.

---

Security is driving it, shipping lines, access to the arctic and Russia, and so are resources. I mean you are smart enough to know that operating in your own land allows you to keep top secret activities quite a bit more secure.
If Denmark or Canada was strong, then nobody would be having this conversation. But they are not.

---

But it isn't our land and they don't want to sell. So you say take our offer or we will invade????? That is Mafia *****

We have a treaty and have had up to 10,000 troops there during the Cold War. No issues. We want to improve our base, no issues. Put a Naval Base there, I am all for it. A Gitmo North. Sign a lease for perpetuity like we did in Cuba. There is no reason for this escalation and threats.

Something else is driving this...

---

Sure, I agree, there may be more to it. Maybe things are more dire than we're lead to believe. Maybe war with China was closer than we thought. Maybe China was making moves to buy land or build industry, and Trump is done playing that game. So whatever the case, I do think security is the driver - economic or military or both.

As for caring, I don't care too much about the progressive countries. They will betray the US unless we follow their politics. Just who progressives are. You're still playing pretend on who these people are. Anyway, I'm good with paying them and applying pressure if it serves a real need. There is no one looking out for us, but us. I get that when your neighbor next door becomes a crack house, you call the cops, because you don't want that unsafe aspect next door. You're good with depriving that crack head of liberty because it's in your neighborhood and you have cops to call. Well there's no one we're going to be able to call when things get heated in the arctic, so positioning ourselves as best we can is the long term smart move. Nobody, not even Denmark believes we're going to invade ... but you have a hard time with anything that is not literal.

As for Denmark, it has done next to nothing for the people of Greenland. They are poor, they have a high crime rate, and they have the highest suicide rate. So Greenland will be better off - no one doubts that, the US can pay the 50,000 people piles of cash and bring jobs for their future. The free world will be better off as well, safer by all accounts. So I'm hopeful the US will be able to buy it outright or as some sort of protectorate or territory - whatever makes all sides reasonably taken care of.

boognish_bear said:

---

Huge News! Today, I am proud to introduce the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, a bill that allows the President to find the means necessary to bring Greenland into the Union. 

Let me be clear, our adversaries are trying to establish a foothold in the Arctic, and we can’t… pic.twitter.com/h28sXU7LAU

— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) January 12, 2026

---

I don't think the population is high enough for statehood. It is 1/10 the population of Wyoming.

Besides, it would really screw up Stevie Wonders' song "50 Nifty United States."

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

Like I said. You are completely out of your depth here.

Greenland is on a pathway to independence, at which point it will be available to the highest bidder, because it is most certainly not a viable economic unit. Trump is merely trying to secure it before the bidding starts. That is eminently wise.

We made a mistake in giving it back to Denmark after WWII.
Denmark made a mistake putting Greenland on a pathway to independence.
Trump is fixing both problems.

---

Ok, let's say that is true and Denmark grants their Independence in the next 10 years, ballpark.

I don't think your strategy is having the effect you think. Greenland AND Denmark have gone from being staunch US allies and friends to hating us. As we, or I, have tried to discuss is once again with this group, it is not the what or the why, it is the how. Everything they are touching that SHOULD be huge positives are turning into negatives because of the heavy handed, authoritarian tactics. You won't discuss it, only defend it or deny it.

The one thing both Greenland AND Denmark AND the EU now agree on is not to letting the US and Trump have Greenland. Bravo, quite the achievement to get Greenland/Denmark and the EU agreeing.

The same as Immigration, they are turning positives to negatives. People, all people, will push back on heavy handed tactics. Or, you are going to have to break them. Is that where we are? We want to break people physically, financially or spiritually to get them to comply?

---

We must appease European liberal progressives. Apparently that is your mentality.

Anything that upsets an ally is our fault and should be avoided.

We don't like the trade deals with an ally - ally gets upset and actively works against us. We must appease.

Our allies are clearly only friends as long as we fund their lifestyle and defenses.

Let the appeasement gravy train continue! Long live the progressive globalists! Long live dystopia!

Lol

---

Yeah, let's not appease. We are taking Greenland, you can sell it or we Invade...

You really see nothing wrong with this?

---

I don't believe we will invade, so I reject that premise. But I absolutely do know that we cannot rely on a liberal progressive world order to defend the US. They will always work against American traditional values.
Additionally, the US must break the progressive control of Canada and Europe, because long term it is the only way for us to remain "close" allies - well that or we submit to them. Trump is fighting that war. He is trying to affect change in their progressive stranglehold on politics. The world is now better because of him. You are just afraid of change, you believe our allies care about us and would sacrifice for us. Delusional but that is public school programming. They won't at the end of the day.

I get you don't get it. But it's obvious for those looking long term, if we don't actively fight to weaken the globalists here and in Europe, it's over for US exceptionalism and liberty. Appeasing progressives never work. Relying on them to defend liberty never works.
I'm OK with the US applying whatever pressure is needed. I mean we should have earned some deference over the years.

---

We have a treaty now. We can put as much as we want there. During the Cold War had 5 times as many troops. It is not a problem.

The security thing is BS. There is something else driving this. If we are not going to invade, Trump and his minions need to stop saying we are.

---

Security is driving it, shipping lines, access to the arctic and Russia, and so are resources. I mean you are smart enough to know that operating in your own land allows you to keep top secret activities quite a bit more secure.
If Denmark or Canada was strong, then nobody would be having this conversation. But they are not.

---

But it isn't our land and they don't want to sell. So you say take our offer or we will invade????? That is Mafia *****

We have a treaty and have had up to 10,000 troops there during the Cold War. No issues. We want to improve our base, no issues. Put a Naval Base there, I am all for it. A Gitmo North. Sign a lease for perpetuity like we did in Cuba. There is no reason for this escalation and threats.

Something else is driving this...

---

Sure, I agree, there may be more to it. Maybe things are more dire than we're lead to believe. Maybe war with China was closer than we thought. Maybe China was making moves to buy land or build industry, and Trump is done playing that game. So whatever the case, I do think security is the driver - economic or military or both.

As for caring, I don't care too much about the progressive countries. They will betray the US unless we follow their politics. Just who progressives are. You're still playing pretend on who these people are. Anyway, I'm good with paying them and applying pressure if it serves a real need. There is no one looking out for us, but us. I get that when your neighbor next door becomes a crack house, you call the cops, because you don't want that unsafe aspect next door. You're good with depriving that crack head of liberty because it's in your neighborhood and you have cops to call. Well there's no one we're going to be able to call when things get heated in the arctic, so positioning ourselves as best we can is the long term smart move. Nobody, not even Denmark believes we're going to invade ... but you have a hard time with anything that is not literal.

As for Denmark, it has done next to nothing for the people of Greenland. They are poor, they have a high crime rate, and they have the highest suicide rate. So Greenland will be better off - no one doubts that, the US can pay the 50,000 people piles of cash and bring jobs for their future. The free world will be better off as well, safer by all accounts. So I'm hopeful the US will be able to buy it outright or as some sort of protectorate or territory - whatever makes all sides reasonably taken care of.

---

i dont think this stiff is working out like Trump Thinks it will. Canada is signing trade deals with China. EU is sending troops to Greenland. Even the immigration and border are going south.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.

President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026

---

The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.

---

We can and we will

You think Hungary and Poland and others will go along with hurting their economies for the sake of Western Europe?

No….

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.

President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026

---

The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.

---

We can and we will

You think Hungary and Poland and others will go along with hurting their economies for the sake of Western Europe?

No….

---

What the heck? What does it matter if Hungary and Poland stay quiet to not get tariffed?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.

"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."

Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:

“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026

Troops from Denmark and other European countries are arriving in Greenland to help boost the territory's security after a meeting between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials ended without resolving "fundamental disagreements" over the strategically critical Arctic island. pic.twitter.com/briR9g0JYe

— DW News (@dwnews) January 15, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

What the hell happened to you guys...

---

Apparently after decades of pretending that the United States has not transitioned from a representative republic to an empire run by its executive branch, the mask has been dropped.

And its extremely curious that Randy Fine, the biggest MIGA congressman in either body, is the one to push this Greenland annexation bill forward.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

What the hell happened to you guys...

---

Apparently after decades of pretending that the United States has transitioned from a representative republic to an empire run by its executive branch, the mask has been dropped.

---

So you want to go back to the old Clinton-Bush position of play acting.. where the USA pretends not to have an imperial presidency all while it does?

It's also hilarious to see so many now agreeing with the old Paleo-Conservative position that Lincoln killed the old Republic and created the basis for what would be the imperial presidency …and FDR then firmly established it

This is the map of Greenland that matters most.

The Arctic is now a highly navigable shipping route, and the gateway to the Western Hemisphere.

.@POTUS @realDonaldTrump knows exactly what he’s doing. https://t.co/OiMytmeoJl pic.twitter.com/kacuQsxEj7

— Jason Miller (@JasonMiller) January 18, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.

"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."

Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:

“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026

---

Stephen Miller to back up your point?


We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?

So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?

What the hell happened to you guys...

---

Great points, FLBear. I concur.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul: I've heard no Republican support for Invading Greenland. Even the most hawkish members of our caucus won't support it. As far as trying to buy it peacefully, you don't get purchasers to come around by berating them pic.twitter.com/nTySYBUHAi

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 18, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.

"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."

Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:

“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026

---

Stephen Miller to back up your point?


We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?

So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?

What the hell happened to you guys...

---

Plumb goofy response.

Greenland is on a pathway to independence. It's a non-viable economic unit with great proximity to North America and an array of strategic minerals. It WILL have a foreign benefactor. Do you think it wiser to cut a deal to control it now or wait and start a bidding war against Russia and China?

I mean, seriously. The studious obtusity of suggesting that the status quo is maintainable is completely unserious. We didnt create this crisis. Feckless Daniah political leadership did.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.

"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."

Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:

“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026

---

Stephen Miller to back up your point?


We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?

So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?

What the hell happened to you guys...

---

Plumb goofy response.

Greenland is on a pathway to independence. It's a non-viable economic unit with great proximity to North America and an array of strategic minerals. It WILL have a foreign benefactor. Do you think it wiser to cut a deal to control it now or wait and start a bidding war against Russia and China?

I mean, seriously. The studious obtusity of suggesting that the status quo is maintainable is completely unserious. We didnt create this crisis. Feckless Daniah political leadership did.

---

“There’s no emergency with Greenland. That’s ridiculous,” @RandPaul told Welker. “And the idea by [@SecScottBessent]
that, ‘Oh, this is to prevent an emergency.’ Now we’re declaring emergencies to prevent emergencies?” @SenRandPaul is 100% right here. https://t.co/oxHaCeOSVV

— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) January 18, 2026

CBS Poll: 86% of Americans Oppose Military Force to Take Greenland; 70% Oppose Using Federal Funds to Buy It

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) January 18, 2026

How many of those polled were Somalians or Antifa?

🚨BREAKING: Italy’s PM Meloni says President Trump was open to dialogue on Greenland, but Europe sent mixed signals that looked anti-American

She wants to remind everyone that the US is not a threat or an enemy.

She is the European voice of reason. pic.twitter.com/moIbTLEjBS

— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) January 18, 2026

Buying land is not new for the U.S. It’s how it became a superpower. pic.twitter.com/V0J89tZ6Zs

— Xavi Ruiz (@xruiztru) January 18, 2026

NATO Begs U.S. For Emergency Funding So They Can Defend Greenland From U.S. https://t.co/saBR4rH7T9 pic.twitter.com/9CEaF8Hyiq

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 15, 2026

In 1819, the US bought Florida for $5 million.

There are currently 500 single family homes for sale in Florida with a listing price of $5 million or more.

The most expensive house for sale in florida is listed for $285 million dollars.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1960-S-Ocean-Blvd-Manalapan-FL-33462/46839109_zpid/

A “might makes right” philosophy is dangerous one. Russia and China like this. https://t.co/2OvK2DqQWe

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) January 18, 2026

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.

---

The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026

---

Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.

The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.

If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.

---

unerring bad analysis.

the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.

---

Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.

There is something else driving this and it is not security.

Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.

Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.

---

(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.

"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."

Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:

“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ

— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026

---

this dude is freaking Satan! Give me Sweet Lindsey. little Marco or queer Bessent, ever day.

🚨 Canada’s PM Mark Carney confirms high-level talks with Xi Jinping, saying they found “strong alignment” on Arctic and Greenland issues.pic.twitter.com/yosGYpQOeA

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) January 18, 2026

Canada, looking to China! Progressives aligning with China ... no surprise.

Quote:

---

"Our government (Denmark) has invited the Chinese to invest in Greenland… last year our defense and foreign minister even went to China inviting them in."

---

You don't have to like his approach, his brashness, but Trump is looking forward. The problem with our resident naysayers is they are short-sighted. They still think the world is like it was in the early 2000's. They base decisions for the future on their old views on progressives and the world - their memories are based through rose-colored-glasses. The truth is, the US absolutely needs to approach world politics differently, and look forward and deal with national and world security immediately, because it takes years to build infrastructure.

Progressive countries value the US's free defense of the entirety of the West, but they don't value the US. They will work against the US ... if we don't toe the line of the progressive globalists. It's a certainty.

To our TDSers, I'm not supporting an invasion, nor is it seriously even on the table, so stop being a goober. You sound like a liberal fool when you parrot that stuff. Finally, just research how Denmark has treated Greenland, and how Denmark has cozied up to the Chinese, not an indictment but a real concern.

As for the sane Americans, applying reasonable business pressures on progressive countries shouldn't bother you much, that is their m.o. as they steal from you to finance their destruction of our country.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Quote:

---

"Our government (Denmark) has invited the Chinese to invest in Greenland… last year our defense and foreign minister even went to China inviting them in."

---

You don't have to like his approach, his brashness, but Trump is looking forward. The problem with our resident naysayers is they are short-sighted. They still think the world is like it was in the early 2000's. They base decisions for the future on their old views on progressives and the world - their memories are based through rose-colored-glasses. The truth is, the US absolutely needs to approach world politics differently, and look forward and deal with national and world security immediately, because it takes years to build infrastructure.

Progressive countries value the US's free defense of the entirety of the West, but they don't value the US. They will work against the US ... if we don't toe the line of the progressive globalists. It's a certainty.

To our TDSers, I'm not supporting an invasion, nor is it seriously even on the table, so stop being a goober. You sound like a liberal fool when you parrot that stuff. Finally, just research how Denmark has treated Greenland, and how Denmark has cozied up to the Chinese, not an indictment but a real concern.

As for the sane Americans, applying reasonable business pressures on progressive countries shouldn't bother you much, that is their m.o. as they steal from you to finance their destruction of our country.

---

The question I have are we creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is Trump causing Denmark and the EU to run to China? Serious question.

The last thing Trump wants is China in Greenland, that is exactly what is going to happen.

Questions - Greenland has been trying to get investment from US and Europe for decades, we always said no. The mining is too expensive for the return, it is cheaper to buy on open market.

If we want Greenland, why didn't we invest and/or partner with Denmark and Greenland the opportunity has been there for a long time. We don't need anything more for security, we already have the right to put as many troops there as we want and build whatever we want. We had 10k troops there during Cold War.

If Greenland is going to China for investment, why?

Breaking news- this is all about Trump's ego (again)

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL LETTER TO NORWAY:

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the USA.”

Trump is doubling down on Greenland.

Step #6 of our tariff playbook is beginning. https://t.co/O0OxJZlpJl pic.twitter.com/64aF2PnQiY

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 19, 2026

Jack Bauer said:

---

Breaking news- this is all about Trump's ego (again)

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL LETTER TO NORWAY:

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the USA.”

Trump is doubling down on Greenland.

Step #6 of our tariff playbook is beginning. https://t.co/O0OxJZlpJl pic.twitter.com/64aF2PnQiY

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 19, 2026

---

This can't be real...

no signature, for what that is worth

FLBear5630 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Breaking news- this is all about Trump's ego (again)

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL LETTER TO NORWAY:

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the USA.”

Trump is doubling down on Greenland.

Step #6 of our tariff playbook is beginning. https://t.co/O0OxJZlpJl pic.twitter.com/64aF2PnQiY

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 19, 2026

---

This can't be real...

---

I'm afraid it is.

fubar said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Breaking news- this is all about Trump's ego (again)

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL LETTER TO NORWAY:

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the USA.”

Trump is doubling down on Greenland.

Step #6 of our tariff playbook is beginning. https://t.co/O0OxJZlpJl pic.twitter.com/64aF2PnQiY

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 19, 2026

---

This can't be real...

---

I'm afraid it is.

---

When will he and MAGA learn they can't do this ***** This Administration has more self-inflicted errors than any group I have ever seen.

Good ideas and policies won't survive botched up execution.

FLBear5630 said:

---

fubar said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Breaking news- this is all about Trump's ego (again)

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL LETTER TO NORWAY:

“I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace… but can now think about what is good and proper for the USA.”

Trump is doubling down on Greenland.

Step #6 of our tariff playbook is beginning. https://t.co/O0OxJZlpJl pic.twitter.com/64aF2PnQiY

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 19, 2026

---

This can't be real...

---

I'm afraid it is.

---

When will he and MAGA learn they can't do this ***** This Administration has more self-inflicted errors than any group I have ever seen.

Good ideas and policies won't survive botched up execution.

---

Where were you during the 4 years of Biden? Everything they did was an error, half of them self-inflicted to the rest harmful to America. They did not accomplish a single thing that benefitted America. Not one. The only positive result was their helping Trump to win in 2024, obviously not their intention.