Political So now what

Political discussions within
Real question... @Herzog... I've been under a rock for the last couple of weeks. This seems like a lot of fires. What are the guys that have "done their research" saying? Antifa? Iranian loyalists? Angry illegal immigrants? Jewish space lasers? Or just act of science?
 
Cody said:
Real question... @Herzog... I've been under a rock for the last couple of weeks. This seems like a lot of fires. What are the guys that have "done their research" saying? Antifa? Iranian loyalists? Angry illegal immigrants? Jewish space lasers? Or just act of science?
Click to expand...
I figured they didn't pay their global warming (tm) taxes and that made Newsom angry
 
anderson750 said:
I think the whole Canada thing is just Trump being Trump and poking Trudeau in the eye. Greenland is something that has been an on and off interest of the US for a long time. It is reported to have a lot of natural resources. Would it ever be economically feasible to extract and export from there.......probably not, but in the times of current unrest and conflict, I look it as more of a strategic control thing. Would it be in our best interest to let China and Russia have control of those natural resources......probably not. Would we expect Denmark to stand up against China and Russia.......probably not.
Click to expand...
No question Trump originally referred to Canada as "51st State" to annoy Trudeau because that is the mature way to handle diplomacy with an ally. Unfortunately we have see other times when Trump says something absurd and then convinces himself it is a good idea and he clings to it.

With Greenland and Panama, thinking we need to take control of them because they are or have needed resources is clear example of imperialism.
The politics of the Arctic regions will change as the area is more and more ice free and the economics of accessing natural resources in the area changes (not as simple as warmer equals easier, heard recent news story that the melting ice sheets in Greenland is making them less stable and thus work in the area more dangerous.)

But considering Denmark in a NATO member, if we are really concerned about Russian and Chinese influence over Greenland having the US threaten military action against Denmark is not the best plan.
 
Houndoc said:
But considering Denmark in a NATO member, if we are really concerned about Russian and Chinese influence over Greenland having the US threaten military action against Denmark is not the best plan.
Click to expand...
He has never threatened military action. He was asked if he would rule out military AND economic action and he declined to answer that he would. That is far from threatening. That is called not showing your playbook. He approaches diplomacy like a business transaction not a politician. I don't open up my business strategies to my competitors......keep them guessing. The next 4 years will be the same media & DTS hyperbolie with people saying he is going to start WW3, but yet in his first term no wars broke out and he brokered a historic peace agreement the Abraham Accords.
 
anderson750 said:
He has never threatened military action. He was asked if he would rule out military AND economic action and he declined to answer that he would. That is far from threatening. That is called not showing your playbook. He approaches diplomacy like a business transaction not a politician. I don't open up my business strategies to my competitors......keep them guessing. The next 4 years will be the same media & DTS hyperbolie with people saying he is going to start WW3, but yet in his first term no wars broke out and he brokered a historic peace agreement the Abraham Accords.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. He didn't decline to answer, he declined to rule it out. He said he couldn't rule out EITHER action. That's not declining to answer and still leaving it on the table. Maybe not a direct threat, but an implied one.

“It might be that you’ll have to do something,” Trump said during an hourlong press conference at Mar-a-Lago when asked about whether he would vow to not use the military. “I can’t assure you—you’re talking about Panama and Greenland—no, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this: We need them for economic security.”
Click to expand...



If someone walked up and asked you for $$$ and you asked "What are you going to do, shoot or beat me?" and they responded "I can't rule out either of those options" is that not a threat? Again, it's an implied threat.

I do think he is full of shit and just grandstanding for his base most of all. "Look at me, I'm so cool, I'll push back on things and demand shit I can't have" He's such a blow hard I can't wait for the next 4 years to be over. Between him and the media coverage it is going to be EXHAUSTING
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top