It was fantastic. But not a day to check the 401k or for Bondi to answer questions on the Hill.

Will assume Noem will not use a reference to the Dow during her questioning today.

That's not going to fly. Buying them- sure. Annexing against their will- no go.

Whatever this administration wants out in place it would need broader support like Congress passing laws.

You can't executive order your way into annexing another country. It will be undone as soon as the other party wins an election.

"This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland."

Probably Denmark too.

Ag87H2O said:

---

This is how Trump generally operates. He makes the big proclamation/announcement and lets the libs and their media lapdogs go wild, and then when the smoke clears and they move on to the next outrage, he quietly goes to work and gets exactly what he wanted to begin with.

This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland.

---

Spin spin spin…

This is absolutely not what happened. Trump wanted Greenland and got his peepee smacked when he realized he just couldn't take it.

Our basing has always been free game there. Greenland not only doesn't give a ****, they are very open to it. I would say they even welcome it as it provides more security and revenue streams. We used to have like a dozen plus bases there and we closed them because WE wanted to.

All of this, and I mean all of this, just could have been accomplished with normal talks of basing agreements with a damn near guaranteed easy acceptance from the get go. You know, without the whole threat of invasion thing.

Trump was an abject fool to even posture in that direction he did. There is no 4D chess here, good grief…

Noctilucent said:

---

"This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland."

Probably Denmark too.

---

The Danes get The Art of the Deal. Make a lot of noise in public. Get down to business in a private setting.

Kind of like James K. Polk's "54-40 or Fight!" A lot of yelling in public while negotiating for what you really want diplomatically.

ts5641 said:

---

Wow, I'm glad you know all that. You must've been inside Trump's mind and also involved in the negotiations. Thanks for the inside scoop.

---

You are very welcome. Subscribe to my newsletter please!

Old Gorm said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

This is how Trump generally operates. He makes the big proclamation/announcement and lets the libs and their media lapdogs go wild, and then when the smoke clears and they move on to the next outrage, he quietly goes to work and gets exactly what he wanted to begin with.

This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland.

---

Spin spin spin…

This is absolutely not what happened. Trump wanted Greenland and got his peepee smacked…

---

All full of sound and fury, signifying yet another leftist temper tantrum.

Trump isn't the only POTUS to use this tactic to achieve what he wants in a situation.

Using your logic, Polk lost in the Pacific Northwest because he didn't get British Columbia as part of the deal.

But like Trump, Polk got what he wanted and more from the public posture he took with the British.

---

What? Our dealings with Greenland have always been very easy and understanding from all parties. Trump in all likelihood didn't even need to step into this at all. Our basing agreements are probably boilerplate at this point. This wasn't a tough and hard fought back alley deal. At least not before Trump opened his mouth on it. Greenland would have allowed our bases, no problem.

This was never about bases. This was about Trump wanting the newest shiny toy that popped into his mind. And no, he did not get what he wanted and more.

First sentence is extremely amusing. Truly, a base tactic to try to denigrate your perceived opponent (I'm not, I don't even know who you are nor do I care) to gain some upper level in your mind. Call me what you will, it matters not, just know that not all conservatives bow down to every single thing Trump does or thinks of and are perfectly ok calling out all of his spaz out moments. Wild concept for some here, I know.

Sound and fury!, lol. Genuinely got a chuckle out of me on that one.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Is your TDS so bad that you can't see this was strategic? Do you think Trump was just throwing darts at a dart board? He obviously realized NATO is functionally worthless now. Our "allies" actions regarding Iran have borne that out.

Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland have been very strategic moves to bolster American interests and defense.

---

Oh hush with the TDS. It's up there with liberals and nazi's now. Heaven forbid a conservative be critical of our president and his antics when he gets up to them.

What can yall not understand? NONE of this was f'ing necessary. Greenland would have happily given us our extra bases and we could have strengthened our strategic interests months ago. This was never an all or nothing thing. I don't know who gaslit this board into thinking that it was. Good job to them I guess. Greenland even gladly and very explicitly offered more basing rights first thing when Trump went off the rails and it did not stop him a single second and he kept going and going.

We need a presence there. Absolutely. Trump just wanted to triple down and actually take Greenland and couldn't understand why the rest of the world was against this. Dude just doesn't like being told no, you can't have that shiny toy.

I think it is incorrect to believe that things with Denmark/Greenland etc. (and our nato 'allies') have always/historically been copacetic and easy to get along with. Heck, just in the North Atlantic, the UK and Iceland even almost went to war with each other over much less than what Trump sought/got in Greenland (cod fishing).

Two NATO Nations almost go to war with each other over fishing 🎣 https://t.co/fTDA2fBIm8

— WorldsRewound (@WorldsRewound) May 12, 2026

The Danes have been run by a leftist government-media complex for years, and feted Potus Peepaw wide and far (a poll of Denmark in 2024 showed 83% of Danes favored Kamalala). NPR's jubilance about the leftist's election odds thanks to TDS is funny, a couple months on.

That link said we once had 17 bases in Greenland. That's wild although I'm sure most of those were likely very lightly manned outposts and monitoring stations and not really a base per se.

Glad to see us establish a larger presence there regardless of how we got there at this point.

Quote:

---

Is your TDS so bad...

---

TDS is now like calling someone a commie. Whatever the opposite of TDS is, you seem to have it. It's ok to question your elected leaders.

YouBet said:

---

That task said we once had 17 bases in Greenland. That's wild although I'm sure most of those were likely very lightly manned outposts and monitoring stations and not really a base per se.

Glad to see us establish a larger presence there regardless of how we got there at this point.

---

I don't know how those bases were classified, or why we evidently abondoned/closed them, but it says the new bases will be considered sovereign U.S. territory. That seems significant. They will be land that is actually part of the United States.

Eliminatus said:

---

Old Gorm said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

This is how Trump generally operates. He makes the big proclamation/announcement and lets the libs and their media lapdogs go wild, and then when the smoke clears and they move on to the next outrage, he quietly goes to work and gets exactly what he wanted to begin with.

This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland.

---

Spin spin spin…

This is absolutely not what happened. Trump wanted Greenland and got his peepee smacked…

---

All full of sound and fury, signifying yet another leftist temper tantrum.

Trump isn't the only POTUS to use this tactic to achieve what he wants in a situation.

Using your logic, Polk lost in the Pacific Northwest because he didn't get British Columbia as part of the deal.

But like Trump, Polk got what he wanted and more from the public posture he took with the British.

---

What? Our dealings with Greenland have always been very easy and understanding from all parties. Trump in all likelihood didn't even need to step into this at all. Our basing agreements are probably boilerplate at this point. This wasn't a tough and hard fought back alley deal. At least not before Trump opened his mouth on it. Greenland would have allowed our bases, no problem.

This was never about bases. This was about Trump wanting the newest shiny toy that popped into his mind. And no, he did not get what he wanted and more.

First sentence is extremely amusing. Truly, a base tactic to try to denigrate your perceived opponent (I'm not, I don't even know who you are nor do I care) to gain some upper level in your mind. Call me what you will, it matters not, just know that not all conservatives bow down to every single thing Trump does or thinks of and are perfectly ok calling out all of his spaz out moments. Wild concept for some here, I know.

Sound and fury!, lol. Genuinely got a chuckle out of me on that one.

---

Perhaps you would prefer me saying your post on this and all things related to Trump are full of the wind of flatulence with the only product being the excrement flowing freely from every word.

If you don't wish to be criticized for holding a leftist opinion, then don't express one on this forum and act as if it were conservative gospel.

Every word you farted out emerged out of a paradigm from the likes of Barack Obama, Jake Sullivan, and Valerie Jarrett. It gets broadcast verbatim by the lemmings on The View and then you show up here and mimic it line by line.

I get it. You don't like Trump. You believe, as the Obama gang, that negotiations should always be private genteel affairs where Americans get on their knees and apologize for the nation's existence.

But there are times, even with allies, that you have to play rough in a public fashion in order to meet the nation's foreign policy objectives at the negotiating table.

If Trump had done things your way, as the people you presently ape did in relation to Iran, the Taliban, and several others over the last two decades, then you would be arguing the exact opposite point simply because Trump took that particular option.

Think of yourself as a conservative all you want. But don't pretend you aren't using the left's argument here simply "because Trump."

Leftists still pretending Trump got nothing while ignoring that we now effectively have Sovereign Control of all of Greenland outside the cities and the Danes still get to pretend they're in control and pay for the welfare of the locals instead of us. Amazing deal for us

Old Gorm said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Old Gorm said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

This is how Trump generally operates. He makes the big proclamation/announcement and lets the libs and their media lapdogs go wild, and then when the smoke clears and they move on to the next outrage, he quietly goes to work and gets exactly what he wanted to begin with.

This is a great deal for both the United States and Greenland.

---

Spin spin spin…

This is absolutely not what happened. Trump wanted Greenland and got his peepee smacked…

---

All full of sound and fury, signifying yet another leftist temper tantrum.

Trump isn't the only POTUS to use this tactic to achieve what he wants in a situation.

Using your logic, Polk lost in the Pacific Northwest because he didn't get British Columbia as part of the deal.

But like Trump, Polk got what he wanted and more from the public posture he took with the British.

---

What? Our dealings with Greenland have always been very easy and understanding from all parties. Trump in all likelihood didn't even need to step into this at all. Our basing agreements are probably boilerplate at this point. This wasn't a tough and hard fought back alley deal. At least not before Trump opened his mouth on it. Greenland would have allowed our bases, no problem.

This was never about bases. This was about Trump wanting the newest shiny toy that popped into his mind. And no, he did not get what he wanted and more.

First sentence is extremely amusing. Truly, a base tactic to try to denigrate your perceived opponent (I'm not, I don't even know who you are nor do I care) to gain some upper level in your mind. Call me what you will, it matters not, just know that not all conservatives bow down to every single thing Trump does or thinks of and are perfectly ok calling out all of his spaz out moments. Wild concept for some here, I know.

Sound and fury!, lol. Genuinely got a chuckle out of me on that one.

---

Perhaps you would prefer me saying your post on this and all things related to Trump are full of the wind of flatulence with the only product being the excrement flowing freely from every word.

If you don't wish to be criticized for holding a leftist opinion, then don't express one on this forum and act as if it were conservative gospel.

Every word you farted out emerged out of a paradigm from the likes of Barack Obama, Jake Sullivan, and Valerie Jarrett. It gets broadcast verbatim by the lemmings on The View and then you show up here and mimic it line by line.

I get it. You don't like Trump. You believe, as the Obama gang, that negotiations should always be private genteel affairs where Americans get on their knees and apologize for the nation's existence.

But there are times, even with allies, that you have to play rough in a public fashion in order to meet the nation's foreign policy objectives at the negotiating table.

If Trump had done things your way, as the people you presently ape did in relation to Iran, the Taliban, and several others over the last two decades, then you would be arguing the exact opposite point simply because Trump took that particular option.

Think of yourself as a conservative all you want. But don't pretend you aren't using the left's argument here simply "because Trump."

---

Imagine a world, if you will, where sometimes Trump does something so bizarre, so off the path, so f'ing egomaniacal that there is no actual political side to it.

Of course it's hard for some when they worship the very air he occupies. The world truly has broken down to such a binary viewpoint, hasn't it for you. You don't lockstep, you are leftist scum. That's honestly pretty sad. I'm not even mad about any of this. If anything it reminds me how exhausting it can be trying to rationalize with zealotry. You can see it so clearly since you have crafted this entire persona for me to occupy simply because I do not agree that Trump's antics are worthy of idolatry in this situation and as sure as hell don't think it's virtuous in any sense of the word as you seem to be trying to play it off as. We needed Greenland for our strategic depth. Trump did not have to go the path he did to get it. Period. He did it because he wanted to and he had eyes on something beyond our bases.

What do they say about broken clocks? You see this as a leftist ideal to oppose Trump. Well, sometimes it does break down as easy as yes or no. They happen to say no in this case and I do as well. I bet at least one of them likes to drink water. That's cool. So do I. I urge you to step outside your bubble and look around a bit.

Also, I don't particularly care what the left thinks. I honestly don't even care what the R's think either. They just happen to line up with my rationale this time. Not me lining up to theirs.

Again, whoever gaslit this board into thinking Trump was some dashing patriot who fought all rough and tumble to get us what we want in Greenland is amazing. This isn't Trump standing up to the world order of libs and terrorists and this reinventing of reality to do so, is simply wild.

So, lousy source sourcing a lousy source (NYT), but Rubio or Vance are there today. Will see what happens.

According to the New York Times, citing conversations with officials from the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark, the U.S. is looking to revise its arrangement on its military posture in Greenland. Per the report, the U.S. is looking to implement an agreement where U.S. forces can stay… pic.twitter.com/aSQ3O5ffT3

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) May 18, 2026

game changer. Take us to DEFCON 3 and get SAC on the line

One reason the US is considering acquiring Greenland is to secure access to seafood that could potentially bring back unlimited shrimp at Red Lobster. - US official to the New Yorker

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 22, 2026

nortex97 said:

---

So, lousy source sourcing a lousy source (NYT), but Rubio or Vance are there today. Will see what happens.

According to the New York Times, citing conversations with officials from the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark, the U.S. is looking to revise its arrangement on its military posture in Greenland. Per the report, the U.S. is looking to implement an agreement where U.S. forces can stay… pic.twitter.com/aSQ3O5ffT3

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) May 18, 2026

---

I can see which one of the above 4 is prepared for spending a long, cold winter in Greenland.

I had to check; the New Yorker actually put that attributed quote in print.

https://t.co/VT2SmcToHp pic.twitter.com/y8KurmuWYL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 22, 2026

Does he even have a real/current job in the administration though? The Arctic Research Commission says he was terminated in 2021.

They also say he was reappointed in December.

https://www.arctic.gov/news-12-10-25/

Sugar Land seems like a strange place for an Arctic expert to decide to live; but stranger things have happened. Maybe he really loves tikki masala

Wow. Impressive family legacy as merchant mariners and all, but...just such an 'out there' comment. But the week is young, there will be more insanity from the administration to follow.