Trump calls off meeting with Danish prime minister over Greenland comments

[Enki]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

One of Trump's many campaign promises was that world leaders would respect him.  Another promise not kept.

I wonder how many "world leaders" he could count by name .... one? Or even two? Does not need to be the full name, after all we refer to them as Trump and Putin only as well.

[GalaxyMan]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

One of Trump's many campaign promises was that world leaders would respect him.  Another promise not kept.

You know he's lying when his lips move.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And always fun to see supporters defend his every move and take personal offense to those who do not.  Do not criticize the Master!

 

And as expected, yet another Trump-like response.

 

You would be hard pressed to demonstrate that I defend or support Trump. On this topic and others. Actually - quite the opposite. Rejecting your nonsense and style, does not equate with supporting Trump.

 

It is regretful that some of those who oppose Trump seem to actually revel in his presidency - seeing it as justification and license to engage in pretty much the same way Trump does. 

[BobBKK]

14 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Calling those with differing opinion with those of donald trump "haters" is so utterly preposterous, and so massive a projection that it beggars belief. 

Really?  look through all the troll posts on here?  the altered photos?  cartoons?  you don't call that hate?  and if others did the same to AOC?  Sanders?  Biden?  it would be allowed?

[PatOngo]

14 hours ago, Montnoveau said:

In comparison G.W.B. appears as an intellectual. Embarrassing to even think of such idea. And to babble about it openly... he is really lost in space.

I would'nt have put GWB and intellectual in the same sentence!

[BobBKK]

Just now, PatOngo said:

I would'nt have put GWB and intellectual in the same sentence!

And he took USA to war and got 1000s killed over what???  Say what you want about petulant Trump but he hasn't done that!  

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Really?  look through all the troll posts on here?  the altered photos?  cartoons?  you don't call that hate?  and if others did the same to AOC?  Sanders?  Biden?  it would be allowed?

 

With all due respect to Sanders, Biden or AOC - none of them is POTUS. And none of them is involved in that much controversy, bad behavior or nonsense. Their actions and views do not carry the same weight and effect.

[mfd101]

Trump should be judged by the outcomes, not his nonsense verbal inputs or the immediate negative outputs. It's the OUTCOMES that count.

 

So he's planted a seed. Now watch what happens over the next 10 years. Will the US ask for & get extra bases, rights, capabilities all around northern Greenland? Maybe not under this President, but over the next 10 years?  you betcha!

[Morch]

1 minute ago, mfd101 said:

Trump should be judged by the outcomes, not his nonsense verbal inputs or the immediate negative outputs. It's the OUTCOMES that count.

 

So he's planted a seed. Now watch what happens over the next 10 years. Will the US ask for & get extra bases, rights, capabilities all around northern Greenland? Maybe not under this President, but over the next 10 years?  you betcha!

 

Kinda doubt Trump gives a toss as to what might happen under future presidents. Or that he's got a whole lot of long-term planning going on. If pushing this angle, might be better to look at some of his more able advisors.

 

And, of course, it could be construed in the opposite way - USA long term and quiet efforts to gain a more significant footprint in Greenland taking a blow by Trump's big mouth and small Tweeting fingers.

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

If pushing this angle, might be better to look at some of his more able advisors.

Are you able to name any (that aren't merely Fox News talking heads like Larry Kudlow)?

[spidermike007]

22 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Really?  look through all the troll posts on here?  the altered photos?  cartoons?  you don't call that hate?  and if others did the same to AOC?  Sanders?  Biden?  it would be allowed?

Of course. It would be condoned. Awards would be given out. All politicians are subject to ridicule. They deserve at least that. They contribute nearly nothing to our everyday lives, and suck the blood of society. All of them. All parties, all affiliations. Just give any of them enough time, or enough power. They will become lobbyist lap dogs. Each and every one of them. 

 

Now, when it comes to Trump, he deserves extra ridicule. He has earned it. He begs for it, with his inane, juvenile, surly, racist, hating, false, lying, malicious and ugly tweets. All the scorn and ridicule we can heap on him is justifiably earned. He has a special place in the numskull category. 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Are you able to name any (that aren't merely Fox News talking heads like Larry Kudlow)?

 

Haspel would be an obvious one. Names previously featuring on the administration include Mattis, McMaster, Coats. For example. There are others, and probably more so at lower echelons, where politics and political views are less relevant.

 

I think the issue is not so much that Trump surrounds himself with idiots or people with controversial views (there's that, not denying), but that ultimately, he seems to make his decisions without much proper or timely input from informed and balanced sources.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Of course. It would be condoned. Awards would be given out. All politicians are subject to ridicule. They deserve at least that. They contribute nearly nothing to our everyday lives, and suck the blood of society. All of them. All parties, all affiliations. Just give any of them enough time, or enough power. They will become lobbyist lap dogs. Each and every one of them. 

 

Now, when it comes to Trump, he deserves extra ridicule. He has earned it. He begs for it, with his inane, juvenile, surly, racist, hating, false, lying, malicious and ugly tweets. All the scorn and ridicule we can heap on him is justifiably earned. He has a special place in the numskull category. 

 

Earlier in this topic, you praised the Danish Prime Minister. As far as I'm aware, she's a politician. About as consistent as can be expected, I guess. Seems like the main thing for some is the opportunity to vent.

[Just Weird]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:18 AM, keith101 said:

Greenland has gold and jewels and probably oil which is why he wants it so why would they sell to this a/hole when they can get it for themselves .

No one has suggested that they would sell it and, even if it was for sale, Trump wouldn't be the purchaser, the US government would be. 

 

If the US did ever get it's hands on it, and it's resources are as good as you claim, it is very doubtful that anyone who understood the value of Greenland to the US would be referring to him as an "a/hole" as you did!

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Really?  look through all the troll posts on here?  the altered photos?  cartoons?  you don't call that hate?  and if others did the same to AOC?  Sanders?  Biden?  it would be allowed?

So are all posters criticizing Trump posting altered photos and cartoons? Most? Or does this mean that the "haters" are only those who engage in such practices?

And are the people who post altered photos about various democratic candidates, are they "haters" too?

[Just Weird]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:44 AM, DannyCarlton said:

Agreed. But why cancel the meeting? Buying Greenland wasn't even on the agenda when the meeting was scheduled.

The meeting wasn't cancelled, it was postponed.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

The meeting wasn't cancelled, it was postponed.

Postponed with no future date set. How does that meaningfully differ from cancelled?

[thasoss]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:31 AM, Jingthing said:

Wow. 45 really has a boner for Greenland! Sounds like the real reason he's canceling is that it would be humiliating.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

or because he's a petulant baby?

[DannyCarlton]

16 hours ago, dimitriv said:

 

Greenland = Denmark = NATO.

Greenland also has some US military bases. One has a vital role in detecting Russian missiles.

 

 

How many has it detected?

[Srikcir]

Some OP's keep reminding us that Harry S. Truman offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for US$100,000,000 as if that was in some way a rationale for Trump's purchase idea. It isn't.

 

Look at the context of Truman's offer in 1946.

In 1946 Greenland was only protected by Denmark. WW2 showed how vulnerable Denmark was to attack and overthrow. It would be strategic therefore for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland to better protect the U.S.

• But NATO was created in 1949. That meant that all the NATO members including the U.S. would come to the defense of any NATO member against any attack. As such the U.S. got its strategic position without purchase!
• Furthermore, the subsequent North Atlantic Treaty between Denmark and the U.S. in 1949 provided the U.S. with additional strategic military advantage including U.S. military bases in Greenland. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

In the final analysis, there is no strategic need for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland in 2019.

The only explanation remaining is that Trump's offer was an absurd flight of fantasy. Duly noted by Denmark.

[spidermike007]

There are certain lines you cross with your behavior that essentially revoke your right to use certain terminology when describing others. In this case, Trump does not have the right to label others as nasty, nor does he have to right to claim that others have to show America great respect "on his watch". He has shown great disrespect to nearly every one of our allies, and has shown nothing but admiration for the despots of the world. One cannot take a man like that seriously, regardless of his position. Respect has to earned, and never should be freely given. Trump does not deserve respect. He invites scorn. 

 

He just does not get any of that. A bit too simple minded to comprehend those finer nuances. 

 

I think Denmark should make an offer on the US. They need an awful lot of help, with gun control, wealth distribution, dealing with the declining quality of life, immigration, and leadership. I would encourage them to make an offer of say $10 million, for starters. 

 

One benefit of the deal, would be that Trump would immediately be fired as president, and Mette Frederiksen could take over. The upside is that the US would then have a rational, intelligent woman, who could lead the nation. The chances of the US going to war would decrease overnight, and the number of enemies the US is making would decline. The US would also benefit from someone with a higher education, as Trump quit after a BA, when he found out he would not, and could not qualify for, or handle the masters program at Wharton. He was in completely over his head, so he quit. 

 

Mette Frederiksen took a degree in business administration and social sciences, and a Master of Science degree in African studies. She finished her studies while she already had a seat in Folketinget, the Danish parliament. She was an early bird, anyway, becoming a member of the social democrat’s youth organisation at the age of 15.

[Berkshire]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Some OP's keep reminding us that Harry S. Truman offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for US$100,000,000 as if that was in some way a rationale for Trump's purchase idea. It isn't.

 

Look at the context of Truman's offer in 1946.

In 1946 Greenland was only protected by Denmark. WW2 showed how vulnerable Denmark was to attack and overthrow. It would be strategic therefore for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland to better protect the U.S.

• But NATO was created in 1949. That meant that all the NATO members including the U.S. would come to the defense of any NATO member against any attack. As such the U.S. got its strategic position without purchase!
• Furthermore, the subsequent North Atlantic Treaty between Denmark and the U.S. in 1949 provided the U.S. with additional strategic military advantage including U.S. military bases in Greenland. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

In the final analysis, there is no strategic need for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland in 2019.

The only explanation remaining is that Trump's offer was an absurd flight of fantasy. Duly noted by Denmark.

I doubt national security was on Trump's mind when he mentioned Greenland.  He probably wanted to give access to his oil&gas and mining buddies so they can ravage the place.  Of course, if Greenland was part of the US, they'd fall under the EPA.  But Trump's managed to gut the EPA to the point where they should change their name to ENPA...the Environmental non-Protection Agency. 

[Redline]

I think he saw a picture of Kim Kielsen, and he realized his hands would look even smaller next to hers

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

There are certain lines you cross with your behavior that essentially revoke your right to use certain terminology when describing others. In this case, Trump does not have the right to label others as nasty, nor does he have to right to claim that others have to show America great respect "on his watch". He has shown great disrespect to nearly every one of our allies, and has shown nothing but admiration for the despots of the world. One cannot take a man like that seriously, regardless of his position. Respect has to earned, and never should be freely given. Trump does not deserve respect. He invites scorn. 

 

He just does not get any of that. A bit too simple minded to comprehend those finer nuances. 

 

I think Denmark should make an offer on the US. They need an awful lot of help, with gun control, wealth distribution, dealing with the declining quality of life, immigration, and leadership. I would encourage them to make an offer of say $10 million, for starters. 

 

One benefit of the deal, would be that Trump would immediately be fired as president, and Mette Frederiksen could take over. The upside is that the US would then have a rational, intelligent woman, who could lead the nation. The chances of the US going to war would decrease overnight, and the number of enemies the US is making would decline. The US would also benefit from someone with a higher education, as Trump quit after a BA, when he found out he would not, and could not qualify for, or handle the masters program at Wharton. He was in completely over his head, so he quit. 

 

Mette Frederiksen took a degree in business administration and social sciences, and a Master of Science degree in African studies. She finished her studies while she already had a seat in Folketinget, the Danish parliament. She was an early bird, anyway, becoming a member of the social democrat’s youth organisation at the age of 15.

 

Mette Frederiksen, which I kinda doubt you had much clue existed prior to this story breaking out, is a politician. On a previous post, you've asserted all politicians are bad. Apparently, like Trump, praise and condemnation are a matter of circumstance and mood, rather than reality based.

 

I don't think Trump would have rejected many of her immigration-related views. And then there was this almost routine Euro bit - speaking for public education, sending kids to private.

 

Would be nice if posters going on about Trump being a moron and such (which he is), would endeavor to uphold higher standards. Emulating his ways is merely enhancing the negative effect he excretes on both discourse and politics.

[jinjo]

On 8/21/2019 at 6:50 AM, bristolboy said:

Most people would be hard pressed to come up with a more ridiculous statement than yours about Greenland. Because refusing to sell Greenland to the United States means that Denmark hates America? Really?

 

But you might just have done it with this: "I have to stop this madness at some point, if we entered and prevailed then what, which European Country would ask for protection next, England against the EU?" 

 

Congratulations! 

 

Time will Tell, Time will Tell...  It's not like Britain did not need defending from other European Powers before.  

[Slip]

4 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

How many has it detected?

All of them!  Or perhaps none.

[Just Weird]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:54 AM, bristolboy said:

Postponed with no future date set. How does that meaningfully differ from cancelled?

That obviously depends on whether you understand what the words "postponed" and "cancelled" actually mean.  There's a big difference.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

That obviously depends on whether you understand what the words "postponed" and "cancelled" actually mean.  There's a big difference.

I do understand the dictionary definitions. It's what they mean in the mouth of a politician that's relevant here. Maybe you should look up the meaning of "euphemism" or "spin".

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

That obviously depends on whether you understand what the words "postponed" and "cancelled" actually mean.  There's a big difference.

In this case it most likely means 'postponed till after the 2020 elections'.

[Just Weird]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I do understand the dictionary definitions. It's what they mean in the mouth of a politician that's relevant here. Maybe you should look up the meaning of "euphemism" or "spin".

Definitions are facts, "euphemism" (or "spin") is your opinion.  In this case Trump indicated that the meeting would be held at a later time, that's a postponement.