Greenland USA

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

What the hell you goin' on about, Jessica? 

Well then you dont mind if keep adding to it then? 

I see what you keep repeating. 

Congress needs to approve territorial acquisition and Greenland needs to approve it too.

But i thought there wasn't the congressional support for that here, and i know there isn't support in Greenland, and if that support is not present, how is Trump going to get it? What is the point of all this?

Because we are doing tariffs in a few hours to blackmail the EU to get Denmark to sell, and its weird for him to do that If its not for sale, and there's not enough support anywhere. 

How is Trump supposed to get it if he's not planning on just taking it? Is there any other route? 

His actions suggest: 

"I am really going to bully-sanction allies until they sell, and if they refuse, they are no longer our allies, and i am going to take it anyway." 

And f*** us for that one if we do it. 

Where would you stand if Trump eventually decides to take it by military force without congressional authorirization to do so?  And against the will of over 85% of the American people? 

Would you be in support of that?

Because if we did that, I'd look at our flag and cry in total shame about what it represents to the world and especially to our former close allies. But that's just me. And I dont want to be best friends with Russia. Or have one of their stupid f*cking victory angel statues.

[Solvedit]

I have often ranted about the many suggestions that Native American tribes conducted captive raids and even used slaves as leaders or advisors to leaders, such as Chief Mushulatubee, Selocta, and Sequoyah.  There are other indications, like Olive Oatman.  

(Mushulatubee sounds like the Lithuanian for "I am beating a Lithuanian," "Selocta" sounds just like the Slavic word for nobility, szlachta, and Sequoyah looked just like half-Irish, half-Lebanese financier Kevin O'Leary, and the Barbay Pirates may have brought them to the Al-Aqsa-Hajj river in Martin County, Florida, which means "The Furthest Pilgrimage" and has been corrupted to "Loxahatchee."  Olive Oatman is probably on Wikipedia.)

Can it be that the Danish experience of the Greenlanders is similar to many European colonizers' experience trying to assimilate natives or to peacefully coexist with them?  They resist learning Euro-centric ways, but suppose they try to hack an understanding of Euro-centric values by taking captives?

Maybe, in addition to avenging Apartheid, it's the reason S. Africa is so dangerous with regard to grape? 

Is slave taking a part of Inuit culture?  I have not studied them.  But can it be that living essentially in a giant Indian Reservation a little bit resource intensive in terms of policing and security?  Perhaps a little more than Denmark wants to pay for, hence the sterilizations?  Can it be some natives prefer captive taking to learning the seemingly dis-empowering Euro-centric values which facilitate civilized living?  Can it be that learning such values makes them feel dumb and disempowered?  Because they would have to work strongly against culture and epigenetics?

[chr0naut]

I don't consider illegal alien rapists, murderers, child traffickers "nice and good".

Neither do I.

But any rapists, murderers, child traffickers, including those that have not crossed the Southern border, are bad and evil.

Whether they have crossed that border, or not, is immaterial to them being bad. Your inability to see things that are plain is rather confusing to me. If they have committed real crimes, they are bad. It doesn't matter if they put their socks on before their trousers or some other stupid ruling an authoritarian leadership might perchance impose.

And even bad people are still human and have human rights. Sure, we want to ensure that they can't continue to do bad things, but cruel and unusual punishment is still against their rights, even under the wonky and weird US legal system (that makes armed revolt against the government a primary law - the very 2nd one on statute!). So, I am not advocating that bad guys get off exempt from consequences. I don't think anyone is, really, except in your misunderstanding of a nuanced legality.

The nice and good people, in contrast, always strive to follow the laws, work conscientiously, pay their taxes - fully, feed, clothe, and house their families, sell things for only a reasonable profit, and they also probably tithe at church and give to charity as well.

Those nice and good people are now dealing with an affordability crisis that Trump denies, and that has its roots in the pandemic and Trump's first term (although the higher prices due to outrageous tariffs have some major impact on their current situation).

[Solvedit]

How is Trump supposed to get if he's not planning on just taking it? 

His actions suggest: 

"I am going to bully-sanction allies until they sell, and if they refuse, they are no longer our allies, and i am going to take it anyway." 

It's just posturing.  The Danes' actions suggest they maybe would like to get a good price for it but would like to get rid of it, although the guy in the street may have strong feelings for their heritage and for the status quo.

[putnam6]

While the US in centuries past is far from innocent in its treatment of native populations, and while the sterilizations are a genuine human rights tragedy, there is another issue.

The quite recent actions against native Greenlanders suggests Denmark may simply not have the resources to cope with the place, much less develop and defend it.

Denmark may well be in secret agreement. Their recent moves to "defend" the place may simply be an indication of their resolve to not give it away for nothing.

Yeah, the subject is Greenland, besides native Alaskans get decent oil bennies and have for a while, this could be a model used in Greenland 

There are obvious advantages to just one lump sum payment however, each person would receive life-changing monies immediately, 

Do the Inuit in alaska profit from oil revenue

Yes, many Inuit (specifically Iñupiat) people in Alaska benefit from oil revenue, though the mechanisms differ from the general population and depend on factors like residency, enrollment in Native corporations, and location.

Alaska's oil revenue primarily comes from state-owned lands (e.g., Prudhoe Bay and North Slope fields), funding the Alaska Permanent Fund.

At least 25% of mineral royalties go into this fund, whose investment earnings provide an annual Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) to all eligible Alaska residents — including Alaska Native people (such as Inuit/Iñupiat).

The PFD is the same amount for everyone who qualifies (typically around $1,000–$2,000 in recent years, with higher amounts in some past years due to oil prices or bonuses).

Eligibility requires being an Alaska resident for a full year, intending to stay indefinitely, and meeting other criteria — it is not race-based.

In addition, Alaska Natives (including Inuit groups) have a separate, significant benefit through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, which created regional and village corporations. For the North Slope Inuit (Iñupiat):

• The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) owns substantial land with oil potential and has profited heavily from oil and gas activities. This includes royalties, leases, and subsidiaries in oilfield services, refining, and more. ASRC has generated billions in revenue (e.g., $2.5 billion gross in some years) and distributed hundreds of millions in dividends to its ~14,000 Iñupiat shareholders over time, plus support for scholarships, training, and community programs.
  
• Under ANCSA, when resources are developed on Native corporation lands, a portion of royalties (30% to the owning corporation, 70% shared among all regional corporations) provides broader benefits to Alaska Natives.
  
• ASRC has been a major advocate for oil development (e.g., in areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain) and has received direct payments from oil companies as a result.
  

Not every individual Inuit person in Alaska receives corporate dividends (it depends on enrollment as a shareholder), but many in northern Alaska do, and these can be substantial compared to the universal PFD. Overall, oil revenue has been a key economic driver for Alaska Native communities on the North Slope, supporting jobs, infrastructure, and cultural/economic programs alongside the statewide dividend system.This dual structure means Inuit Alaskans often benefit both as general residents (via PFD) and through Native-specific corporate ownership and revenue sharing.

[Solvedit]

Yeah, the subject is Greenland, besides native Alaskans get decent oil bennies and have for a while, this could be a model used in Greenland 

There are obvious advantages to just one lump sum payment however, each person would receive life-changing monies immediately, 

Even though the US' primary interest is definitely not the rights of native Greenlanders, the US could probably do a better job of investing in projects which generated money which made humane treatment of native Greenlanders much more likely than the present state of affairs.

But any rapists, murderers, child traffickers, including those that have not crossed the Southern border, are bad and evil.

And even bad people are still human and have human rights. Sure, we want to ensure that they can't continue to do bad things, but cruel and unusual punishment is still against their rights, even under the wonky and weird US legal system (that makes armed revolt against the government a primary law - the very 2nd one on statute!). So, I am not advocating that bad guys get off exempt from consequences. I don't think anyone is, really, except in your misunderstanding of a nuanced legality.

The nice and good people, in contrast, always strive to follow the laws, work conscientiously, pay their taxes - fully, feed, clothe, and house their families, sell things for only a reasonable profit, and they also probably tithe at church and give to charity as well.

Those nice and good people are now dealing with an affordability crisis that Trump denies, and that has its roots in the pandemic and Trump's first term (although the higher prices due to outrageous tariffs have some major impact on their current situation).

Prices went up because wages went up, but I digress.  Cronut's remarks are as much relevant to Greenland as to his mild delusions about life in the US. 

The Greenlanders may have been facing an affordability crisis in dealing with the natives for reasons I already mentioned.  The US might be able to develop a tax base in Greenland which makes humane treatment of the natives a possibility.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

It's just posturing.  The Danes' actions suggest they maybe would like to get a good price for it but would like to get rid of it, although the guy in the street may have strong feelings for their heritage and for the status quo.

So how long do i have to watch The Tyrant CEO of America try to leverage a hostile takeover of the Danish subsidiary called Greenland? 

Can he separate a business deal from relation-killing territorial acquisition? 

I think they may be serious about the "Not For Sale" thing. And im not ready to go on the assumption they are masking trying to get 1.5 trillion or something.  That seems more like Trump's projection that EVERYTHING has a price.

And if everything has a price, Can they buy something from us? A trade even? 

I love HYGGE too! 

And that was a dismissive joke once.  Like, "yeah, whatever."

[Solvedit]

I think they may be serious about the "Not For Sale" thing. And im not ready to go on the assumption they are masking trying to get a better price.  That seems like Trump's projection that EVERYTHING has a price.

Can it be they realize they are failing if they were sterilizing natives 20 years ago?  Can it be the denial needs time to break down? 

Hopefully, even if they keep the place, they let in more foreign investment instead of hiding that they can't manage the natives.

Can they defend the place against China and Russia if they can't even manage the natives without eugenics programs?  It spells out that they can't extract enough money to afford to manage the place.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Can it be they realize they are failing if they were sterilizing natives 20 years ago?  Can it be the denial needs time to break down? 

Only after our lengthy history of doing the same damn thing in the 60s and 70s breaks down its denial first.

Like we have The Good Guy Badge on compulsory eugenics...

[SomeStupidName]

Neither do I.

But any rapists, murderers, child traffickers, including those that have not crossed the Southern border, are bad and evil.

Whether they have crossed that border, or not, is immaterial to them being bad. Your inability to see things that are plain is rather confusing to me. If they have committed real crimes, they are bad. It doesn't matter if they put their socks on before their trousers or some other stupid ruling an authoritarian leadership might perchance impose.

And even bad people are still human and have human rights. Sure, we want to ensure that they can't continue to do bad things, but cruel and unusual punishment is still against their rights, even under the wonky and weird US legal system (that makes armed revolt against the government a primary law - the very 2nd one on statute!). So, I am not advocating that bad guys get off exempt from consequences. I don't think anyone is, really, except in your misunderstanding of a nuanced legality.

The nice and good people, in contrast, always strive to follow the laws, work conscientiously, pay their taxes - fully, feed, clothe, and house their families, sell things for only a reasonable profit, and they also probably tithe at church and give to charity as well.

Those nice and good people are now dealing with an affordability crisis that Trump denies, and that has its roots in the pandemic and Trump's first term (although the higher prices due to outrageous tariffs have some major impact on their current situation).

So what is cruel and unusual about what is happening now vs when it happened under any other administration? As far as I know the same procedures are being followed except this time there is more attention being drawn to it. I know rumors have spread but what actual evidence exists of current actions being cruel and or unusual? I'm still trying to figure out where all the tariffs have raised my cost of living complaints are coming from since gas prices have dropped off I haven't noticed any increases in my monthly spending in fact I have started to see more money accumulate in my checking account. Maybe life is just better in FL compared to other places idk, but I'm not experiencing any affordability issues.