chris1515 said:

---

Epstein had his island.
Now Trump wants an island.

It really feels like this is being done in such a way to maximize the value as a distraction from other administration pain points…Epstein files, ICE related controversy, whatever is actually happening in Venezuela now.

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Because it is only one of the many great reasons for Greenland. A rationale many people understand as it's already been overblown for years.

And the driver of that low price is 100% China and their manipulation of the market and their always unsavory practices of labor, process and environmental impacts of China being arsehole.

You think it's better for China to control Greenland? I mean it would not surprise me if you felt that way. Seems a lot of Trump haterz think China is the better alternative to Orange Man accomplishing anything.

---

Bud…last year 15 Chinese vessels sailed to Greenland. Long Beach gets more than that on a Tuesday.


Are Chinese Forces getting ready to invade?

Has the PLAN sailed near Greenland?

Has the PLAAF flown by?

If so…what about the Thule Agreement prevents us from responding to potential threats?

---

So we should wait to be punched in the face before we get dressed for a fight? Yep, seems like the same limp wristed foreign policy that has weakened America to its lowest point on the global stage in 90 years.

As for me and my family, we plan for the future. Thank God there are those of us who do to make up for are the grasshoppers fiddling away as danger nears.

I mean, almost certainly how it plays out. But in the interim we have WWIII, Trump invasion impeachment, end of UN / NATO, and very very wet bedding.

Who me?!?!?!

I am just calling out bad Democratic polices of the past 20 years.

I find it hilarious that the left has bought in to the climate change scam hook, line, & sinker (all while their elites buy beachfront property), but won't give credit to Trump for having the foresight to acquire premium property when all that ice melts.

people on this thread keep saying we can already do whatever we want with respect to military bases on Greenland. So, according to google we currently have about 80000 military in Europe. How about we move 40000 of those to Greenland and start building out whatever we want in bases and infrastructure. Anyone have a problem with that?

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Because it is only one of the many great reasons for Greenland. A rationale many people understand as it's already been overblown for years.

And the driver of that low price is 100% China and their manipulation of the market and their always unsavory practices of labor, process and environmental impacts of China being arsehole.

You think it's better for China to control Greenland? I mean it would not surprise me if you felt that way. Seems a lot of Trump haterz think China is the better alternative to Orange Man accomplishing anything.

---

Bud…last year 15 Chinese vessels sailed to Greenland. Long Beach gets more than that on a Tuesday.


Are Chinese Forces getting ready to invade?

Has the PLAN sailed near Greenland?

Has the PLAAF flown by?

If so…what about the Thule Agreement prevents us from responding to potential threats?

---

So we should wait to be punched in the face before we get dressed for a fight? Yep, seems like the same limp wristed foreign policy that has weakened America to its lowest point on the global stage in 90 years.

As for me and my family, we plan for the future. Thank God there are those of us who do to make up for are the grasshoppers fiddling away as danger nears.

---

Orienting yourself on long term threats is smart.

Luckily, the Thule Agreement allows us the flexibility to respond to potential threats.

So tell me...what about the Thule Agreement inadequate?

Furthermore, if Chinese invasion of Greenland were imminent or even in the near future...why hasn't the Trump Admin made commensurate force posturing decisions to prepare for such a contingency in line w/their existing prerogatives in the Thule Agreement?

Instead what we see, rightly, is military focus on the SCS and TWN...which is why we have CSGs there dealing with the PLAN and running FONOPS instead of counting polar bears in Baffin Bay.

Malibu said:

---

Predicted response: Oh, it is real. Here's how Trumps letter is actually a stroke of genius...piggies squealing

---

They go with the same dozen talking points no matter what the topic is. Libs hate the military. Trump's not serious, and libs self own by taking trumps words seriously. What about Biden? Haha, Trump told the libs what he was gonna do…they should have taken him seriously. If the dems hadn't stolen the election….

The Fall Guy said:

---

Never become a knob slobbler for any Govt official. When you do you just took the last drop.

Common sense says dont do it but people are insecure to make their own decisions on both sides of the aisle

---

When your job is being a rep or a senator, you don't want to take a stance. Term limit these ****ers and so much of this wish washy **** goes away

chris1515 said:

---

Epstein had his island.
Now Trump wants an island.

It really feels like this is being done in such a way to maximize the value as a distraction from other administration pain points…Epstein files, ICE related controversy, whatever is actually happening in Venezuela now.

---

And that's where he will put his death camps for gays and his christofascist Hand Maidens Tale breeding farms.

It's all coming together!

infinity ag said:

---

Trump seems to be opening up too many fronts at the same time.

Without completely fixing any single one.

---

Most CEOs are quite capable at managing multiple large scale endeavors at the same time. Trump is even better than most CEOs.

You don't catch as many fish if you only put one line in the water at a time. Let Trump handle things. He will assign tasks to those who can only complete one priority at a time.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Because it is only one of the many great reasons for Greenland. A rationale many people understand as it's already been overblown for years.

And the driver of that low price is 100% China and their manipulation of the market and their always unsavory practices of labor, process and environmental impacts of China being arsehole.

You think it's better for China to control Greenland? I mean it would not surprise me if you felt that way. Seems a lot of Trump haterz think China is the better alternative to Orange Man accomplishing anything.

---

Bud…last year 15 Chinese vessels sailed to Greenland. Long Beach gets more than that on a Tuesday.


Are Chinese Forces getting ready to invade?

Has the PLAN sailed near Greenland?

Has the PLAAF flown by?

If so…what about the Thule Agreement prevents us from responding to potential threats?

---

So we should wait to be punched in the face before we get dressed for a fight? Yep, seems like the same limp wristed foreign policy that has weakened America to its lowest point on the global stage in 90 years.

As for me and my family, we plan for the future. Thank God there are those of us who do to make up for are the grasshoppers fiddling away as danger nears.

---

Orienting yourself on long term threats is smart.

Luckily, the Thule Agreement allows us the flexibility to respond to potential threats.

So tell me...what about the Thule Agreement inadequate?

Furthermore, if Chinese invasion of Greenland were imminent or even in the near future...why hasn't the Trump Admin made commensurate force posturing decisions to prepare for such a contingency in line w/their existing prerogatives in the Thule Agreement?

Instead what we see, rightly, is military focus on the SCS and TWN...which is why we have CSGs there dealing with the PLAN and running FONOPS instead of counting polar bears in Baffin Bay.

---

TWFI.

Plus, the libs have told us counting polar bears is a virtuous task. I am sure US AID, the Green New Deal and Obamacare probably all included funds for polar bear counting.

Is your last name Thule and you are worried the legacy of the agreement is being tarnished?

Let's put this in real word context. About 50 years ago Jimmy Carter decided we could just trust Panama and let them have control over the Canal Zone. No worries, we will have an agreement for US warships, maintain quasi-control over the locks, continue to profit from the ports on each end, and have strategic control of one of if not the most important shipping lane in the world.

And Trump had to also take it back after the Chinese setup shop to control shipping on both ends.

Yea, we should just hope "agreements" and "treaties" protect our arses. No sense in actually protecting our arses with bases, forts and weaponry.

Glad Trump is in charge. We have run way too long on "agreements".

Ag Since 83 said:

---

Genuine question for those that think US owning Greenland is critical to national security, due to the long term threat of Russia/China/whoever.

If you think conflict with Russia/China/whoever is inevitable, why do you want our historic allies to be on their side when it happens?

---

Because they are slackarse leeches promoting socialism within their own borders and beyond. Plus, they owe US from WWII not the other way around.

Ask the Brits if they prefer to continue to speak English, we are the ones they should be friends with.

You really think the EU turns to Russia and China over... Greenland?

That's lib level thinking and not real world thinking.

Ag Since 83 said:

---

Genuine question for those that think US owning Greenland is critical to national security, due to the long term threat of Russia/China/whoever.

If you think conflict with Russia/China/whoever is inevitable, why do you want our historic allies to be on their side when it happens?

---

Is this serious? Europe joining China over Greenland lol

I sincerely hope you are just trolling cuz this much delusion about reality is concerning

Disagreement over Greenland is not going to tank any alliances with Europe if WW3 breaks out.

74OA said:

---

Laugh break..........

---

When women were women - feminine and so beautiful.

Way before my time, but it looks lovely.

If you want a laugh break

rednecked said:

---

people on this thread keep saying we can already do whatever we want with respect to military bases on Greenland. So, according to google we currently have about 80000 military in Europe. How about we move 40000 of those to Greenland and start building out whatever we want in bases and infrastructure. Anyone have a problem with that?

---

docb said:

---

If you want a laugh break

---

I see SNL has reverted back to zero humor and 100% TDS.

I wonder if trump's tariffs over Greenland affect the Supreme Court's deliberations. They already seemed to be iffy on his argument. Using tariffs to try to get another country to cede territory might push them over the edge.

Yesterday said:

---

docb said:

---

If you want a laugh break

---

I see SNL has reverted back to zero humor and 100% TDS.

---

Whether you are Republican or Democrat and you can't laugh at a SNL skit I don't know what to tell you. They are going to make fun of either side and it's usually pretty damn funny.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Bud…last year 15 Chinese vessels sailed to Greenland. Long Beach gets more than that on a Tuesday.

---

Maersk ships plenty of Chinese goods.
Its a well known Danish company.
https://maersktankers.com/ships

Fleet size 740.
Flagged to countries around the world.


https://maersktankers.com/charter-a-ship

Objection your honor. Facts not supportive of the narrative are being introduced.

Some won't like learning how in bed the Danes and Chinese are. Just like the Panamanians.

The lemmings never learn. Just muh Orange Man is bad - morning noon and night.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

FobTies said:

---

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

---

When I saw this letter, I literally thought, "This is too stupid even for him." I should have known better.

---

Much more effective to use such stellar diplomatic overtures of "don't", "okay, but nothing more than a minor incursion", and "here is $56 billion as long as you promise not to use your nuke on Israel and only keep it for peace".

BTW - $56 billion is about what it would have taken to purchase Greenland. You boy Barrack FLEW IT TO IRAN for the enjoyment of ayatollahs and the IGRC who literally want to kill you and everything you love.

Trump is trying to protect you from that and you call him... stupid?

$700B is the number that keeps getting thrown around for a Greenland purchase.

Yeah, but Obama. You got us.

Ag CPA said:

---

$700B is the number that keeps getting thrown around for a Greenland purchase.

---

Immaterial. Pass on further review.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

How are you on EVERY politics thread EVERYDAY? Don't you have literally anything else to do other than play defense for Trump 24/7?

---

Me thinking Greenland is important to our national security has ZERO to do with Trump.

However, Trump and I agree on this topic and agree its the right time to do something about it.

And you kids are just a plentiful across multiple threads every single minute of every hour.

I would spend less time on here if the lying about Trump as a result of untreated TDS would be addressed.

Sorry that supporting what is good for the United States of America hurts your feelz.