Greenland

[This_person]

I'm not sure why we're splitting hairs here.

No claim was made that Trump proposed legislation, asked for an appropriation, made a treaty, nor anything remotely close. The Greenland idea was floated. Trump acknowledged it, on TV. That's it.

I simply asked it it sounded like a good idea or not.

I think the hair splitting is whether this was Trump's idea, or an underling's idea that Trump is being "credited" with (or blamed for, depending on how it is presented). It seems far more likely, based on the context of the discussions with the media, that someone suggested it, he said "look into it", and the underling went to a friendly media person and said, "can you believe how dumb this guy is to fall for this idea? Maybe you should spin it this way, or that way…."

What is your opinion, good idea or not?

 

[awpitt]

BTW... congratulations on your nuptials!

Aww... Thank you.

 

[Gilligan]

Buy it or don't...I've always planned to visit the place. My Dad bought the farm there in 1958...helo crash. Certain areas of Greenland are breathtakingly beautiful.

 

[This_person]

Aww... Thank you.

I didn't know - congratulations!

 

[This_person]

Buy it or don't...I've always planned to visit the place. My Dad bought the farm there in 1958...helo crash. Certain areas of Greenland are breathtakingly beautiful.

Sorry to hear it. Never been - I'd love to go as well.

 

[awpitt]

What is your opinion, good idea or not?

To be honest, I'm not sure. That's why I started this thread. Just wanted to see what other folks are thinking. I mean, I'm not jumping up and saying it's a bad idea. Just need to learn more.

 

[awpitt]

I didn't know - congratulations!

Thank you.

 

[Gilligan]

Sorry to hear it. Never been - I'd love to go as well.

I fly over Greenland quite often and it's an amazing thing to behold from 35,000 feet on a clear day.

 

[stgislander]

Maybe we could get Denmark to trade Puerto Rico for it? Nah, that would cost us too much - who in their right mind would want Puerto Rico?

We could give them back the USVI in trade.

 

[This_person]

To be honest, I'm not sure. That's why I started this thread. Just wanted to see what other folks are thinking. I mean, I'm not jumping up and saying it's a bad idea. Just need to learn more.

Thomas Jefferson didn't think the LA Purchase was within the authority of the federal government, but rather should have been put to a national vote - for a constitutional amendment to allow such a thing.

The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it… it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.

Later in life, he said it was an "accomplishment", but when he was closer to the constitution being signed he saw it as a failure - of his, to get a constitutional amendment to allow it. It was accomplished via treaty, so he had to sign it, and couldn't pass up the great deal. But, he didn't think it was within the power of the government.

I, personally, tend to agree it should require an amendment to allow the government to do it. But, we have a little over two centuries of precedent, which makes that seem unnecessary today.

 

[Monello]

Buy it, then ship all the asylum seekers there to wait for their court dates.

 

[This_person]

Buy it, then ship all the asylum seekers there to wait for their court dates.

Cheaper to ship them to Gitmo. I'm sure there's some work that could be done there while they wait.

 

[Yooper]

From a strategic standpoint, it's a good idea.

Agreed. It would be an excellent acquisition (if the price was good).

Denmark already said Greenland isn't for sale so much like Trump's ideas, it'll go nowhere.

I wouldn't be so sure. Sounded like a proposal was floated and the other side went with a standard negotiating response.

Denmark pays a huge sum of money to subsidize Greenland. That would be my concern regarding any acquisition. Some work out in their strategic value to the U.S. (e.g., Guam), some no longer have value (e.g., Puerto Rico?). For current strategic reasons, I think any expenditures would be far outweighed by the strategic upside. Further, money currently spent on Thule and other U.S. facilities would remain "in house" as opposed to sent to Denmark.

Folks can claim it's an outrageous idea, but one never knows unless one asks. Right?

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[awpitt]

Thomas Jefferson didn't think the LA Purchase was within the authority of the federal government, but rather should have been put to a national vote - for a constitutional amendment to allow such a thing.



Later in life, he said it was an "accomplishment", but when he was closer to the constitution being signed he saw it as a failure - of his, to get a constitutional amendment to allow it. It was accomplished via treaty, so he had to sign it, and couldn't pass up the great deal. But, he didn't think it was within the power of the government.

I, personally, tend to agree it should require an amendment to allow the government to do it. But, we have a little over two centuries of precedent, which makes that seem unnecessary today.

I've never thought of land acquisition as needing a Constitutional Amendment. I've always though that was something done through treaties as part of foreign policy which is a function of the federal govt. But I can see how there would've been some controversy about it in Jefferson's time. The U.S. was still new.

 

[This_person]

I've never thought of land acquisition as needing a Constitutional Amendment. I've always though that was something done through treaties as part of foreign policy which is a function of the federal govt. But I can see how there would've been some controversy about it in Jefferson's time. The U.S. was still new.

At the time, the only real way to gain land was through war. There are still parts of the US that, technically, still belong to France (though any squatter's law would make it the US's by now).

It's a huge expenditure of funds, and there's not a single thing in Article One Section Eight that authorizes it. It is silent, and where it is silent the government has no authority (per the tenth amendment).

A treaty was expeditious rather than constitutional. Today, it is precedent.

 

[GURPS]

Yup. And I asked the same question as everyone else - how did it become a thing?

TDS


I am wondering about the ' Recession ' Rumors

 

[This_person]

TDS


I am wondering about the ' Recession ' Rumors

Ditto

 

[GURPS]

Ditto

Trump isn't WRONG about the News Media IMHO you will see more and more BS Articles as the left spins some recession memes

 

[Toxick]

I think it would be awesome if Greenland becomes a state before Puerto Rico.

 

[truby20]

TDS


I am wondering about the ' Recession ' Rumors

An hour ago he tweeted that he is delaying a meeting with Denmark because the prime minister dismissed the idea that Greenland could be purchased.



What exactly is TDS about this?