Greenland: by negotiation, not by force [unleds the peaceful option is exhausted]

From my understanding, Europe bent over and now USA can actually use Greenland in similar way it could in case of military conquest.

Europe was basically "We will let you do what you want, lets just not call it that, but lets call it "deal"".

trump is probably biggest expert on reward plus punishment mentality. He made Europe know great punishment is coming if they dont comply, but if they comply, there is probably some reward, or at least no more punishment, for now.

I have never seen someone as capable as trump, to be honest. the guy became an expert at getting what he wants in this case. the only issue for him now could be winner overconfidence, and miscalculation due to overconfidence.

I dont like trump, but I have to admit, thats damn impressive. trump fails in area of popularity, and in many other areas. But here, he played like some master mind. In case of Venezuela, Iran, Greenland... he played like a pro. He ruined Iran's economy in such a short time, its amazing. Really shows how powerful US is on a global scale. US can literally destroy a country without even attacking it, just economically.

What did trump get that was so much better than we already had? If u cant answer that, you might want to reasses how quickly you would rubber stamp his actions.

Also trump supporters often rubber stamp whstever he does even if it was a complete contradiction to his previous stance.

The US is truly the only remaining superpower. China? They're just confirmed communists [never a good thing] acting like they're capitalists, but they cheat incessantly on the value of their currency, which is also not a good idea.

Trump successfully negotiated a deal for use of Greenland by the US for strategic purposes.

That is yet another MAGA bald faced lie, Trump didn’t negotiate shit, all he did was threaten to violate multiple agreements were already in place beginning in 1941 and show the entire world the US can’t be trusted. The message that Trump has delivered was that under the current administration, the US doesn’t honor agreements, treaties, alliances, the US Constitution, and International Law. Norway has been a strong and Trusted US Ally since before World War II, Trump has damaged the strategic relationship with Denmark and the rest of Nato and weakening the US’ status in the world, he hasn't "negotiated" anything positive in this manic episode of unhinged insanity.

The initial agreement to establish US military bases was signed in 1941 (under FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT) broadened in 1951 (under HARRY TRUMAN - Trump was 5) with the "Agreement concerning the Defense of Greenland" when construction on Thule Air Base began (it is now Pituffik Space Base). In 2023 an even more comprehensive “Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA)” was signed (under JOE BIDEN), which created an extended framework for U.S. forces operating in Denmark and Greenland.

The U.S. built numerous airfields (like Narsarsuaq, Sondrestrom), weather stations, and ports in Greenland during the war, by 1944 US troops constituted a quarter of Greenland total population. Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) began operating in 1953, the US operates the “Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line” in Greenland, an extensive radar and communications network, and operated an underground nuclear base called Camp Century from 1959 to 1967. These are the strategic resources in Greenland that are public knowledge, there are plenty more that are secret.

To say that “Trump successfully negotiated a deal for use of Greenland by the US for strategic purposes” is preposterously uninformed and dishonest. All he did was throw a tantrum because he wasn’t awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, threatening to end one of our most strategic alliances and destroy NATO. In the process, he has crippled US influence and trust among our allies, driving Europe closer to China economically (Canada announced a strategic economic alliance with China last week btw), humiliate our country, and establish the US as a rogue nation.

He simply backed down because he got his ass handed to him when they finally dumbed it down enough for him to realize he had nothing to gain, everything to lose, and was alienating the entire western world with his childish tantrum.

There's a reason Trump says, "I love the poorly educated" and "smart people don't like me", it's only uninformed dumb shits that swallow his boatload of lies and conspiracy laden dementia.

Here is the video of the actual negotiation between Norway and Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7omOBdFrjpg

"Mr. President, Fuck Off".

So if someone threatens to beat the living shit out of you, take you against your will and then says 'let's negotiate peacefully if you don't want that', that is peaceful?

Faux talks like hes so objective but... not even close

@fauxlaw

I'll be more convinced of Trumps success when I hear of more than a 'framework of a deal in Greenland.

I'm still unsure about long term effects, in terms of diplomacy and what this might cause various European nations to do.

@SatanLucy

Hitler and Napolean were confident people,

There 'is a power in confidence and the person who keeps on pushing.

Until they push too far on the wrong person, moment, solution.

Something Jordan Peterson once said about salaries,

More agreeable people get paid less. Why? Because they're less assertive.

. . .

But there 'are faults to such confidence and assertiveness.

As 'you say, "winner overconfidence, and miscalculation due to overconfidence"

I also think there can be the problem of coordination,

Being a pushy jerk can lead over a time period to people excluding the pushy jerk.

Or everyone else 'also becoming pushy jerks.

. . .

@GreatfulGoy

I am reminded of the Perry Expedition and later the Great White Fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet

. . . I don't 'think Trump ever 'explicitly said he would declare war and launch a military invasion of Greenland.

So it 'was peaceful, peace is peace and violence is violence.

@Leaning

Tit for Tat,

Two eyes for an eye,

I think the best method is to be trusting but somewhat forgiving,

People and nations change,

But it can be important to respond harm for harm, otherwise one is losing out.

Occasionally offer peace, because people can change,

And you ought not lock yourself out of value,

. . . But the cooperative people stick together, benefit,

The uncooperative takers get excluded, and exclude themselves.

Politics is frustrating, it's cloudy to an outsider, can't see the hearts of the players.

"But Bush and Kohl worked around all of them. Bush said to Kohl at the end of it, “Look, I’m not going to beat my chest and dance on the Berlin Wall.” Both of them were very careful never to humiliate Gorbachev about the Soviet loss of the Cold War. Why? Because they knew that if they did that, he might fall from power sooner rather than later. Also, they were afraid that if they did that, the hardliners would come to power much more rapidly than they actually did. It was 20 years before Putin started consolidating his power.

The newly independent countries of Eastern Europe needed those 20 years to integrate militarily, politically, economically with the West so that the cement could set before you got the Russians trying to destabilize them. So they bought them 20 years to do this. But there’s a cost to all this. Bush never got credit for his essential role in ending the Cold War on Western terms. So he was not reelected for a second term."

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/sarah-paine-cold-war

I recall reading similar about Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis.

. . .

Even if Trump 'did get the 'exact same deal as before in Greenland,

There 'are values and objectives that can make such a win,

His actions possibly means to ends achieved.

Hitler and Napolean were confident people

Confidence was one cause of their early success and later fall.

the problem with confidence is, yes, confident people who speak up positively for themselves usually manifest good things for themselves. But many cant control it. they want more and more good things. If Hitler stopped invading other countries before it was too late, he would have remained in power, and Germany would likely be praising him today.

Its that winner overconfidence which makes person think "I conquered France and Poland, so I can conquer Russia, Britain and USA too". Its that severe jump in conclusion which makes confidence self-destructive.

Hitler and Napoleon seemed like gamblers at a certain point, who just didn't know when to quit.

. . . Course on another hand, all in life is a gamble.

And some gambles, even if one loses, the consequences aren't so bad.

. . .

There's also the idea that one can 'win the game, so to speak.

Perhaps Hitler or Napoleon 'would have stopped at a certain point, or perhaps they would not have 'needed to stop.

Take nukes as a concept,

If one country had managed to build enough of them, be the only one with them and stomp down anyone else who tried to build them up.

Well, that's a worldwide victory maybe.

. . .

Take The idea of America and zones of control,

If the world 'does go bad someday, we global warming, or use up some sources of water, maybe alliances among nations change.

Would be 'really nice for America to have a stronger zone of control.

Even if it meant taking some risks.

There's also the idea that one can 'win the game, so to speak.

Many tried, none succeeded. Alexander the Great and Khan are two persons in history who succeeded at great conquest very quickly, but they didnt succeed in conquering the world.

And there is this usual rule that the more you grab, the more power you need to defend it. Lets say someone succeeds in conquering whole world. then new issue rises, in maintaining what was conquered.

USA is currently world super power, strongest nation in history, but it cant reasonably conquer the world without severe destruction to itself.

In gamble, you usually learn from history. And in gambling, strategies like playing for both sides tend to minimize loses. And someone with great money supply could make money on gambling using "double the input" strategy, where after each loss, you double the next investment. Usually works for gambling which has 2x or more returns, because once you eventually win, you win back all what was lost, and get more.

Martingale Strategy works with lots of money and equal probability of winning and losing, in gambling. tho there are modifications to make it work for unequal probabilities too.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/martingale-strategy/

the obvious problem in gambling is that the only way to make money on it is if you already have lots of money.

Since a gambler will almost surely eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy is certain to make money for the gambler provided they have infinite wealth and there is no limit on money earned in a single bet. However, no gambler has infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets can bankrupt unlucky gamblers who choose to use the martingale, causing a catastrophic loss. Despite the fact that the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy, the gambler's expected value remains zero because the small probability that the gambler will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with the expected gain. In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge. Additionally, as the likelihood of a string of consecutive losses is higher than common intuition suggests, martingale strategies can bankrupt a gambler quickly.

The fundamental reason why all martingale-type betting systems fail is that no amount of information about the results of past bets can be used to predict the results of a future bet with accuracy better than chance. In mathematical terminology, this corresponds to the assumption that the win–loss outcomes of each bet are independent and identically distributed random variables, an assumption which is valid in many realistic situations.^[2] It follows from this assumption that the expected value of a series of bets is equal to the sum, over all bets that could potentially occur in the series, of the expected value of a potential bet times the probability that the player will make that bet. In most casino games, the expected value of any individual bet is negative, so the sum of many negative numbers will also always be negative.

The martingale strategy fails even with unbounded stopping time, as long as there is a limit on earnings or on the bets (which is also true in practice).^[3] It is only with unbounded wealth, bets and time that it could be argued that the martingale becomes a winning strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

the problem with gambling is that to consistently win, you actually need to already have so much wealth that gambling becomes pointless.

Even hardcore Trump haters have to admit either one of 2 things, that Trump is the luckiest idiot on a planet of billions of people, or that Trump is mostly misunderstood.

He's a high functioning sociopath with a lot of powerful elites behind him. He is the establishment, just rebranded.

Trump has to be the luckiest conman on the planet having survived 7 bankruptcies and convicted of 34 felony counts. He beat all odds by winning a second term.

@SatanLucy

There's also gambling as the only means to victory sometimes.

When it is victory or death, or of decisive moments that can shape the next hundred or more years.

Against a person with greater skill 99 times out of a 100, the greater skill wins.

But with crazy, unexpected, dangerous, or unorthodox move. . .

@NobodyInParticular

Yes Minister 3x2 - BBC2 - "It's to protect us against the French"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmqM4s_ic

Yes, Minister - how to create a disunited Europe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwDYlz5G8w

Sure, establishment 90's Democrats for sure.

Here is some AI spam about gambling, this is interesting I promise.

True arbitrage (a.k.a. “sure betting”) is the one case in gambling where the math can guarantee profit — if you can actually execute it.

Let’s break it down cleanly.

What true arbitrage is

You place bets on all possible outcomes of an event at different odds (usually from different sportsbooks) where the prices are misaligned enough that:

No matter what happens, you win a small amount

This works because bookmakers disagree or update odds at different speeds.

The core math (this part matters)

Convert odds to implied probability.

Decimal odds example (simplest):

1. Book A: Team A @ 2.10
2. Book B: Team B @ 2.10

Implied probability:

1. 1 / 2.10 = 47.62%
2. 1 / 2.10 = 47.62%
3. Total = 95.24%

Since that’s under 100%, there’s a 4.76% arbitrage window.

Anything under 100% = theoretical guaranteed profit.

How the bets are sized

You don’t bet equal amounts — you size them so payouts match.

Example:

1. Total bankroll: $1,000
2. Bet $500 on Team A @ 2.10
3. Bet $500 on Team B @ 2.10

Outcome:

1. Winner pays $1,050
2. Profit = $50 guaranteed

In reality, odds are rarely that clean, so profits are usually 0.2–2% per arb.

Where true arbitrage actually exists

Mostly in:

1. Sports betting (soccer, tennis, basketball)
2. Live betting (odds lag during games)
3. Props and niche markets
4. Occasionally crypto prediction markets

Almost never in:

1. Casino games
2. Slots
3. Roulette
4. Blackjack

Those are closed systems — no pricing disagreement.

Why it’s harder than it sounds

This is the part people don’t advertise:

1. Speed matters

Odds move fast.

You might place one side… then the other side disappears.

That turns “risk-free” into very risky.

2. Account limits & bans

Sportsbooks:

1. Track arbitrage behavior
2. Lower your max bets
3. Limit or close accounts

Arb bettors are not welcome customers.

3. Capital intensive

1. Small % returns
2. You need large bankrolls to make meaningful money
3. Funds tied up across multiple books

4. Execution risk

1. Delayed bet acceptance
2. Voided bets
3. Rule differences (OT rules, walkovers, pushes)

One mistake wipes out many small wins.

Is true arbitrage “beating the house”?

Sort of — but not in the romantic way.

You’re not outsmarting odds.

You’re exploiting:

1. Pricing inefficiencies
2. Operational slowness
3. Human error

It’s closer to logistics trading than gambling.

The honest verdict

Yes, true arbitrage exists.

Yes, it can be profitable.

But:

1. It’s grindy
2. It doesn’t scale forever
3. Books eventually shut you down

Most people quit because:

1. The effort > the reward
2. Or they get limited everywhere

If you want, I can:

1. Walk you through a real-world arb example step by step
2. Explain live arbitrage vs pre-match
3. Or tell you whether arb is worth it for your bankroll size

Just say the word 🎯

This is the classic Martingale intuition, and it sounds logically airtight — so let’s tackle it head-on, cleanly, no hand-waving.

You’re saying:

“If I double (or triple) after each net loss, then the first win always recovers all losses plus a profit. If I quit immediately, that profit is locked in.”

That statement is locally true.

It is globally false.

The gap between those two is where the trap lives.

Why it feels correct (and is partially correct)

Yes:

1. After any finite losing streak, a big enough next bet would recover everything
2. Most sessions do end with a win
3. If you stop immediately, that session ends positive

That’s why this system has convinced millions of smart people for 300+ years.

The missing piece: probability × magnitude

Expected value isn’t about whether you win — it’s about:

How often you lose × how much you lose when it happens

Martingale systems:

1. Win often
2. Lose rarely
3. But when they lose, they lose enormously

That rare loss outweighs all prior wins.

A simple, concrete example (no formulas)

Game:

1. 49% win
2. 51% lose
3. (Slight house edge — like a casino)

Strategy:

1. Start with $1
2. Double after each loss
3. Quit after first win

What happens:

1. You win $1 most of the time
2. Occasionally you lose:
3. $1 + $2 + $4 + $8 + $16 + $32 + $64 + $128 = $255
4. That happens inevitably if you play long enough

Your history:

Net result: you lose

“But I’ll quit after the win”

You did quit — every time — until the one time you couldn’t.

The math does not reset when you stop.

Sessions are psychological, not mathematical.

From probability’s point of view:

One catastrophic loss erases hundreds of successful quits.

Why bankroll & limits kill it

To survive n losses in a row, you need:

1. Bankroll ≈ 2ⁿ
2. Table limit ≥ your next bet

Reality guarantees:

1. A losing streak longer than you expect
2. A bet size you’re not allowed to place
3. Or money you don’t have

At that point:

1. You cannot place the recovery bet
2. Loss becomes permanent

That’s the failure point. Not “if” — when.

The killer sentence (this is the core)

Any strategy that guarantees a win unless something rare happens is exactly a strategy that loses when that rare thing inevitably happens.

Casinos are built on this principle.

Why casinos are happy to let you try

Because:

1. You bet more over time
2. You feel in control
3. You win often
4. And you eventually donate everything back — plus more

If this worked, casinos would ban doubling instantly.

Final, no-nonsense conclusion

1. ✔️ Yes, each completed cycle ends in profit
2. ❌ No, the strategy does not produce profit overall
3. ❌ Quitting does not change expectation
4. ❌ Doubling or tripling does not beat the house
5. ✅ It converts many small wins into one huge loss

If you want, I can:

1. Prove this numerically with expected value
2. Show exactly how many losses it takes to break a given bankroll
3. Explain the only conditions where Martingale appears rational (very narrow)

Just tell me how deep you want to go 🎲

Trump is the luckiest idiot on a planet of billions of people

to be honest, Biden dementia, war in Ukraine, and Kamala as opponent is pure luck. But yeah, person who keeps trying eventually ends up lucky or dead. trump was close to getting shot, and that bullet dodge was also huge luck.

There's also gambling as the only means to victory sometimes.

thats not gambling.

If you have two options:

Option A: Guaranteed loss

Option B: Maybe loss, maybe win

Only someone who wants to lose for sure would pick option A. Option B is basically guaranteed reduction in loss chance. But these situations are rare, and in gambling, are often attempted to be created mathematically because its certain victory strategy on large scale.

But usual safe strategy is to not gamble at all. the actual strategy which works is minimizing chances of loss. If you increase chance of profit, but also increase chance of loss, on a large scale, its usually a net loss. Only two strategies work: minimize chances of loss, or/plus increase profit to risk ratio.

Trump has proven he can file several bankruptcies and still be a successful businessman . He sold bibles after 3 marriages, several sexual assault charges, convicted of 34 felony charges and having strong ties with Epstein a convicted pedophile.

The hugest reason I was a left winger for most of my life is that classism is an actual real 'ism' to pay attention to in life and not just 'totally be against'.

Working class people who are truly poor from birth have entirely different experiences of life in the same nation and 'culture' than what upper to middle have.

Middle to upper differ in that upper class begin to enter proper elitism where they have actual power in the nation that truly can affect or prevent change, whereas middle merely are cushioned against changes vs the working class.

These are real things that exist.

The hard left approach is to defeat class disparity by making all working class (this never 'works' well, pun intended). The hard right approach has 2 variants, 1 is pure social darwinism, the other is a variant of the left wing approach and is why alt right even exists and always did actually exist as an undertone to the right.

The Neonazi approach fuses social darwinistic propaganda with alt right extremism that's what makes it dangerous and toxic to extreme degrees.

The general alt-right approach works by having a left-wing outlook on the elites but maintaining a right wing economic structure and not disliking a hierarchy and structure to society. Oftentimes, to 'sell this' a strong cultural unity is needed. The left unites against the elites outright, whereas the rights unite against specific elites seen as infiltrators or threats to the culture and wellbeing of those seeking to keep what they supposedly earned.

The reason many don't understand left vs right being similar at times, is that most assume left vs right is more about social issues than it is about 2 ways for inequalities in society to be handled.

The left approach handles inequality by outright fighting against the inequity that goes along with it. In contrast, the right wing approach handles inequality by either making sure the inequality is metirocratic enough or alternatively decides it can make ways so that the elites at least are more sided with the tribe of the nation the alt-right associate most with.

In the end it's unwise to be far left or far right. Both result in ruthless tyranny that ruins the nation, silences opposition and has horrific starvation and even death camps in Hitler's case.

In China and Russia today you can see that when a far left society shifts to capitalism, it doesn't actually work how most would assume it would. It frees barely anyone in a significant way. CCP literally calls themselves communist still even though what's actually in place is called Corporate statism AKA State Corporatism. This is a variant of right wing fascism that is more centrist in its approach and is heavily auth over lib instead. Russia is very similar but the system they have is slightly different. Instead of corporatism, Russia simply has raw oligarchy in place. Like literally it's just oligarchy, it's back to its tsarist system disguising itself via rigged elections and completely paralysed opposition.

If you genuinely believe that politics is just left vs right, you don't get it. I am not a mind-numbed guy who thinks saying 'both sides are bad' is a hot take. I know why both sides are bad, differently. It's to do with the elites. The elites choke the working men out in different ways. The left have dedicated to choking out the working man's masculine aura, his will to rebel and ability to climb the ladder as a whole. The right have dedicated to simply creating a term known as an oligopoly in every single industry where usually you have 2 or maybe 4 elite billionaires competing. They tax them far less, so the right more naturally aligns with the 'elite vs peasant' dynamic. That was actually how right wing began as a term at all, they're pro hierarchy and rigid societal structure. They wants peasants staying as peasants serving the noblemen, clergy, Royal family and God (but quite honestly the Lord is an afterthought for them). The left wing from the very beginning also had a Christian outlook and wanted a more 'Jesus feeds the poor' approach.

Over time, what seems to have happened is that both wings completely abandoned faith-oriented politics in the West, the Left more blatantly so. The Left used to call the Right greedy and heartless to highlight them as antichristlike. Now, so few Leftists are seriously Christian that it makes no sense to use that propaganda much. The Right used to call the Left heretics and arrogant. Now that so many of the Western Right are protestant and are indeed heretical and arrogant to the Holy See and more, it makes no sense for them to use that propaganda angle.

Both sides play filthy. Both are owned by the elites. Nonetheless, it does matter who you push others you know to vote for. Elections do matter because 'lesser evil' does exist each election.

Guy is so lucky that I must assume God or devil protects him. However, he seems to be testing his luck more and more, and there is a usual saying that even smallest risk of complete defeat, as long as above 0%, eventually happens with enough attempts.

If I was trump, I would thank God for protecting me so far, and just stop pushing my luck, because he was already given more luck than any person in history.

Unlike you Trump is betting on Nuclear fusion.His company merged with TAE technologies a nuclear fusion company. It was a 6 billion deal.

I see you have an elevated sense of incentives and consequences.

You are the ultimate pessimist concluding all systems are doomed to fail. Yet we see functioning systems meeting and cooperating everyday.

 I don't 'think Trump ever 'explicitly said he would declare war and launch a military invasion of Greenland.

So it 'was peaceful, peace is peace and violence is violence.

In more than 1 announcement he gave on the matter, he threatened that he's willing and able to take it the 'hard' way but wants them to choose the 'easy' way. This is beyond a subliminal threat, it's a blatant threat.

Let's be clear, if you keep threatening someone's life, safety and wellbeing you are not peaceful to them. You are psychologically terrorising them and it's not just 'in their head' because the threat is very physical if you did act on it.

The fact that the NATO countries and Canada were preparing to send troops to defend Greenland in response to Trump’s threats proves Trump threatened military action to take Greenland.

You give a lot of esoteric ideas about why you are agaisnt both left and right. I think you would be do better to describe the specific policies both sides push that end up hurting the poor and working class