# Trump looking into buying Greenland country (owned by Denmark)



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 19, 2019)

I read this the other day but it's been confirmed that Trump may purchase it. Greenland is a beautiful country and who knows if Trump owning it would ruin it as we know it.

Honestly? I hope it doesn't happen.

News article: https://nypost.com/2019/08/18/kudlow-confirms-trump-wants-to-buy-greenland/


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 19, 2019)

Already shut down FAST by Denmark. They said, "LOLno." so it's not happening. Good.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 19, 2019)

It's not going to happen, but it's also not "crazy talk." The US has purchased territories in the past, no reason to think it can't or shouldn't happen again.

Also there's a history for this specific proposal. The USA made an offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark in 1946. (Also turned down.)


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Honestly? I hope it doesn't happen.


  Just out of curiosity, do you not want Trump to buy Greenland or you don't want it to become a US territory like Puerto Rico and Guam?

Is this what you think will happen?


Spoiler



View attachment 176684


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 19, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you not want Trump to buy Greenland or you don't want it to become a US territory like Puerto Rico and Guam?
> 
> Is this what you think will happen?
> 
> ...



Hed rather the mexican cartels buy it then trump. the cartels can hold a candel to trump dont you know.... i'm sure he would rather have the Red Chinese buy it. Im sure the Chinese would you you keep your freedom...


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

My only reaction is to feel bad for South Park and The Onion, because they can't possibly write satire to match the absurdity of the reality we're currently living in.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> Hed rather the mexican cartels buy it then trump. the cartels can hold a candel to trump dont you know.... i'm sure he would rather have the Red Chinese buy it. Im sure the Chinese would you you keep your freedom...


Exactly, just like those fascist in Hong Kong waving the American Flag and singing the national anthem.  Don't they know how great it would be under China's rule? 
Seeing that the OP has a swedish flag, maybe a muslim nation could buy it instead or just move all its people into Greenland to take it over just as they are doing to Sweden.  Good times for all then. 

I just don't get why all the hate against the US or Trump.  It's probably because all they see is the hate from the news media without actually seeing any truths for themselves.  The best thing that could happen to Greenland and its people would be for them to become a US territory along with all the freedoms that come with that status.



Xzi said:


> My only reaction is to feel bad for South Park and The Onion, because they can't possibly write satire to match the absurdity of the reality we're currently living in.



I completely agree.  Even the Simpsons' writers are hurting because every time they come up with a new script, people yell, "CNN did it, CNN did it".


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> My only reaction is to feel bad for South Park and The Onion, because they can't possibly write satire to match the absurdity of the reality we're currently living in.




Same absurd reality we were living in when the USA last offered to purchase Greenland. (1946)


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Same absurd reality we were living in when the USA last offered to purchase Greenland. (1946)


Mmmmmm id argue its just a little different this time around, mate. Haha


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Same absurd reality we were living in when the USA last offered to purchase Greenland. (1946)


Looking into it, now it makes more sense.  The 1946 proposal was all about the fact that Greenland is an oil-rich nation.  With Trump being in the pocket of big oil, I suppose the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Of course, Denmark would be absolute fools to allow the US to destroy the natural beauty of Greenland with large-scale drilling operations, so it's unsurprising that they quickly shot down this new offer.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 19, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Mmmmmm id argue its just a little different this time around, mate. Haha




Go ahead. What's so different?




Xzi said:


> Looking into it, now it makes more sense.  The 1946 proposal was all about the fact that Greenland is an oil-rich nation.  With Trump being in the pocket of big oil, I suppose the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Of course, Denmark would be absolute fools to allow the US to destroy the natural beauty of Greenland with large-scale drilling operations, so it's unsurprising that they quickly shot down this new offer.




No argument there. They've got just as much right to say no as the USA has to suggest it.

FWIW, I think strategic location has as much to do with it as natural resources, then and now.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Go ahead. What's so different?


Im not talking about purchasing. Im talking about the sitcom of an administration of which the US holds at this time. Vast difference. If you cant (or refuse to...) see that, youre blind.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> With Trump being in the pocket of big oil, I suppose the more things change, the more they stay the same.


 *sigh*, more leftist propaganda without proof.  Trump is not in the pocket of big oil.  That was the Bush's and Cheney's (and Clintons forgot about them). 



Xzi said:


> Of course, Denmark would be absolute fools to allow the US to destroy the natural beauty of Greenland with large-scale drilling operations


  Denmark would be fools to not drill for all that precious oil and gas for themselves.  If they are unwilling, why not let someone else do it?  We would make Greenland better than ever.  Have a little faith in your own country, will ya?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> FWIW, I think strategic location has as much to do with it as natural resources, then and now.


But we already have military bases in the area (and basically all over the world), it's not necessary to purchase the country to use it as a staging ground for any operations we might need to conduct.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 19, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Im not talking about purchasing. Im talking about the sitcom of an administration of which the US holds at this time. Vast difference. If you cant (or refuse to...) see that, youre blind.




You're entitled to your opinion but I don't see where that's especially relevant ... the USA has purchased territories in the past, has made a specific offer for Greenland in the past. And if the purchase happened, it would be permanent, not just for the term of the current administration. I would hope Denmark and Greenland would be making this decision because they simply have no interest in it generally, not because of who the current President is. That would be rather immature leadership (not saying it isn't so though, could be a factor).


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You're entitled to your opinion but I don't see where that's especially relevant ... the USA has purchased territories in the past, has made a specific offer for Greenland in the past. And if the purchase happened, it would be permanent, not just for the term of the current administration. I would hope Denmark and Greenland would be making this decision because they simply have no interest in it generally, not because of who the current President is.* That would be rather immature leadership* (not saying it isn't so though, could be a factor).


That's pretty ironic, isn't it.


----------



## notimp (Aug 19, 2019)

As Ice melts new regions become viable for oil extraction, so we have a new Goldrush mentality.

Russia already has become very active in the arctic recently (new sea routes became available) - see:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielc...y-resources-under-arctic-circle/#7069dd706eea

Then read this:
http://www.breakingburgh.com/greenland-announces-it-is-not-for-sale-to-russia/

And you've got Trumps entire thought process... 

Also - arent the US in debt?  Oh yeah, i forgot (ok, I did not..  ) world reserve currency.
"We buy you with all the money we made from you having to sell your oil in USD."

Do you really think Trump matters here? Btw? Because all he does is act as a towncryer at this point. So the 'public officials state' discusses a thing, then he reads the 3 sentence version of it, then steps in front of a camera to act smart. 'But will Trump...' the answer at this point is always no. Hes a lame duck president. (Google that term.) He isn't very smart - so most decisions are delegated by this point. So he gets his shouting in front of a starting helicopter time a few times each week, and thats pretty much it by this point. Honestly - if you get him occupied with North Korea peace talks on the executive level (those are done by diplomats, btw - not by presidents), and have him announce, when he decided not to bomb a minor thing - you are dealing with a president in play acting. If he isnt smart enough to exercise or demand any real power, hey why give it to him. I mean he gets all those reports, but if hes not really interested in them, hey - no harm done. Real talk (but also just an opinion).


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 19, 2019)

*sigh*

From the OP's source:



			
				Greenland’s Prime Minister Kim Kielsen said:
			
		

> Greenland is not for sale and cannot be sold





/discussion


----------



## notimp (Aug 19, 2019)

But why. 

Because they just became rich.

And thats why there is interest.

/end discussion

(I threw in a 'why is this something you think Trump decides again' just for fun.  (Because he really doesnt. At no point, on no level (even if - Congress).))


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> From the OP's source:
> Greenland is not for sale and cannot be sold
> ...



Agreed


----------

