@hhlurker paranoid lmfao look how many times you write Trump 🤣. We should all be afraid of the Dems. You’re talking about Jan 6 nonsense. I’m talking policies that give rise to murders in front of the deli I go to. Where my kids walk. Where we get our dry cleaning.
get a clue. Only the weak minded are trump obsessed. The danger is the left and it isn’t even close. From stealing g elections by depriving people a right to vote to mutilating kids to opening the border to bring murderers right to our once quiet neighborhoods. Trump has you by the balls. Become a man. Grow up.
Key differences favoring the 2026 deal (from a U.S. perspective)
• Duration and durability: The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement was explicitly tied to the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO). The new deal is described as an “Infinite Life” or permanent agreement with no end date. It is structured to remain in force even if Greenland becomes independent or if NATO arrangements change. Including Greenland itself as a party strengthens this future-proofing. politifact.com
• Adversary exclusion and investments: The 1951 pact focused on NATO cooperation and did not explicitly bar non-NATO countries. The new agreement explicitly prohibits non-NATO states (framed as U.S. adversaries, notably China and Russia) from establishing bases, maintaining a military presence, or making “sensitive investments” (e.g., in critical minerals, ports, or infrastructure) without U.S. written approval. This addresses modern Arctic competition and resource concerns that were not central in 1951. nytimes.com
• Base expansion and operational flexibility: Under the 1951 agreement, defense areas were established by mutual agreement between the U.S. and Denmark based on NATO plans, within which the U.S. already enjoyed extensive rights (construction, operations, overflight, movement, etc.). The new deal enables expansion of the U.S. military presence, additional installations, and permanent access/basing/overflight rights. Some official descriptions indicate greater U.S. latitude to develop facilities as needed. noticias.foxnews.com
• Other practical points: It is presented as involving no cost to the United States, and it continues to affirm Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination (no territorial transfer or ownership change).
It's a better deal for the U.S. and our long term interests. Kudos to Trump for getting it done.
The guy tried to steal the election and stole state secrets. Is there nothing that trumps policies?
Sometimes consequentialism is a bitch.
When the end justifies the means, we've lost our way. A big part of American Exceptionalism is the notion that it is the means that defines us.
@unclemark no the consequences are too great. You don’t have kids. You don’t own a business. You don’t live in the most dangerous city in America. You don’t have payroll etc. people you have to account for. Protect. Etc. Complaining about the things you complain about is a luxury. To your credit. For most people the ethical concern is the ends not the means. Consequentialism is ethical. It’s an ethical theory. You just don’t like it as you prefer other ethics.
@unclemark and honestly Dems today are low character. Liars. Cancel culture. Shame. They’re the other side of the coin of Trump. They just cancel each other out.
this isn’t Jimmy Carter. Or hell Obama. These are mean fuckers advocating full term abortions. And you think Trump is untoward?
Stomping your feet and screaming “January 6” or “stealing the 2020 election” is easy and fun. An adolescent or an adult moron can do it. A few Brain cells are needed to talk about the meaningful stuff. Nobody is going to carry a sign or block traffic because of cram- down legislation.
Remember @unclemark started the stupid Trump stuff thread.
@snarlcakes So, 1) we had to plan to go to war to get a marginally better deal? 2) It explicitly blocks enemies from Greenland now, something we didn't bother to do in 1951? Is this a sign that my long complaint that Trump is the worst at foreign policy since the Kaiser* is true? Great. We may alienate Denmark so badly that they would invite China and Russia to take Greenland, so we have prepared for that with this treaty. Isn't it easier just to have a president capable of foreign policy? Unlike the Kaiser, we get to choose who is in that role.
* It is said of the Kaiser that he was the only man in history who could make Britain and France forget that they had been at war for 800 years (1109) and force them to ally. Here we are making plans for when we push NATO into Russia's camp. So I guess unlike the Kaiser, we are self-aware enough to know we aren't going to have any allies soon.
@co-hoosier again trump is no worse than Dems. From an ethics standpoint Dems are far worse. Full term abortions. Covid. Lying up about Biden. Depriving the right to vote. On and on.
you and I disagree on Trump as president. I think he’s been horrible. Tariffs. War. When costs were why he was elected.
but worrying about trump’s comportment when Dems are such dirty vile actors today is the height of hypocrisy
make Britain and France forget that they had been at war for 800 years
Now do Thhe Abraham Accords.
Tariffs. War.
I like spending taxes better than income taxes.
War is a closer one. Iran is obviously taking strength from the considerable domestic Trump resistance.
@co-hoosier the tariffs are a nightmare for small businesses. And remember most business is small business. You can’t budget. And while trump holds up his card with pride saying look I just raised tariifs on xyz country it’s deceptive. The card should really read look I just raised tariffs on Murt enterprises in stl. On Bernie’s toys in Milwaukee. On joes shoes in Brooklyn. It’s been terrible. What’s more the way this works in practice is the overseas co can check a box and pay the tariff and if they don’t the actual customer in the USA gets the tariff bill. On some products we hold inventory here. But most of our stuff is shipped straight from overseas to our USA customers. Then our USA customers forward us the tariff bill after our Fing customer pays it and we reimburse our customers.
it’s added costs. It’s added uncertainty. It’s added logistical problems. And it’s added time.
I think tariffs need to be a part of our long term fiscal strategy. We need to take some of the pressure off taxing incomes. Saying “tax the rich” or screaming “fair share” won’t cut it. Obviously tariff collections can be streamlined. I wouldn’t oppose a fee paid to those who must collect it. I think tariffs are preferable to a VAT, but I can be persuaded otherwise. What do you think of a national sales tax?
We can never have a reasoned debate about tariffs simply because Trump supports them. That’s the sad reality of politics today.
Did you get part of the tariff refund?
@co-hoosier no. We didn’t even apply through customs. We paid some. Our customers paid some. Hell we just sent in our taxes a few weeks ago much less figuring that shit out.
the problem with tariffs is that they are overwhelmingly paid by U.S. companies. It’s not creating equity with any foreign country. It’s just a tax on U.S. businesses. To say you support tariffs you’re basically just saying you want to raise corp taxes, which would be much easier to deal with than the vagaries of trumps mood and raising or lowering the percentage predicated on same.
@co-hoosier and each shipping outfit handles things differently. UPS won’t deliver without payment. Fed ex sends our customers a bill about a month after shipment. It’s just a mess
and they add fees and charges. Fed ex. Randomly. So it’s not just the tariff. Fed ex is dinging us for tariffs with added fees. Which you can appeal how they arrived at it. Yet another pain in the ass