Denmark should rename Greenland

NATO will accept any help it can get to defend Greenland against Trump invasion. This will create an opportunity for Russia to help NATO and change the current alliance structure.

NATO's treaty's Article I does have language prohibiting any member the annexation of any other member nation's territory, such as Denmark's occupation of Greenland. However, If US negotiates with Denmark to acquire the territory in exchange for value legally, no Article I statute is violated,. and neither Denmark nor NATO are abused.

Greenland and Denmark have expressed they are totally against any invasion of Greenland. NATO countries have expressed their full support to defend Greenland. Trump only has Norway’s rejection of him as a candidate for the Nobel Peace prize

Greenland and the Nobel are completely separate concerns, Stay on point. And, I understand both Denmark and Greenland have expressed objection. But Trump is, if anything, a negotiator, so, those objections may change as that discussion is engaged. That's what negotiation does; it potentially changes stuff.

By this weekend Germany, Sweden, France, Norway the Netherlands and Finland have all confirmed they are sending military troops to Greenland. Canada is also considering the same.

And? How does that stop Denmark/US negotiation, which is, after all, a more civilized approach than military.

Trump thinks he can bully Denmark which is no match for American military power.

No, Trump has promised Denmark we will not take Greenland by force. I read that to mean by military force, but we may by civilized negotiation, which is perfectly legit, by the same means we acquired Alaska from Russia, for a value the Russians agreed upon. Alaska turned out to be worth far more, but the deal was agreed upon by them. Their loss, I guess, but, hey, they agreed, so, quelle domage. We have made no secret of the fabulous worth of Greenland's natural resources.

Trump reverted to hisTACO tactics and cancelled the tariffs he was going to impose on NATO countries willing to go against him owning Greenland. He even changed his position on using military or economic force and went TACO all the way.

That's why I have maintained since Democrats started complaining about Trump tariffs nearly a year ago [last Feb they started howling] because it was not tariffs, but merely the threat of tarrifs in most cases, but they still tore their hair out because they did not perceive the distinction between doing it and merely threatening to do it. There is a difference, but I think many Democrats don't read all words. Too busy tearing out hair, I guess. It sure isn't because of intelligence, or lack of same, because blue states allegedly educate better than red [ignoring that all blue states have been red states in the past. Yes, all red states have also been blue in the past - so that whole argument of superior blue state eduction is a Democrat myth]

Hopefully the Supreme Court rulesTrump tariffs are illegal. Their verdict was expected this month but has been postponed to February.

I'm not very conversant with the case, but I wonder if there is consideration in the case addressing merely threatening to apply tarrifs as opposed to charging them outright. Guess I'll have to read the syllabus.

Trump imposing arbitrary tariffs on countries without the consent of Congress was ruled illegal by the lower courts. Trump appealed their decision and we are waiting for the Supreme Court to hand their verdict.

Yes, we're waiting. Meaning the decision is not rendered, yet, and that means we ought not be making assumptions that it has. Same thing with the conviction in NY. Yet the left is tearing their hair out that Trump is a convict, so why isn't he in jail? Because we wait for a decision on the appeal against that conviction, not to mention that the punishment phase of that trial is on hold, too. Why does the left continue to ignore these facts?

The left is eager for Justice the Republicans are not. There is your answer.

"Left" and "Republican" are not mutually exclusive terms. it's either left/right, or Democrat/Republican, because in either case, your examples cross generally understood distinctions since there are Rs with left-leaning ideas [some considerable] as there are Ds with right-leaning ideas [some also considerable]. Add to that, the "definitions" of Dem and Rep are variable over time, hence, so is why I( put "definitions" in quotes. It's why I say the Democrat myth of superior blue state education is just that: myth. Not a single blue has ever been not red, and vice versa.

And that is why labels are dangerous in discussion. Generalizing is nonsense. I generally try to makes such arguments, I'll apply "most" or "few" preceding "Dem" or Rep," because I do not believe total collectivism exists; pure and simple.

Now we have a new label. MAGA Republicans. They are all committed to Trump.

Who's "We?" You and you windsock puppet?

Since I am not a Repub, I do not subscribe to MAGA, particularly as defined by some Dems. I do believe in the greatness of America.

The American public are stuck with Republicans MAGA and Trump MAGA.