Do his alleged, selfish motivations matter if the action itself is indeed evidently in the national interest of the US?

I disagree massively with the way Trump is approaching these goals, with the abrasive tone he's striking when talking to close allies and friends. And I actually disagree with making Canada the 51st state. Nonetheless, the fact that Trump wants to do it follows a clear logic which is hard to deny, particularly in the case of Greenland. Canada is a country with a decent-sized population and economy, they can hold their own. Geostrategically, it doesn't make that much of a difference if they're a sovereign nation and ally, or a state of the union. It's a small difference, but not really a geostrategic deal breaker.

In the case of Greenland, the calculus is different. Unlike Canada, they simply don't have the manpower or the financial capacities to secure their own country and utilize it to its full potential. And neither does Denmark, so the US taking it over makes sense for everyone involved.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 29 2025 06:59am

And what good do you think being 'known as the president who acquired Greenland and Canada' would be, if acquiring Greenland and Canada were bad things and frowned upon in retrospect?
Does Donald Trump desire to be remembered alongside Andrew Jackson, who cleared out those problematic natives? It presupposes that expanding American borders would be considered a crowning achievement. Why?

If Donald Trump solves the economy, you'll say its only because he wants the glory of being known for a good economy. If he secures long term geopolitical strategic interests, you say its only because he's self-absorbed and wants a legacy. If he brings peace to entrenched warfare saving tens of thousands of lives, its because he just wants that nobel peace prize. Is there anything Donald Trump could achieve for our country that you couldn't reframe as just being in his personal interest, rather than our national interest? This is a simple logical screening test, if we can't construct a scenario where Trump makes the world a better place but you think its just self-serving, what does that say about your view

No, fuck me not this twat. Milton was, is a perfect example of exactly what we don't need. I was actually happy when he saw consequences.

I'm sure he's back at his 40 million Lake Tahoe home or whatever he bought though his solar company at the time. Or brothers. I can't recall it's been so long.

Everything screams right now that Trump is 100% for allowing any type of market fraud as long as him or friends aka donors get rich.

This post was edited by SBD on Mar 29 2025 08:21am

Any thinking person can think of at least 3-4 really good reasons why acquiring Greenland is actually a good idea, to the TDS fanatics they will view it as something unreasonable simply because Trump proposed it and discard the valid reasons. Of course our little TDS friend wont engage on merits, but as usual like a moth to a light is fixated on big bad orange.

-Greenland has lots of rare earths that are critical in production of many things we need. Rare earth mining/refining right now is overwhelmingly dominated by China, a clear geopolitical adversary so it would make sense for us to diversify supply and do it ourself sooner rather than later. The problem with rare earths processing is it's pretty nasty and if you are going to do it, you don't want to do it on the mainland US, but rather do it in some desolate area where it wouldn't impact us too much.

-Greenland is part of the arctic circle, an increasingly coveted region of the globe as ice melts and it can be used as a very efficient shipping route. Russia has already claimed part of the arctic waters based on the continental shelf. Obviously we would want to claim a bigger piece of the pie, not just from Alaska but also from Greenland.

-From a Monroe doctrine perspective, Greenland is part of North America, therefore why should some tiny Euro nation have claim over it? Also which historical territorial acquisition can be viewed as negative from lets say 100, 200 years ago for the US? Not a single one?, and it is irrelevant if it was acquired from friend or foe. 100 years from now no one is going to give a fuck that Denmark was an ally, what they will remember is the US grew by acquiring Greenland and again is going to be viewed as a net positive.

Personally, i would rather Trump just simply lay out these things plain as day instead of beating around the bush with ads about Nazis and whatever. Trump of course is thinking of legacy at this point, and acquiring a sizable land masses is one of the easiest ways to solidify your name in history books.

The thing is that these TDS guys are so pathetically effete, feminine, weak, miserable creatures filled with nothing but envy and jealously of successful strong potent men who build and achieve for the common benefit, that they can't perceive anything in terms of national interest but only personal interest. They are bug men, consumed by envy. Spineless, miserable creatures that lack the courage to speak out against absurdities. They are sexually and socially impotent and this manifests itself into blind hatred and rage.

A complete lack of physical training has dire mental consequences. We are living through the consequences of weak men

This post was edited by El1te on Mar 29 2025 10:12am

You should be happy about that, you'd get the sort of left-wing government you crave.

The United States and Canada are better served in a customs union with a shared border. American national security requires that Canada pay its share of collective defense (they don't), and that Canada does not become a trojan horse for Chinese influence in North America. Canada joining the EU would be just as bad, and just as clearly a red line.

This joker thinks congress will vote 2/3 to rewrite the 22nd
The world doesnt need another Erdogan or Putin or Jinping
Im still waiting for him to cry to the unsupreme court

Cope & seethe instead of improving yourself

Would you be opposed to the us launching offensive wars against former allies to acquire territory or do you believe the ends justify the means?

There is zero probability of war. Under no scenario will Denmark send a single Dane to do anything about it. So what’s the point of pondering these nonsensical what ifs?