I read the other day that they’ve only released 1% so far?

DOJ pretty much admitted less than 1% at this point.

llllllllllllllllllll wrote: Tue Jan 20, 2026 7:04 am I read the other day that they’ve only released 1% so far?

AND REDACTED!

Hbiden, I agree that average (and even some informed) voters have severe memory issues. January 6th should have rendered Trump toxic, and the man was and is clearly evil, but yeah—plenty of voters cared more about the price of eggs, and plenty of supposedly “sophisticated” voters were indifferent between Harris and Trump specifically because of foreign policy.

As for the strategic importance of Greenland, yes, it has some strategic importance, but so do a lot of places that we wouldn’t try to conquer. Noting the ways in which Greenland is strategically important is like listing examples of Saddam Hussein’s crimes against humanity: neither is an honest argument. In fact, it’s even *less honest* for Greenland! It simply brushes aside all of the existing treaties and alliances and economic benefits we share with Europe!

Literally everyone knows Trump wants it because he’s a crybaby who throws tantrums. That’s all he’s ever been for his entire life. He is the least mysterious or complicated person on the planet. Every argument about the strategic importance of Greenland (and, specifically, why that security can only be gained if our lunatic, senile, idiotic, treaty-breaking president controls it and not a long-term ally or the residents themselves) is an attempt to make a dumb thing look less dumb.

People aren’t convinced not because they’re ignorant but because it’s so dumb that even the mouth-breathers can see it for what it is.

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:04 pm
but to answer your question,
greenland is a geostrategic hinge for emerging arctic and north atlantic trade routes, which are opening rapidly as climate change reshapes the region. its rare earth minerals make it a target for china, both for securing critical supply chains and for advancing its polar silk road ambitions. meanwhile russia is expanding its arctic footprint and submarine activity, reinforcing its long‑standing role as the usa’s primary undersea competitor.

You didn't answer my question. We can do all that now if we wanted, according to Greenland and Denmark, who both are saying that. Why do we have to *own?* Are you saying that we have to take it because Russia or China will if we don't?

Also, the irony should not be lost that a president who doesn't believe in climate change is thinking about taking over a territory because a changing climate has changed the shipping lanes surrounding it.

Krev wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 8:12 pm I read a theory that Trump wants Greenland because it's a larger area than the Louisiana Purchase. I'm incredulous that he knows what that is, but it seems plausible otherwise.

It definitely feels like he wants to be an important historical person. Oh, he'll be written about in history books, just not the way he thinks. Look at how his administration have tried to reframe history. They want to control everything, even the perception of who he is. I'm afraid all that will be removed once he's dead and buried and all the traitors are gone.

Hilariously stupid

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 7257210763

Dump wants Greenland for:
A) He want to be Putin jr.
B) He thinks this will keep him in the history books.
C) Somebody put in his ear there's money for him and his family in it. Like his grabbing of oil money and storing it overseas.
D) Content. Social media is the most important thing and daily content is needed for views.
E) It keeps the Epstein files on the backburner.
F) He's just a crazy old nutjob.

It all sucks and I'm sorry citizens of Greenland have their lives disrupted so.

enframed wrote: Tue Jan 20, 2026 9:24 am

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:04 pm
but to answer your question,
greenland is a geostrategic hinge for emerging arctic and north atlantic trade routes, which are opening rapidly as climate change reshapes the region. its rare earth minerals make it a target for china, both for securing critical supply chains and for advancing its polar silk road ambitions. meanwhile russia is expanding its arctic footprint and submarine activity, reinforcing its long‑standing role as the usa’s primary undersea competitor.

You didn't answer my question. We can do all that now if we wanted, according to Greenland and Denmark, who both are saying that. Why do we have to *own?* Are you saying that we have to take it because Russia or China will if we don't?

who else is going to stop them?

cakes wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 8:08 pm It seems obvious that the reason for demanding Greenland is to break up NATO.

yup! basically this:

Also, the irony should not be lost that a president who doesn't believe in climate change is thinking about taking over a territory because a changing climate has changed the shipping lanes surrounding it.

it's quite possible he's been lying to you. i wouldn't read too much into it.

What do you mean, “Who else is going to stop them?”

You know there is a US military base on Greenland already, right? And there’s this thing called NATO?

There is literally nothing that could stop us from protecting Greenland from Russia or China other than a conscious choice not to do so. We are not constrained from defending it.

This is like saying “who else could stop Russia from seizing Finland” as a justification for seizing Finland.