this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
275 points (97.3% liked)

politics

22435 readers
3680 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yo britain, you wanna rule the waves again? Now is your time to take back the rebbel colonies

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

I got bone spurs though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Serious question, if the states did invade somewhere, whether it's Greenland, Canada or Panama, what countries would actually be willing to use military force to stop them?

Would they end up going to China for aid?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

They won't fight. They will let it happen.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

We might find out this year.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Greenland isn’t for sale, and coercion isn’t diplomacy. This will backfire internationally.

🐱🐱

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

at this point, that seems to be the goal

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

War on the continent and suspended elections.

Seems petty obvious.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

The United States of America is a rogue state.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump is a Russian asset. Americans have become the taliban of the West.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

🌍🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago

This asshole is the kind of bumbling cartoonishly psychotic politician you read about on surviving pre-bomb terminals in Fallout.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago

I read a reaction from a Greenlandic politician. He was mostly upset about the laugh track that followed Trump saying "incredible people".

Watch the clip again if you didn't notice.

It's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be addressed like that. The politician went on to call it an "unacceptable human view".

I agree. The act of the middle school bully doesn't translate into anything remotely strong or respectable. It's just disgusting. It doesn't matter who or what they're talking about, and when presenting themselves by giggles and eye-rolling, they're really only presenting their own insecurity by hiding their disgusting views in the support of a laugh track.

I am from Denmark, which actually colonized Greenland. We have made mistakes and treated them badly in the past for sure, but never like that. We have never laughed in their faces when doing so.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

You know, you could always just buy their raw materials.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It’s a very small population, but a very, very large piece of land.

Sounds like the king of clowntown has been looking at a Mercator projection again. It's an easy mistake for people who don't know what they're talking about to make.

I stole this from reddit:

And this interest in Greenland smacks of the game of "Risk", which might be the basis of his foreign policy.

I'm which case, he should mass forces on New Zealand.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's still a very large peice of land.

This has interesting maps https://youtu.be/rCBt4XgCX-0

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

He's said "very very".

Looks like it's maybe the size of Florida? Is that about right? I'll go look it up sometime when I have the time time time time time time time time time time time time time time.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

that made me laugh. ah, texus.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's still, like, a quarter of the US landmass (eyeball measurement), which is big

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The total area of Greenland is 2.1 million km², but where other countries have usable land and maybe some lakes, Greenland has 1.7 million km² of ice. There's some land under there, but much less than you might think:

Topographic map of Greenland (Wikipedia)

The US has 9.1 million km² of actual land, so if we're counting the ice, a quarter is about right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

oh wow, there's a whole pond in the middle ! wonder if it's salty

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

there’s a whole pond in the middle

Well yes, but actually no.

That part in the middle is land that has a miles-thick pile of ice on top of it. There's probably not any significant amount of liquid water on that land under the ice right now, and (in the long term) there probably still wouldn't be any liquid water on it because isostatic rebound would cause the land to lift if the ice were removed. I haven't found any sources that definitively claim whether the magnitude of the rebound would be enough to get all of it above sea level, but my guess is that it would.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's mad, thanks for the link. Simply fascinating

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Danish special forces are watching you...

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Who do you think trained them?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The danish military. Side note, the USA does their cold weather training in Norway in terrain that local civilians ski/hike recreationally, and in temperatures that are significantly higher than those in Greenland. You are right that there is an exchange of expertise in NATO, but it's the Scandinavians that do the training when it comes to cold weather / mountain warfare. The USA's specialty is urban counterinsurgency and bombing Africans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

US had and still may have bases on Greenland.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yes very remote and isolated bases. Very much dependent on resupply by sea. Yeah it'd be a dick move to destroy the bases power generation capabilities during a -40 winter, but these are the times we live in I guess.

load more comments
view more: next ›