Wins the thread.
The difference between now (21th century) and then (19th century) being that the selling parties of the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska, considered the inhabitants of the territories in question to be people of no account - a very few subjects, and otherwise mere indigenes. No question about their having agency in what country had souvereignty over where they lived.
Nowadays deals over souvereignty are only that straightforward if the land in question is uninhabited. Denmark cannot sell Greenland because it is not Denmark‘s to sell.
This is a great idea! The non-Maga press should run with this, in a big bold font
Whenever the issue arises, run the story with the headline:
“Trump’s purchase of Greenland continues. Liberal Experts say GLOBAL WARMING will reveal mineral wealth”
Trumpy heads will explode.
LOL! When I worked with a pro wrestling promotion, one of our heels had a sure-fire remedy against the face: sprinkle Lego blocks in the ring. Worked best when the face was barefooted.
The Weather Channel does not name storms.
Yes, they do
True, but Greenland currently has a government that advocated independence from Denmark, and may hold a referendum on the issue at the next parliamentary election.
That doesn’t mean the US can just take over Greenland, of course.
Incoming leader of the United States, elected by the people of the Unitef States, has announced that he wants to:
- Change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America;
- Buy Greenland;
- Use economic pressure to force the annexation of Canada;
- Impose tariffs on Mexico until the Mexican government implements policies he demands;
- Retake the Panama Canal, in violation of treaties between the US and Panama.
Sounds pretty US-hegemony to me, from my position north of the 49th.
It’s fascism. Fascists are nationalist by nature, and one of the plays in the playbook is territorial expansion.
Of the above 5, the least damaging is renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. If that was the extent of what he wanted to accomplish, the world would breathe a sigh of relief.
I would note that #2-5 are all part of his signaling to Putin that he’s OK with Russian agression against Ukraine. I don’t think he’d do or threaten all of that without having that signal to Putin in the back of his mind.
Back to renaming.
My toilet is now referred to as the “Trumplet”.
We could just name the Gulf of Mexico after Trump, but “Bay of Pigs” is already taken.
Nevermind.
Don’t say he never stood up to Trump:
Gov. Abbott proposes ‘Gulf of Texas’ as alternative to Trump’s ‘Gulf of America’ rename
Seen as trial balloon, the Gulf of America is, as of today, failing. But I still think it would be politically brilliant for DJT to push it, and he may.
From my link:
This totally misses the point, which is to heighten nationalist resentments. Continuing renaming refusals and inconsistencies would send the message that Trump is for America, and the others are for Mexico. That’s why Schumer wisely isn’t totally against it.
Schumer is offering something stupid and meaningless in exchange for something important. So, I get it. But it’s still a stupid thing designed to appeal to stupid voters.
You are correct. I was thinking WMO larger scale ones.
And he’s going to get neither, because he clearly learned nothing from the way McConnell completely controlled the Senate for 16 years regardless of who was in the majority.
Not sure what you mean; what does Mitch McConnell have to do with it? Schumer / Dems can either have a hissy fit over this ridiculous idea or he can try to make some use of it. Not to mention the plausible deniability. “We were ready to get on board but clearly renaming a body of water is more important than helping the American people”. Not saying it will have any results but what we’ve been doing hasn’t either.
McConnell committed the Republicans to opposing Obama on everything and it resulted in them gaining full control of the government. Schumer should be doing the same instead of dignifying Trump’s insane ideas.
Well if somebody was to run a poll, methinks the proportion of 'merkins who’d respond to the question “Would you support the idea of Canada becoming a state of the U.S.A.” with “Yeah, that’s a good idea worth pursuing” would be substantially higher than the proportion who voted for Trump.
I just had a good idea!!! Let’s invade Canada and make it the 51st state, while keeping its health care system.
Then suddenly the magats wont be afraid of “socialist” health care.