Hmmm… seeing a lot of innuendo… still looking for that “threat of going to war”.
If and when Trump made real estate deals among wealthy, powerful, savvy actors in the NYC market, that was one thing. That was all adults, well represented by agents, property managers, law firms accounting firms, and were probably generally very experienced buyers and sellers.
Mafia tactics applied to nations all over the globe may feel good when you’re nothing but a mafia thug at heart, but the toll it takes is enormous, incalculable, and may take generations to undo.
It’s gunboat diplomacy. I know empathy is supposed to be a sin, but think about the millions/billions of people all around the world who wake up in fear, and live hugely stressful lives, because of the ‘vagaries’ of “America’s Hitler.”
I’m not a fan. You are? We can agree to disagree.
Not knowing what you want is a sure way to not get it. Anyone who knows anything about dealmaking knows that.
So naturally, Trump doesn’t know it.
That was fine when he was just making himself the poorest man in history, but now, he’s making all of America weak just because he feels like making stupid deals.
You’re right, but we didn’t elect the person responsible for that content.
Maybe he’ll add it to the list of wars he’s stopped.
Also, would you mind comparing and contrasting, for us, the situations that led up to Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Putin’s invasions of Ukraine, with particular focus on the “threat of going to war.”
Thank you.
I, too, am interested in his end game… interested enough to stick around until we all find out. Personally, without making too many judgmental assumptions, I’m thinking it’s a combination of both… we can do what we want, because existing agreements say so… but why do it alone if a few other NATO countries can be cajoled into stepping up and sending troops to “protect” against an implied (hallucinated?) US invasion? Oh, and BTW, it’s a new account, but not a new poster… it’s been a few years… my buddy, @Roland_Orzabal, passed away in 2020. I enjoyed his thinking, his love of debate. I always lost, as if anyone were actually keeping score, but didn’t take it personally. I learned a lot here… mostly to keep myself informed of many things, but to “worry” about only a few, those that I could actually control. Conversation, I can control. If I don’t like the way it’s going, I can stop.
Well, yeah, we did… or “the electorate” did. He wouldn’t have co-signed it if he wasn’t standing behind it.
Agreeing to disagree at this juncture seems to me to be most agreeable.
I’m always surprised when Trump fans say that he’s a master negotiator. No, he’s not; he only knows one kind of deal, where he wins and the other party loses. All his so-called “deals” involve a winner (Trump) and a loser (the other party). That’s not negotiation; that’s extortion.
A real negotiator would give a little to get a little, and both parties would end up happy.
Watch Rick Harrison on “Pawn Stars” sometime. He’s a master negotiator. Rick always gets the other party to name their price first (“Hey that’s an interesting object. What do you want for it?”), while Trump leads with, “Here’s what I’m offering, take it or leave it.”
Rick is always dissatisfied with the seller’s offer, and looks for more advice on the object from an expert (“Listen, I got a buddy who knows this stuff better than I do”). Trump, despite being able to call on real experts in economics, diplomacy, and other fields (as opposed to his circle of syncophants), fancies himself an expert on everything, and will try to do it all himself with little to no knowledge of what it’s all about.
After the expert’s opinion, and rough valuation, Rick again gets the seller to name a price (“Okay, after hearing what Buddy said, what do you want now?”). So far, Rick has not named any price at all. When he eventually does, he will always undercut the seller’s stated price, often with reasons (“It’s slightly damaged, here and over here, so I’m going to have to pay somebody to restore this”). Then, because he’s a good guy, he offers to come up a bit. Also wanting to be seen as a good guy, the seller offers to come down a bit, and they repeat this until they find a price both are happy with. Give a little to get a little; that’s negotiating.
And it’s something that Trump seems to be incapable of understanding.
Moderating:
Welcome back then, and we can certainly attempt to merge your prior account, especially if you have access to your original email address. @engineer_comp_geek is the one who normally handles this so feel free to reach out.
Aside, I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your friend and fellow poster, perhaps you’ll want to mention this in our Memoriam thread? We’ve lost many over the long years at the board.
I don’t think the US military is equipped to fight an arctic war. They don’t have icebreakers and without violating Canadian air space they have no easy way of supplying a force in Greenland. So they would have to fight Canada too. Today’s Votemaster had some interesting letters from people who seem to understand these issues: Electoral-vote.com
Trump has repeatedly said that he would take over Greenland ”one way or the other.”
What are those two ways?
One way he has repeatedly mentioned, going back to his first presidential term, is purchase. Even if Greenlanders woke up tomorrow with their national pride gone, purchase would remain impractical because Congress is not going to appropriate the money. While Trump does sometimes violate the Antideficiency Act (obligate the government to pay money without first securing appropriations), the amount of money here is too much for that.
This leaves the military option Trump today gave up, I hope for good. The conquest option, despite being immoral and a strategic mistake, is a lot more practical than getting such an enormous wasteful appropriation past the Senate.
How much money are we talking about?
What about this?
Also, I expect that the U.S. would attack in the summer.
Greenland’s real vulnerability is that each town is isolated without connecting roads. The U.S. could invade them, by sea and or air, one at a time.
The U.S. invasion of Greenland would be a message that Western Europe needs to make themselves able to resist the U.S. military in the future. It’s a set-up for World War III. But the EU isn’t yet ready for that.
Greenland and Denmark would not know where the U.S. was going to hit next. They would not be able to reinforce local Greenlandic garrisons quickly enough.
Estimates vary enormously.
From Fortune:
Some estimates are in the USD trillions.
For those of us with national pride, the price would of course be infinite.
I get the distinct impression the dumpf just blinked
Cry havoc ??? 
asshole
There is no deal. He made it all up.
His inner circle has likely made billions from insider trading on this “news” .
Yes. For now.
But he wasn’t going to invade in the winter. And he says that there is a “framework” for a deal that is acceptable to him. The framework does not meet Trump’s previous U.S. sovereignty red line, so I have no idea how long it will take to fall apart, as explained in the Axios link in the last Smapti post.
Passing something like the proposed Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act remains critical. Trump would likely veto, but I think it would make him less likely to invade.