Greenland Deal - Trump won again
Trump’s ‘framework’ of a deal for Greenland is ‘the next best solution,’ expert says
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/tr … pert-says/
Trump’s Greenland Deal: A Masterstroke in More Ways Than One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwEwrtw7SHM
Good explanation about Greenland, and Japan's economic woes.What framework, KEN?
All I see was an agreement to allow for increased US military presence in Greenland, neither, Greenland, Denmark or NATO was in dispute over this. The US has in cooperation with NATO always had this option, so, so what?
There still will be no talk of territorial annexation, so how does Trump here?If a framework moves forward, there are some real upsides worth paying attention to. Strengthening Arctic security matters, especially with increased activity from Russia and China, and Greenland’s location is strategically huge for early warning and defense. There’s also the benefit of improving access to critical minerals, which helps reduce reliance on unstable or unfriendly supply chains. Add in infrastructure investment, better surveillance capabilities, and stronger coordination with allies, and it’s easy to see why analysts view this as more about long-term stability and preparedness than politics. If done carefully and with respect for sovereignty, it could be a net positive for security and economic resilience.
In my view, this deal would benefit the US, and I hope it works out. I hope to see America move forward, not backward or stay status quo.
There is a framework that is being negotiated
.https://www.news24.com/world/greenland-pm-seeks-concrete-results-from-us-talks-20260202-0955?utm_source=chatgpt.comYup, we are entering into a different world.
The "rules based international order", also known as the liberal international order, created after WWII... of laws, agreements, and institutions aimed at promoting global cooperation and stability... is ending.
Institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, etc.
All of which are being ignored or run roughshod by China, since China was allowed into the WTO they have become the dominant trade nation in the world.
America needs to secure now, while it is still in a position that allows it to do so, those territories and trade partners it needs to survive, to not be dependent on other nations for is needs.
China's threat to withhold critical rare earth minerals, China's threat to take Taiwan (which makes 90% of the world's chips) showed how dependent America had become, how hollowed out by China (and offshoring in general) American industry has become.
The world is about to be divvied up, whether anyone likes it or not, China is going to do what is best for China, and crap all over any nation that is not a nuclear power that tries to get in its way.
America needs to adapt to this new reality or it will be steamrolled.
The EU is already a lost cause, on borrowed time, its fate was sealed when the Ukraine war broke out and the gas-lines were blown. All that cheap oil, gas, and raw resources gone.I agree with you. I think what many people still don’t want to admit is that the post-WWII “rules-based order” only functioned as long as the major players chose to respect it, and China never truly did. It used those institutions as leverage, not guardrails, and the result is exactly what you describe: hollowed-out Western industry and dangerous dependencies. The Taiwan and rare-earth examples weren’t hypothetical warnings; they were flashing red lights. In a world where power politics are back, pretending multilateral institutions can restrain authoritarian states is naïve. China will always act in China’s interest, and any nation that isn’t militarily or economically insulated will be coerced. The U.S. doesn’t need to dominate the world, but it does need secure supply chains, reliable partners, and strategic control over what it cannot afford to lose. Adaptation isn’t aggression; it’s survival.
Did you catch the news today regarding "Project Vault"? --- It really does sound wonderful — and it’s another example of Trump doing what he does best: detecting upcoming problems and solving them before they occur. This new plan, Project Vault, will create a strategic critical minerals reserve, basically a stockpile of rare earths and other essential metals our economy and defense depend on, so we aren’t at the mercy of China or anyone else for supply. With about $12 billion in seed funding — roughly $10 billion from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and about $1.6 billion in private investment, it’s like a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the modern tech and manufacturing world. This isn’t just talk; it’s real action on strengthening supply chains and protecting America’s future. Love him or hate him, this is Trump anticipating where the global economy is headed and positioning us so we’re not caught flat-footed later.
ALSO today there was a major announcement involving India and oil/energy trade with the U.S.:
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/tru … hatgpt.com
He is on a roll...So well said.
China uses Western civility and liberalism to infiltrate and exploit.
China is on a mission, if you understand China's history, its 100 years of humiliation brought upon it by the UK/West, this makes sense, and China itself has said this is its goal, that it works towards as a unified Nation... to essentially dominate and subjugate the globe for its own... or as much of it as possible.
What am I referring to is explained here:
How The British Used Opium To Cripple China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Svu7P8Pfg
The Reverse Opium War: China’s Brutal Payback To America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvjnDyarBw
Those trying to preserve the old order... the dominance of the Dollar as the world's only real reserve... a transnational world where corporations could go anywhere and owed no loyalty to any nation... is very quickly dying.
I don't watch MSM so I don't know if this is being relayed to Americans, I doubt it... this is why Trump will take Greenland, not because he is nuts, but because it is nuts not to recognize the shifting world and our need to secure it for our security and resource needs.
The nations of the world are not going to hold hands and drink coke anymore, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others are all making that as obvious as can be... even if the politicians want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend otherwise, while the MSM distracts and deceives.I completely agree with your take, it’s a well-researched perspective. The old global order, dominated by the dollar and multinational corporations with no real national loyalty, is clearly shifting. What you shared about China, Russia, and other nations making their intentions obvious shows why Trump’s moves, like Greenland, aren’t reckless; they’re strategic.
Unfortunately, much of the left-leaning media aren’t reporting the positive actions he’s taking. The news is often skewed to feed Trump haters, ignoring the strategic and economic maneuvers he’s making. I don’t say this lightly, but in my lifetime, I believe he’s been the most effective president at seeing potential problems before they become crises. I make a point of following what he’s actually doing, and I see deals and maneuvers that are designed to quickly repair some of the damage left by previous administrations.
I must say, I have never witnessed such progress in so many areas. From what I am seeing, our economy will boom this year. And this alone will hit Dems like a ton of bricks.
I always believed that the United States has had much of a free-hand in concert with NATO, Denmark and Greenland in its security needs regarding the island, but they are not allowed to own it. But that was the understanding long before this controversy reared its head. So, why shake up an entire international community over something that was not going to happen?
I agree with your thinking. The U.S. has had a long-standing and well-established security role in Greenland through NATO and agreements with Denmark going back to WWII and the Cold War. Denmark retains sovereignty, Greenland has self-rule, and the U.S. already operates strategically critical bases there with broad latitude. Ownership was never realistic, and that understanding existed long before this ever became a public controversy.
Where I think Trump’s importance comes in is that he refused to let Arctic security remain a quiet, behind-the-scenes issue while Russia and China expand their presence. His language may have broken diplomatic norms, but the signal was clear: Greenland matters again, the Arctic is becoming a frontline, and the U.S. can’t afford complacency. This wasn’t about a literal purchase. It was about forcing allies and the international community to confront strategic realities they were comfortable ignoring. Trump has a pattern of identifying long-term problems early and pushing them into the open, even if it makes people uncomfortable. In this case, the policy didn’t radically change, but the urgency did, and that, in my view, was the point.
NATO has never considered building a dome to protect the United States, and until recently, many member nations weren’t even meeting their required financial commitments. Trump’s approach is truly forward-looking; he’s focused on strengthening our defenses and protecting America in a world that has become far more dangerous. Let Europe handle Europe; when it comes to superior protection, America must lead.
I would be more than happy to see the U.S. protected by a defensive dome. The world is not as safe as it was twenty years ago, and pretending otherwise would be irresponsible. Trump may be seen as aggressive, but forward-looking defense is exactly what this moment demands.Interesting article from the scientific community
https://thebulletin.org/2026/02/trump-d … hitecture.
Could this just be Reagan’s Star Wars II the sequel?
From the film “War Games”, the only way to win is not to play.
We would not consider spending this much money and squander this much political capital to protect against cherry bombs, it is in regard to thermonuclear exchanges.
How does NATo benefit from a protective dome in non-American alliance territory that protects the United States at cost approaching 3 trillion, with a T, dollars?
Antagonizing and threatening a long term alliance is not in our best interests, in spite of boast from neo-cons, we cannot do all of the necessary defense alone. Why did Trump not start with the realization that Greenland ownership was not realistic before he sturs up a witches caldron? If you attack and intimidate allies, you push them away.
Much of the same vulnerabilities identified in Reagans “Star Wars” have not really been eliminated. But perhaps not. Who out here is qualified to weigh in on this?
A fair assessment:
Trump’s Golden Dome is pitched as a more practical, sensor‑driven, geographically anchored missile defense system compared to Reagan’s space‑fantasy SDI. While both are enormously expensive and controversial, Golden Dome leans on existing missile‑interception technologies and Arctic geography, whereas SDI depended on speculative space weapons that never materialized.
Sharlee, I simply do not like his “bull in the China shop” abrasive style neither in domestic matters nor those abroad. You can call that TDS if you like but he has earned the title and concern.I don’t think they’re unreasonable. A defensive dome, cost, alliance cohesion, and escalation risks are all legitimate questions. Where I differ is in the assumption that Trump’s approach was primarily about ownership, intimidation, or acting alone rather than about forcing overdue strategic conversations into the open.
On Greenland specifically, I don’t see this as a failure to recognize reality beforehand. I see it as recognizing that quiet diplomacy had already failed to generate urgency. The Arctic didn’t suddenly become strategically important when Trump spoke out; Russia and China had already been moving aggressively for years, while Western allies largely treated the region as a secondary issue. His bluntness may have violated diplomatic etiquette, but it succeeded in one undeniable way: Greenland and Arctic security stopped being background noise and became front-page strategic issues.
As for alliances, I don’t think calling attention to asymmetries within NATO automatically equals antagonizing allies. For decades, the U.S. absorbed disproportionate defense burdens while many partners failed to meet commitments. Pointing that out, even uncomfortably, doesn’t weaken alliances by default; it can also strengthen them by forcing honesty. Strong alliances aren’t built on silence or politeness alone, but on shared responsibility.
Regarding the “Golden Dome” comparison to SDI, I think the distinction you noted actually matters. Reagan’s SDI relied on speculative space-based systems that simply didn’t exist. Today’s missile defense discussions are grounded in real interception technologies, layered sensors, and geographic advantages we already understand. That doesn’t make the cost trivial or the risks disappear, but it does make the analogy imperfect. Dismissing it outright as “Star Wars II” risks understating how much the threat environment and technology has changed.
I also don’t interpret forward-leaning defense as rejecting diplomacy or cooperation. Deterrence has always been about convincing adversaries that aggression won’t succeed. A credible defensive posture can reduce the incentive to strike rather than invite it. The “only way to win is not to play” works in fiction, but history suggests deterrence fails when defenses lag behind threats.
On style, I don’t love abrasive politics either. But I separate style from substance. Trump’s delivery is often crude, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate the strategic questions he raises. Sometimes, disruption is what forces institutions and allies out of comfortable inertia. That doesn’t mean every tactic was perfect, but it does mean the conversation itself was necessary.
So while I respect your caution, I don’t see this as reckless chest-thumping or alliance sabotage. I see it as an uncomfortable but intentional recalibration toward a world that is demonstrably more dangerous than it was twenty years ago.
The problem with this golden dome as with all similar defensive arrays is that it is half assed, but not deliberately so. Three trillion dollars needs to buy foolproof. The scientific community is saying that such a defense may well be effective against 50 to 60 percent of a nuclear barrage from either China or Russia, but the remaining 40 percent is more than enough to obliterate this entire continent. Russia is reported to have at least 2,000 warheads. It is fiction to believe that there is any real deterrent to a nuclear exchange or that there is an acceptable number of causalities in such an exchange. Without far greater levels of effectiveness against enemy nuclear bombs, this all is just an expensive waste of time and money in my opinion.
So, I repeat, the only way to win is not to play…….
Why would NATo be exclusively concerned about protecting solely American territory, what is about the rest of the member nations, are they too not threatened? If the entire alliance is not to benefit, why not just locate such a dome on American soil?
Yes, Greenland matters, make the point without asking or demanding the impossible, can he do that?I understand the skepticism, but this argument assumes that deterrence and defense must be perfect to be worthwhile. That’s never been how military strategy has worked, especially in the nuclear age. No serious policymaker is claiming a missile defense system makes nuclear war “winnable” or casualties acceptable. The point is risk reduction, not invincibility.
If a defensive system can intercept even 50–60% of incoming warheads, that fundamentally alters an adversary’s calculations. Deterrence isn’t binary; it’s psychological and strategic. Introducing uncertainty, about how many weapons get through, which targets survive, and whether command-and-control remains intact—raises the cost of launching an attack and lowers the incentive to do so. That is deterrence, even if it isn’t foolproof.
The “only way to win is not to play” argument sounds principled, but it ignores reality. We don’t get to opt out of other nations’ decisions. Russia and China are modernizing their arsenals whether we build defenses or not. Choosing to remain fully exposed doesn’t make the world safer, it just guarantees maximum damage if deterrence fails.
As for NATO, missile defense has never been about placing a single shield over every member nation. NATO already operates through layered, distributed defense, early warning systems, regional interceptors, naval assets, and shared intelligence. A U.S.-based system doesn’t exclude allies; it strengthens the alliance’s overall resilience and preserves U.S. capabilities that NATO itself depends on. If the U.S. is neutralized, the alliance collapses anyway.
And yes, Greenland matters. Geography still matters. Pointing that out isn’t imperialism or fantasy; it’s basic strategic reality in Arctic and missile-trajectory terms. Acknowledging that doesn’t require “demanding the impossible,” just being honest about defense logistics.
This isn’t about chasing perfection. It’s about refusing to accept total vulnerability as a virtue.
Gosh, your analogy leaves me scratching my head.
Saying a missile defense isn’t worth having unless it stops everything is like refusing to install a fire department because it can’t save every house in a citywide blaze. You don’t demand perfection to justify protection, you reduce damage, buy time, and change outcomes. Choosing total vulnerability because defense isn’t flawless isn’t wisdom; it’s abandoning basic common sense.Well laid out.
The EU and UK have been able to develop the social services and 0 carbon agendas because America has paid the freight for their defense, has maintained global order which they benefited from, etc.
65-year old retirees now make more (social services) income than working age adults (timestamped):
https://youtu.be/Yplm58i7uzE?t=146
More than 50% of the expenditures in the UK and France go to, what we would call social security and welfare.
And yet they are bringing in millions of migrants and adding more people onto their social services.
As if they are not on the verge of imminent economic collapse.I so agree, to add a deeper issue is that these policies assume stability is permanent and self-sustaining. Social services only function when there is a growing, productive base to support them, yet Europe is shrinking its workforce, aging rapidly, and adding millions of people who initially require more public support than they contribute. At the same time, ideological energy and climate targets are being pursued as if supply chains, defense, and industrial capacity are optional details. That’s not long-term planning—it’s governance disconnected from consequences. You can’t run a society on moral ambition alone while outsourcing hard realities like security, energy, and fiscal discipline and expect the system to hold indefinitely. Ideologies won't pay the bills or defend one's nation if it comes in harm's way.
Here is my reply, we may ultimately have to agree to disagree. As a critic I join other Critics in questioning whether the U.S. should commit trillions to a system with uncertain effectiveness.
I did not say that missile defense does not have a purpose. Your analogy is a poor one. The levels of “protection” have to be weighed against the costs which will be taken from domestic programs with real statistical problems rather than a subjective assessment of psychological effects and considerations from the standpoint of our adversaries. My point being, after a true nuclear exchange and holocaust there will be nothing to save, within the range current technology, shields or domes not withstanding. I want for the price, fewer flaws and far less vulnerability. Do we really need to spend 3 trillion dollars to maintain the illusion of actual deterrence?
======
Controversy Over the Golden Dome Project
The Golden Dome is a large‑scale missile‑defense initiative launched by President Donald Trump. Since its announcement, it has generated significant controversy across technical, political, strategic, and ethical dimensions.
---
1. Lack of Progress & Internal Disagreements
Despite billions of dollars allocated, the project has made little visible progress a year after launch.
• Technical disagreements—especially over space‑based components—have slowed implementation.
• The White House has not released much of the funding Congress appropriated, preventing the Pentagon from beginning large‑scale deployment.
---
2. Leaks and Secrecy Issues
Although the administration intended to keep development highly classified, details of the system have repeatedly leaked.
• These leaks have raised concerns about internal dysfunction and the feasibility of the program.
3. Feasibility and Effectiveness Concerns
Experts argue that Golden Dome resembles earlier missile‑defense efforts—like Reagan’s SDI—that failed to meet their promises.
• Critics say the system is unlikely to work as advertised.
• Some warn it could increase conflict by destabilizing nuclear deterrence rather than improving safety.
4. Strategic & Geopolitical Risks
Foreign governments—especially Russia—have criticized the project as provocative.
• Russia warns that the system could undermine global nuclear stability, potentially triggering an arms race.
5. Cost & Scale Concerns
The Golden Dome is described as one of the largest military undertakings ever, with enormous financial and logistical demands.
• Critics question whether the U.S. should commit trillions to a system with uncertain effectiveness.
6. Unrealistic Timelines
Trump promised a fully operational national missile shield within three years, a timeline experts say is not remotely achievable given the complexity of the required sensor and interceptor network.
In Summary:
The Golden Dome project is controversial because it is expensive, delayed, technically uncertain, strategically risky, and politically fraught, with critics arguing it may do more to destabilize global security than to protect the U.S.
So, Sharlee, do these points constitute reasonable explanations why many of us question the program?Yes, I agree, time to agree to disagree-- seems I am getting an AI view, instead of a human. I liked your original comment better; it offered your thoughts, and I respected them and debated them. It's safe to say we are at a wall on this issue.
AI is an aid to bring information and points to a discussion that I may otherwise over look or did not consider. It does not replace my human dialogue, I use information from AI to enhance my position, not speak for me.
The information reflects where your head (opinion) is at.
How I have seen it used in these forums confirms that, they are used to reflect bias not change it or correct it.
Why is it a bad decision to move to Florida
Moving to Florida can be a bad decision for several reasons, including:
Extreme Weather: Florida's climate is classified as a "humid subtropical," with high humidity and extreme heat for most of the year. This can be uncomfortable and may lead to health issues for those who are sensitive to heat and humidity.
High Property Taxes: Homeowners may be surprised by the high property taxes, which can be higher than in other states due to reassessment based on the purchase price.
Traffic and Congestion: Florida is known for its traffic, especially in cities like Orlando and Miami-Dade, which can be a significant inconvenience for commuters.
Limited Job Opportunities: Florida may not offer as many job opportunities as other states, which can be a concern for those looking for a stable career.
Environmental Concerns: Rising sea levels and climate change threaten Florida's coastal areas, making it a vulnerable state to natural disasters.
Lack of Cultural Diversity: Florida may not have the same level of cultural diversity as other states, which can be a drawback for those seeking a rich cultural experience.
These factors, among others, can make moving to Florida a challenging decision for some individuals.
why is it a good reason to move to florida
Moving to Florida can be a good decision for several reasons:
Warm Weather: Florida enjoys a warm climate year-round, making it ideal for those who prefer sunny weather. The state offers 250 days of sunshine annually, which can improve mood and mental health.
Cost of Living: The absence of state income tax allows residents to keep more of their earnings, which can be a significant financial benefit.
Natural Beauty: Florida's diverse landscapes, including national and state parks, offer a wide variety of outdoor activities and beautiful scenery.
Diverse Wildlife: The state is home to a variety of wildlife, including alligators, snakes, and various bird species, which can be a draw for nature enthusiasts.
Affordable Living: Compared to many northern states, Florida has lower property taxes, making it more affordable for residents.
These factors contribute to Florida's appeal as a destination for those looking for a better lifestyle, particularly if they value warm weather, outdoor activities, and a laid-back atmosphere.
How you frame the question determines the answer AI gives you. Compounded by the AI already having a track record of who you are, so it caters to you (that would take a whole lot of explaining I don't want to get into now.)The old adage claims there are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. AI has given us a 4th type.
GA ;-)Bias Confirmation... which ultimately will turn into programming and resetting of history, facts, etc.
Reminds me of that old story you recommended... the people living in isolation in their chambers with AI providing them everything, from food to entertainment and people rarely left to interact with others. And then it began failing... and they had no ability to survive in the real world.
Well, Ken, it depends on how you the question as in my case, “What are the controversial issues surrounding Trumps Golden Dome defense system. I already suspected what they were without having to go on line to investigate. But I can’t rely of biased sources much that you find on U-tube diatribes to give me a complete picture. An objective answer allows me to make corrections in my understanding instead of doubling down on misinformation. If I want my statements to reflect more than just political bias, I can just go with my “gut” or opinion, as do Trump supporters. You are human, it is not possible to have access to every bit of information to make a point supporting an opinion all of the time without research.
Instead, you needed to ask what are the pros and cons of moving to Florida, if you want a more relevant response?"What are the controversial issues"
That sets what the AI will seek out... that is fine if you are looking for the negative.
"what are the benefits of Trumps Golden Dome defense"
Golden Dome represents an effort to adapt, using available technologies and new integration approaches to reduce vulnerability and strengthen deterrence. And to give policymakers more options to deal with an array of threats through active defenses, short of having to resort to nuclear responses.
----
That is the short and sweet AI reply to the question (above).
Your answer matches your bias... you wanted the negatives, it gave you negatives.
[add]
We see how effective such defense could be, when Israel's defenses stopped hundreds of rockets fired from Iran.
While a Golden Dome might not stop a full out attack by Russia... it might stop any attack from a lesser nuclear nation, like Pakistan, from ever being able to launch a successful attack against America using rockets.
What does AI think?
The Golden Dome defense initiative is a proposed multi-layer missile defense system for the United States, aiming to protect the homeland from a wide range of missile threats. It is designed to detect and destroy ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles before they launch or during their flight. The initiative has been compared to Israel's Iron Dome defense system, which has been operational since 2011 and has successfully intercepted thousands of rockets aimed at populated areas. The Golden Dome system is expected to encompass a constellation of satellites equipped with sensors and interceptors, providing global coverage.Why look further, I got all you Trumpies to remind me of the benefits of the golden dome, I act as the devils advocate in a such a case.
Come on...
Look, you, me, the entire world... we are all in shock ... we are all in various stages of denial, panic, disbelief...
I am just rounding the corner of acceptance and resignation myself... and I figure I am better than most at snapping my head around to deal with things... That is my forte, I am one of those people that shines brightest when the shit is hitting the fan... but this...
2020 we are hit with a "Global Pandemic" ... and the virus wasn't what shook everyone to the core... it was the assault on our sanity by a Main Stream Media that barraged us that we had to take the vaccine and that those who didn't want to were evil, should be jailed, etc.
It was our freedoms being stripped away by Governors that went roque, that allowed riots in their streets to take-over... that went gestapo on their states locking people in their homes, banning anyone online that spoke out, etc.
We went from a free society to a world wide prison where travel was banned and even walking outdoors could be challenged in some States.
2022 ... And our leaders walk is right into WWIII... the fiasco of Afghanistan barely in the rear view mirror and we were rearing to go against Russia.
And here we are in the midst of a global revision of world order... the dollar being dumped by nations left and right, former allies lining up to prostrate themselves in front of China...
All this while AI is ripping apart the very way civilization operates.
Hey, I do use AI sometimes. But not when I'm trying to share my own opinion. I don't believe anyone's opinion needs to be vetted, sourced, or even explained in detail if the person sharing it doesn't feel it's necessary.
In my view, that long list you offered was pulled together by AI from many other sources. However, if that AI-generated narrative fully suits your view, no problem. The truth is, we don't really need free speech as much anymore. If more people just let AI spit out a view, which ultimately comes from media sources, it cuts out the middleman: the human brain.The question remains. we all have an opinion are the reasons behind the opinion correct or does it reflect misinformation?
I noticed in the conversation with Nathanville of England, regarding censorship, how an opinion could be biased and short on information as compared to someone who lives in the environment and can be more objective. Our biases often times coat our opinions. Living in the society he knows more about the concepts of censorship beyond those that merely speculate, unfamiliar with the environment.
Unless it is all just “pie in the sky”, what is the basis for our opinions and are they really factually objective? I like to believe that I am conversing with intelligent people, any opinion that I offer is going to based upon more than “I just say so”.
A pertinent AI search would allow me to screen out errors and misconceptions on my part, that adds to a more relevant discussion. But, I can see using it as an outline, to write my book report than posting the results directly.I feel opinions are fundamentally subjective; they come from personal feelings, life experiences, values, intuitions, and a whole mix of variables that aren't purely factual. Unlike facts (which can be proven true or false with evidence), an opinion doesn't require hard proof to exist or to be sincerely held. You can legitimately say "I feel this way because of what I've been through," or "This is how I see it based on my experiences," and that's valid as an expression of your perspective.
That said, when someone provides reasons to support or defend their opinion, especially to persuade others, judge reality, or declare something true, wrong, or right, those reasons can and often should be checked for accuracy.
I agree that Nathan likely has a clearer, more experienced perspective on his country's censorship laws, since his view stems from direct knowledge of how they work in practice. He noted that while the laws exist and are sometimes enforced, most people who get arrested usually receive only a minor penalty, a "slap on the wrist." The discussion then expanded into broader questions about freedom of speech.
From my perspective, any law that restricts or dictates what people can say simply wouldn't be tolerated in the US, regardless of how lenient the enforcement might be. I don't think Nathan was biased; his viewpoint simply differs based on his context and experience, and the laws don't bother him the way they would here. Likewise, my stance that such laws would face strong resistance in the US isn't biased either; it's shaped by our different cultural and legal mindsets.
Ultimately, it comes down to mindset. I do agree that biases can color opinions.
As I mentioned earlier, I turn to AI most often when I'm looking for verifiable facts, quotes, or historical information. That said, I think relying heavily on AI can sometimes skew personal opinions by overwhelming people with information, causing their own thoughts and experiences to get lost in the flood.
Because some nations... like the UK, France, Germany, etc. are getting in bed with China.
China, the nation buying out their remaining industry and making them dependent on their products... China, the nation supporting Russia in its war against Ukraine and by extension the EU.
That is why Trump is slapping them in the face with this (Greenland ... his telling them THEY are paying for their war against Russia, not US)...
These 'nations' are telling America to F off when we say we want better trade deals... they whine and expect us to pay for NATO and fight the war against Russia... while they kiss the feet of China and let China bleed their nations dry... just because they are suicidal doesn't mean we need to die with them!It is called economic self interest, something that is not an alien concept to the United States. How dependent are we on products from China?
I am not an economist and need to research your criticism regarding the Europeans resisting American requests for greater parity in regards lot international trade.
Well, I have to wait to give a more definitive answer, but trust me, the US will be much more 'involved' with Greenland by 2027 than it is currently.
What that entails, time will tell.
I have something for you to watch/consider:
The Next World Reserve Currency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qX9qPA9vs4I watched the video and am concerned about the changing global scene. So, do we become like the “strategists” mentioned in an earlier video, North Korea, China, Russia? What do they all have in common? Does America need to dismantle its Constitution and rule of law to compete with them? We become no better than the nations we criticize. What is the point if my freedoms and rights are gone, regardless of who takes them? How do we correlate aggression abroad with democracy at home? Are we advocating that democracy is anachronism in today’s world? China is diabolical, but if they offer other nations funding and support what do we offer to counter it, saber rattling does not provide an answer.
What is the calm sensible solution to this and why do you think Trump has all the answers? I don’t have that confidence.What I think will happen, what is best for our freedoms and liberties, is if the majority of these International Corporations and Financial behemoths like BlackRock unite with America in securing what falls under direct American control/influence.
If that means we steam roll over what the governments of Greenland or Canada for that matter wants... too Fn bad. Because everything else is going to fall under China/Russia (BRICS & OPEC).
That might very well end up being the EU as well... if we can't protect our own damned country, we sure as heck can't defend the EU.
If this was pure economics and industrial capabilities... America and all its allies would be toast, displaced by China and its allies as the dominant force on the planet calling the shots.
When the USSR collapsed, it inadvertently or knowingly set America and its Western allies down the path of de-industrialization... China changed from rice paddies and isolation, to global industrial heart and biggest trade network ever seen on earth in 40 years.
China today has twice as many trade agreements with nations (121 to 63) as America does. China has created the future of currency, digital currency and digital wallets, face recognition and Social Credit.
China is years ahead of America and the West in many such things, they are pioneering a new future and have made inroads throughout Asia and Africa that America never did.
A lot of turmoil is likely ahead... so much change, so little time to adapt.
But what is clear is that China and Russia don't plan on following the rules or being nice just for the sake of it... and since they have plenty of nukes... we are going to have to secure our aera of influence and give them theirs.Ok, Ken, I can go along with the content of your first paragraph, if these entities you speak of want to cooperate.
Democracy is threatened if this steamrolling means stealing the sovereign rights and prerogatives of other nations. What allies do China have? They have business partners in other nations that they provided infrastructure support to that was not provided by the US for any number of reasons. You cannot force that backwards.
So why blame China for wanting to raise its standards of living, de-industrialization has nothing to do with geopolitical intrigue, but with plain simple economics. Costs of producing was cheaper in non affluent nations, so under your vaunted Capitalism where do you think the money and resources would go” China worked to get to the position they are in just as in previous century, America did the same. Why does China have more trade agreements? Perhaps for developing nations there are not as many strings attached to get the assistance. The numerical difference needs to explain the why and wherefore. How did China get ahead, maybe we need to generate the resourcefulness that they have been demonstrating?
We are going to have to be smarter than this as a military response will be of no benefit, China does it all without firing a shot? We have to expect that all the major players are going to do what is to their benefit, the US has certainly taken advantage of the advantages that it has had in the past, why expect others not to do the same?
The global scene is ever-changing and at an accelerated pace. You ask, "Do we become strategists like North Korea, China, Russia?: Is it not logical that if large, powerful Nations are strategizing, we would use strategy to keep far ahead of these forms of rogue, unsrupulous nations? Your context seems to say you believe. You ask, "Does America need to dismantle its Constitution and rule of law to compete with them?"
Do you believe this administration is dismantling our Constitution? If so, I must ask for examples. I will debate that statement, if need be.
"What is the point if my freedoms and rights are gone, regardless of who takes them?" Cred
What rights have you lost under President Trump? If you make these claims, you need to give some form of reasonable example. Otherwise, the statement dangles in mid-air, and holds no water.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy, whether it’s using strong military postures, sanctions, or tough negotiations, can be balanced with democracy at home if it’s paired with transparency, clear goals, and respect for institutions. Aggressive action abroad doesn’t have to weaken democratic norms domestically as long as Congress and the courts retain oversight, the press and citizens can freely question decisions, and civil liberties are protected. In practice, this means that while Trump can act boldly on the world stage, those actions shouldn’t be used to justify concentrating power at home or limiting debate. A democracy that restrains itself even while asserting strength abroad is more likely to preserve freedom and accountability at home; when foreign aggression becomes an excuse for unchecked domestic power, democracy suffers.
In my view, democracy isn’t an anachronism; it’s still relevant, but it’s also constantly tested, especially in a world with global threats, economic pressures, and powerful foreign actors. The question isn’t whether democracy can survive; it can, but whether leaders and citizens actively protect it while navigating the complexities of modern geopolitics. Strong foreign policies or military actions don’t automatically make democracy outdated; the problem arises when power abroad is mirrored by unchecked power at home, when transparency, debate, and accountability are ignored. In other words, democracy remains vital, but it demands vigilance and balance, especially when a nation acts aggressively on the world stage.
You’re right, saber-rattling alone doesn’t solve the problem. To counter China’s influence, we need a combination of strength and strategy. That means not just military readiness, but also offering nations economic incentives, development support, and reliable partnerships—things that build trust and demonstrate long-term commitment. We have to show that working with the U.S. provides security, stability, and opportunity in a way that goes beyond threats. Aggression alone might intimidate, but lasting influence comes from offering real solutions that help other nations thrive while protecting our own interests.
Balancing strength abroad with accountability at home and real solutions is what builds lasting influence and keeps democracy strong. A leader who acts strategically and transparently can protect our interests globally without undermining stability at home. In my view, Trump is this form of leader.Your reply here is most eloquent. I astonished that we at least agree on the “saber rattling” issue.
I question whether one can use aggressive and combative tactics abroad with it not spilling into our domestic tranquility.
While you marginalize what I believe are threats to the democratic process demonstrated by Trump and his administration, I don’t like those who don’t follow the rules as I can’t trust them. Thus, these general observations, while disputable are front and center for me. I know that you will have your standard retorts for the information provided here, but again it is just my opinion and that is more than enough to hold Trump suspect in my eyes.
—————
How the Trump Administration Threatens Democratic Norms
1. Undermining Informal Democratic Norms
Scholars emphasize that democracy depends not only on laws but also on unwritten norms like mutual toleration and forbearance. Analyses argue that the Trump administration weakened these norms by treating political opponents as illegitimate and pushing the boundaries of executive power beyond traditional restraint.
2. Expanding Executive Authority Beyond Traditional Limits
Research from Brookings highlights that the administration asserted expansive executive authority over federal agencies and spending, often bypassing or pressuring congressional oversight. This erodes the checks and balances the Constitution relies on, especially when Congress declines to push back.
3. Pressuring Democratic Institutions
Analysts note unprecedented tension between the administration and key institutions such as the military, intelligence agencies, and the civil service. Trump’s lack of prior government or military experience meant he did not internalize traditional norms of public service or constitutional restraint, contributing to confrontations with these institutions.
4. Normalizing Norm Violations Among the Public
Studies show that during the Trump presidency, many citizens—especially within his own party—became more tolerant of democratic norm violations when committed by politicians they supported. This broadens the risk of long‑term democratic backsliding by reducing public resistance to anti‑democratic behavior.
5. Attempts to Centralize Control Over Elections
Recent reporting shows Trump calling to “nationalize” U.S. elections, suggesting federal takeover of vote counting in states he labeled “corrupt.” Critics argue this undermines the long‑standing norm of decentralized, state‑run elections and could weaken electoral integrity by concentrating power in the executive branch.
6. Eroding the Rules‑Based International Order
Human Rights Watch and other observers argue that Trump’s approach to foreign policy—marked by hostility toward international norms and institutions—has weakened global democratic guardrails. This not only affects U.S. credibility but also emboldens authoritarian leaders abroad.
7. Weakening Human Rights Protections
Analyses from TIME and others describe the administration as placing relentless pressure on the rules‑based order that protects human rights. As these norms erode, both domestically and internationally, the infrastructure that supports democratic accountability becomes more fragile.
What level of cognitive dissonance would you need to have to not realise that the whole Greenland thing is a deflection from the Epstein scandal to protect Trump and the other peadophiles. Same as the racist Obama meme.
A means of filling the news cycle to lessen the attention given to the fact that Donald Trump is a peadophile, and that 41% of Americans, including apparently you, are supporters and apologists for people who have sex with children.
USA is a country run by peadophiles for the peadophiles.What level of cognitive dissonance would one need to have to not realise that the whole Greenland thing was a means of hogging the news cycle to dampen the impact of the release of the Epstein files. The same as the racist Obama meme.
What level of conspiracy theory thinking is required to believe "the whole Greenland thing" is a means of hogging the news cycle so that the release of Epstein files (which impacts Democrats and degenerates like Clinton and Gates most) or the trivial and inconsequential to world events Obama meme are buried?
For those looking for real thought-provoking news, I offer these links, they also have audio links built in, so you can listen or read:
An Economic and Strategic Analysis of President Trump’s Greenland Acquisition Proposal
https://www.global-economy.site/2026/02 … -proposal/
Trump’s Monroe Doctrine and Its Collision with China’s Belt and Road Initiative
https://www.global-economy.site/2026/02 … nitiative/You misunderstood, I was saying that the Obama meme was another example of a strategic event to detract from the Epstein files.
"which impacts Democrats and degenerates like Clinton and Gates most"
Cool, your entire ruling class are paedophiles. I don't have a dog in that fight, I am not American and do not live in America, it is of absolutely no consequence to me whether the Republicans or Democrats are considered the more or less degenerate.
I'm just observing your pending civil war from afar and hypothesising that it will eventually result in the Balkanisation of the United States and will see to it that the rise of China to becoming the dominant world super power comes a lot sooner than previously anticipated, which isn't something I consider particularly good news.To the last... no, it is not... the Chinese will do to the world what they have done to over one million Uyghurs in "vocational education and training centers" in Xinjiang.
I had an interesting conversation with an individual from China one day, before escorting him onto a plane that was returning him home.
Most Americans cannot go back 3 generations, they don't know their own ancestry, and they don't know their nation's past very well either.
The Chinese are the opposite, families are far more important, they can often trace back hundreds of years. Their type of "racism" would put any 'white supremacist' to shame... to a Chinese family of high stature, what happens to you or I is as meaningless to them as what happens to a cow or chicken in our view... we are something to be consumed, nothing more.
That aside, I do not see a civil war (in the terms you noted) occurring... but if you like, I will give you credit, because we are currently in the midst of it... Trump being elected in 2016 was battle one... Trump losing in 2020 was battle two (and it took a world pandemic and a manufactured color revolution within to make that loss occur) ... Trump winning in 2024 is battle three... and we wait to see the end results coming in 2028.
This is not new stuff for America... there was similar that led to Andrew Jackson... then there was Lincoln and a real Civil War... then there was the subterfuge that changed America in ways no foreign enemy could, and the biggest traitor to America and its Citizens in Woodrow Wilson.
Trump has almost three more years, and his efforts are going to compound as time goes... what he accomplished in year one will be dwarfed by what is to come in the next three years.
Whose tired of winning?
Not me.....
Give me all the W's, and then some!!President Trump has taken an approach to leadership that is unprecedented in its scope and ambition. Across the globe and at home, he has pursued initiatives aimed at strengthening the nation’s economic, strategic, and industrial foundation. From securing access to critical minerals around the world, to drawing in investment dollars that fuel American jobs, to navigating complex foreign engagements with an eye toward resolving conflicts and asserting U.S. interests, his actions reflect a forward-looking, nation-building vision.
Rather than pursuing ideology for ideology’s sake, Trump’s strategy focuses on practical steps to advance American strength, independence, and opportunity. In this sense, he can be seen as a strategic nation-builder, a leader taking deliberate measures to ensure that the country not only competes globally but thrives, securing resources, influence, and stability for decades to come. YES WINNING!
Update on the ongoing acquisition efforts for Greenland:
'Trump defeated Europe over Greenland. Now Starmer will fall'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6LKobNcFkY
Well worth listening to what the speaker has to say, he covers a lot, not just Greenland, very insightful.
Adding in something new... current Cuba crisis:
No Oil, No Tourism: The US Is Choking the Castro Regime in Cuba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv5Sc3n96gE
Related Discussions
- 45
Colonialism is back:Trunp and Panama: stupidity=ignorance squared
by Credence2 17 months ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-t … es-2024-12So this attitude is making America great again? Has it occurred to Trump that taking property from a sovereign nation constitutes an act of war? Trump speaks of exorbitant? He is the very epitome of the word. What sort of 19th century...
- 268
Russia - China United
by Ken Burgess 3 years ago
President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin were filmed saying warm goodbyes as their two-day meeting ended with China’s leader saying they were driving geopolitical change around the world.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2 …...
- 23
China Sending troops to Russia For Military Exercises
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Chinese troops will travel to Russia to take part in joint military exercises that will start at the end of the month, Beijing’s defence ministry has said.Last month, Moscow announced plans to hold “Vostok” (East) military drills from August 30 to September 5, saying some foreign forces would also...
- 21
Is USAID's 'Soft Power' Benefit Worth The Money Spent?
by ga anderson 14 months ago
A previous comment about 'the value of an under-informed opinion' is appropriate here."Soft Power" is the buzzword for the foreign relations benefits of USAID. A Michael Smercornish segment spoke to that question. He made a lot of sense with specific examples. The 'Sesame Street video for...
- 53
China - North Korea - Now Russia Oh My
by Sharlee 4 years ago
EUROPE Published 9 hours ago Nov Ukraine says Russia amassed 100K troops near the border, Blinken raises 'real concerns' of invasion Satellite images released Nov. 8 showed an estimated 90,000 troops at the borderRussia --- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has claimed that Russia...
- 184
To Foreign Hubbers - What are your opinions about President Trump?
by Scott Belford 3 days ago
Donald Trump has been President for 14 days now. In that time he has issued around 14 executive orders, most of which impact the world.The American polls show over 50% of America think Trump is doing a poor jobs.What is your opinion?