Do you think Canada and Probably Mexico will become States?

Clearly Greenland is going to become part of the United States,, you can see its in the works and Greenland is all for it...

Clearly Canadians want to be part of the United States...

Clearly Rich G is still nutty as a fruitcake.

Which Greenlanders and Canadians want to be part of the U.S.? Mainstream media could only find people who want no part of the idea.

I think Trump is pushing the Greenland and Canada idea to deflect from the fact that the price of eggs and gas isn't going down. And now that he's in the WH, someone must have whispered to him that the US has been producing record amounts of oil and gas already and isn't likely to increase any time soon, "drill baby drill" notwithstanding.

I’ve spoken with tons of Canadians over the years. It’s pretty mixed from what I can tell. A lot of them have said they do feel the US would be a better place to live. So to answer your question, it’s likely that a fair number of them would be open to the idea.

One of your biggest faults is trusting mainstream media. This has been discussed at length as a personal issue for you. Also, the PEW research study found recently the lowest levels of trust for MSM ever. MSM is clearly dead by their own doing of throwing journalism and objectivity out the window. Podcasts and individual media outlets like Rogan that focus on getting to the truth is what people want. People are craving it… except people like you.


Streamer

The problem in media is that too many people don't want or care about the truth. So truth is being devalued. So many people search out media like podcasts that reflect and reinforce their perception of reality, regardless of where reality actually is. I sample some left wing media and some right wing media, and far and away the right wing media is way more bat sh!t crazy than the left wing.

Say whatever you will, but I have been saying for over 40 years, "let us seek the truth and go where it leads us." The truth so far is that the right wingers are far crazier than the left. However, the left does have a few face eating leopards within, particularly the woke and cancel culture community.

And I don't know one single Canadian who wishes to be an American, while I do know a few Americans that moved to Canada. Better fishing, better health care.

There is no objective basis for this. It is your interpretation and opinion. It also doesn’t mean that “right wingers” are any less accurate in what they are reporting.

As hard as it is for you to wrap your head around, many of us “right wingers” are interested in what is truthful first and foremost. I have criticisms of people on the right and left. I have bigger criticisms of left policies over right policies because they tend to be far less practical, less sensible, and less realistic.


Streamer

Man, that is like, your opinion.

Couldn't resist, and it seems so appropriate.

Even if you know, you probably don't believe that a survey a while back revealed that people who only get their news from FOX are less informed and know less about what is really going on in the world than people who read or listen to no news at all. After trying to watch FOX news for a bit, I can believe that is true.

Salmo,

Show me a civilization with a sustaining leftist utopia. It’s well established that people on the left are more idealistic and less practical in nature. People on the right are more practical but less creative. There is a need for both. While many of the leftist ideas sound great, they don’t work practically. I would rather be burdened by problems on my individual level than societal problems. That is one reason why more conservative ideas resonate more with me.

Good thing I don’t only read or listen to Fox News. Fox News isn’t the exclusive voice of the political right. You know that, right?


Streamer

Back to Greenland.

Forgive the CNP job but it appears that the whole idea of Greenland isn’t that far-fetched. Here is an interesting take to consider.

President Donald Trump has now made it abundantly clear that his desire for the U.S. to acquire Greenland is not simply a passing flight of fancy. American economic and security interests in Greenland are deeply rooted in U.S. history and strategy, going back to the 19th century, and journalists, commentators, foreign diplomats and denizens of the “deep state” do themselves a disservice by failing to recognize the president’s seriousness of purpose.

The time has come to stop debating Trump’s intentions and instead focus on how to implement the first major expansion of American territory since the McKinley administration, when Hawaii was annexed.

The Trump administration can begin by keeping one important fact in mind: For all the focus thus far on the reaction in Denmark to Trump’s comments, the Greenlanders themselves have made clear their desire for independence from Copenhagen. Not only has Greenland gradually attained autonomy from Denmark over the last several decades, but Greenlanders explicitly stated their desire for independence in coming decades in the nation’s 2024 defense policy documents.

Importantly, Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede recently made clear that his people do not wish to be Danish and seek independence ultimately. So Trump will be dealing with a Greenlandic populace and leadership on the path to eventual sovereignty, not a recalcitrant Danish colony seeking permanent control by Copenhagen.

With this in mind, Trump could convene an immediate trilateral meeting with the prime ministers of Denmark and Greenland and propose several specific paths forward, premised on Greenland’s eventual independence from Denmark. As the Greenlanders have intentionally kept their desired timeline for leaving the Kingdom of Denmark vague, Trump would have considerable room to the maneuver in these discussions.

First, Trump can propose that, upon Greenland’s independence from Copenhagen as determined by the Greenlanders and Danes, America will be prepared to welcome Greenland as an “insular area” of the U.S. This status currently applies to 14 different entities, including three independent countries in “free association” with the U.S. and territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands (purchased from Denmark in 1916).

These “insular areas” are generally categorized as either “unincorporated organized territories” or “unincorporated unorganized territories.” The former, among which are Puerto Rico and Guam, are governed pursuant to an act of Congress and have considerable local control, as decided by Congress. The latter are generally governed with more direct input from Washington and less local control… likely a nonstarter for the Greenlanders.

Should the “unincorporated organized territory” route appeal to the Greenlanders, Trump could include an additional sweetener taken from a former insular area that eventually attained statehood… Alaska. Beyond the normal benefits that accrue to residents of all U.S. insular areas, the Greenlanders could be offered a version of the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes portions of the state’s oil and gas wealth.

The Alaska Permanent Fund is an institutional investor for future generations of Alaskans which also pays out the Permanent Fund Dividend… a guaranteed income for all residents who meet certain basic requirements. These can serve as a template for harnessing Greenland’s vast mineral wealth to the benefit of its citizens, with the understanding that American administration of the island will substantially assist in bringing that underground wealth to fruition.

The Trump administration can also easily contrast U.S. environmental and cultural sensitivity with that of the Chinese and Russians, who will be waiting for an independent Greenland in order to exploit the island with little regard for its inhabitants.

Second, Trump has a unique tool in his kit to offer the Greenlanders in negotiations. The U.S. has compacts of free association with three Pacific Islands — the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. These islands are independent countries, with independent foreign policies, whose defense and security is guaranteed by the U.S. Additional economic incentives have been offered to each of the three. In Palau’s case, that includes a trust fund that has done much to bolster the island’s long-term economic well-being.

Such a compact with Greenland could conceivably include independence, U.S. defense and security guarantees (including unrestricted U.S. military access) and the creation of an Alaska or Palau-style fund to responsibly administer and distribute portions of Greenland’s mineral wealth.

Finally, while Greenlandic independence from Denmark is sorted out, Trump can make immediate requests of America’s ally in Copenhagen. Denmark’s defense commitment to Greenland has been woefully inadequate to date, especially as Chinese and Russian adventurism in the Arctic grows. Denmark can pledge to immediately devote additional air, missile and naval assets to Greenland and, with the U.S., petition NATO for additional joint Arctic defense commitments. If NATO is serious about retaining relevancy in the 21st century, the defense of the Alliance’s Northern Flank must be a priority.

The American and European pundit class first dismissed Trump’s interest in Greenland as a joke. When that became untenable, it turned to blithely assuring the world that Trump lacked options to effectuate the historic American security interest in Greenland. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the hands of an experienced dealmaker like Trump, the government has strong options to bring Greenland into the U.S. while strengthening our shared economic and security interests.


Streamer

Streamer,

There are no utopias, left or right. There are a number of distopias governed by autocrats or dictators. Sustaining left leaning or socialist style nations include Norway, Sweden, and Finland for starters. I think there are others, but that's not a topic I've read about.

I find that people on the right frequently misbelieve that simple solutions will solve complex problems. Occasionally they will, but that isn't often the case. I observe that a lot of people on the right can't seem to wrap their minds around complexity. Hence, I think the propensity to rely on religion as a solution or have disdain for multi-culturalism, and are willing lapdogs to serve the rich. They hold stupid ideas like not believing in science as if belief matters. And stupid conservatives like JD Vance wants the US to have more babies, not realizing that notion isn't sustainable either.

It doesn't bother them that since 1941 $50 trillion has been transferred from 90% of the population to the upper 1% of the population. They willingly swallow the lie that trickle down economics works for the middle class, when the decades of 1981 through 2021 demonstrate that it doesn't. It does just the reverse.

Now, among those on the left, I'll grant you, are many so-called libtards who don't understand the simplist economics and invented cancel culture, now adopted by conservatives. Intelligent liberals understand why the Air Force shouldn't have to hold bake sales to buy new fighter jets. We understand that as nations, including our own, grow larger, issues become more complex, and we have the know how to develop solutions as simple or complex as necessary to get the job done. We also understand that America is more of an idea than a thing; that above all else the American ideal is democracy, held together by the rule of law; not theocracy or Christian Nationalism, not oligarchy, and therefore not Trump. The reason for despising Trump, or TDS as you call it, is because Trump doesn't give a sh!t about that American ideal. Trump is in it for himself. It's frustrating and discouraging that so many Americans either can't see or don't care that above all else Trump is a grifter and is using the power of office for just that.

Now Greenland.

"In the hands of an experienced dealmaker like Trump, . . ." Hah, Trump as deal maker would ensure first and foremost that he and his oligarch billionaire friends make a financial killing. Any benefit to Greenland and Greenlanders would be coincidental at best. Why, you say? Because that's how Trump works. He's incapable of putting someone else's interest above his own. The US doesn't need to "own" Greenland. The US already has, and has had for many decades, a military base in Greenland. If the Pentagon, not Trump, believes US security needs require a greater presence in the Greenland area, then sure, a tri-lateral agreement or treaty between Greenland, Denmark, and the US should be pursued that enhances security for all, including NATO generally. I say the Pentagon and not Trump because Trump proves himself ignorant daily. I wouldn't trust him to secure my garden against the deer and rabbits, let alone the security of the nation.

Greenland's independence is something the US should stand clear of. That is between Greenland and Denmark. Greenland has natural resources, and perhaps the US wants in on them. If so, then the US needs to make a better offer than China, Russia, or Iran. BTW, with Trump ending foreign aid to nations other than Israel and Egypt, he has opened the door for China, Iran, and Russia to make inroads into those other nations. They need aid, and if they don't get it from the US, they'll take it from our adversaries. Great deal maker, that Trump guy. Your guy. Anyway, that's my response to your Greenland article which looks to have been written by a Trump ball washer. Do you seriously enjoy being in league with that ilk?

Salmo,


Those left countries also aren’t without their share of problems, either. It’s also easy to cherry pick small, homogenous demographics and apply a broad principle when the collective values are the same. The problem with socialistic ideology within the US is there are too many conflicting views, values and demographics. It simply cannot work here without a host of problems. Socialistic ideology can be better applied when the demographics are most similar.

I always give credence to the adage, “be wary of simple solutions to complex problems” but quite often there are exceptions to this. As a general rule, I believe that individuals are better problem solvers than systems and government. I do realize the shortcomings of such a belief, but plenty of problems are also created try to solve others. Unintended consequences are often not considered. Republicans and Democrats alike suffer from this problem. I think it’s better to err on the side of people solving their own problems, having a more smaller and limited government, and allowing laissez-faire economics to run its course. Again, not perfect, simply better.

And again, I challenge you to view situations more objectively. Your bias against Trump is unwarranted evidenced by your unwillingness to address ANY positive aspects from Trump or his presidency. There is plenty of good to go with the bad you know. While I am not a fan of say, Joe Biden, I also won’t hesitate to share the positive or redeeming aspects. But that is because I am more objective and reasonable than you.


Streamer

Streamer,

Thanks you for the hearty belly laugh! You posted: ". . . because I am more objective and reasonable than you." This tells me that you surely don't know me. We really should meet for a beer. Honestly, I am called objective and reasonable, almost to the extreme, rather frequently. And here's a laugh for you: my family considers me the redneck conservative.

No country is utopia. Utopia does not exist, but you asked about successful leftist countries. And they are not that uncommon. All countries have problems. Any time you have a group of people, you have problems, and the larger the group, I'd wager that there are more problems. I used to favor the idea of a smaller and more limited government, i.e., the government that governs least, governs best. However, the more I study damn near everything, the more I realized that the shear size of our population requires a larger government, especially if we are to persist as a democratic republic, or constitutional republic, if you prefer. Either way, we need some set of common values, like a belief in democracy and the rule of law. To have those we need an educated population, so I believe in the value of public education. Because we are a multi-cultural society, I believe separation of church and state is more important than ever. I think it's interesting that at a time when most religious people in the US were Christian that the founders decided this separation was imperative. (Mainly I think, because where religion and state are combined, you end up with a monarchy.)

I agree that where there are varying demographics, the social contract is invariably more difficult, regardless of whether the group is socialist or laissez-faire. Laissez-faire economics is not far removed from anarchy, each to himself and may the better man win. Except for the better man part, because any objective observer sees that the "better man" gets lucky far more than he admits and amasses allies and strength to better himself at the expense of his competitors, and then uses that strength to not only dominate, but bit by bit, eliminate his competition. Then you get oligarchies and dictators, like what Trump is trying to amass.

My bias against Trump is based on the objective evidence that he is unabashedly a despicable POS. I've listed the reasons a while back, and the only one I recall any push back on was my declaration that he attempted a coup or insurrection. And I stand by my observation. No president has ever resisted so strongly the peaceful transfer of power, or declared an objectively verified election as stolen. He knows he lost the election to Biden, but he invariably doubles down no matter how wrong, no matter how stupid his position is. So to me he remains a traitor to the US who escaped prison primarily due to bungling Democrats.

I have addressed the only positive aspect of Trump's administration. He doesn't do it with a class act, but he has done more than any administration to control the US southern border. If he has any other positive aspect to his agenda, I don't know what it is.

His tariff plan is stupid; most economists and financial experts agree. When he announced the tariffs taking effect today, the Dow immediately dropped 200 points. Apparently investors know more about the effect of tariffs than Trump and his close knit group of knuckleheads. Trump summarily fired 17 Inspectors General, but couldn't be bothered to follow the law. Why? He is demanding resignations or firing everyone at the FBI who participated in investigations of him, that is, agents who were doing their jobs. Trump is picking Cabinet and Department heads based mainly, if not solely, on their loyalty to HIM, with zero regard to fealty to the US Constitution. No president, even Nixon, has done that (although Nixon kinda' tried). Can anyone who is OK with this even be considered an American? Really? The FBI didn't investigate Trump because they disliked Trump; they investigated Trump because there is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that Trump violated the law. So just where is this "good" you associate with Trump? Oh, and now Trump prohibited DOD and the State Department from any observation of or acknowledgement of Black History month. Now I'm not a big observer of this or most any of the "month" dedications. But just how does this Trump proclamation serve the country? Other than, of course, appeasing Trump's many racists fans? Tell you what, why don't you make a list of 2 columns, one for Trump's positive attributes and one for his negative. When you run short of negative ones, I'll help you out.

I don't think Greenland has the population required to become a state. It's not even barely enough for a territory. However there is a third option, a compact of free association. We have compacts of free association with the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. So what I see as possible for Greenland is that they vote for independence then join a compact of free association with the US. I don't see them becoming a state or territory.

One thing not mentioned about Greenland will be its cost. Unless Donnie plans huge casinos and resorts it is mostly a subsistence economy with all the medical, educational, and other expenses paid by Denmark. In an economic sense it is deeply Red, requiring huge infusions of money, which I din't this administration is willing to consider. Be one of the USAID money laundering thingys.

Denmark subsidizes Greenland with $591 million per year or about $1.68 per american. Yes that is a lot of money but it is easily payable. Would you pay $1.68 a year to acquire Greenland? It's pretty cheap, less than a cost of a cup of coffee per year. We provide $7.1 billion over 20 years to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau for their compact of free associations with the US so $591 million annually to Greenland is in this ballpark. I do like how all of a sudden a liberal is now concerned with government spending, when for the last four years it was radio silence. So tell me is there any democrat spending you don't like or is it only republican proposals?

My best guess is that after all of Trump's ballyhoo about Greenland, the Greenlanders only have a big F You to Trump and the US.

What bothers me most about government spending is that when Democrats spend a dollar to feed a starving child, that is bad government spending, but when Republicans add $8 trillion to the federal deficit under Trump, that somehow is good government spending. Or possibly worse is Republican silence when prez Musk eliminates agencies that provide services approved by Congress but also happen to be investigation some of Musk's businesses for illegal activity. Nothing announces "OPEN FOR CORRUPTION" like a Republican Congress sitting on its azz. Notice that Musk's federal contracts have jumped from $2.2 billion to $4.5 billion in three weeks. Couldn't be any conflict of interest there.

Fixed it for you.

Since you are a big fan of “whataboutisms” nice “what about Musk” you threw in there as well.


Streamer

Touche' Streamer! Yeah, let the kid starve. That'll make Merika great!

And what about prez Musk? Think the possibility of conflict of interest might exist?

Elon Musk is not a natural born citizen, therefore he cannot be the president. Non-issue.

Citizens should decide where their money goes to feed starving children and what organizations to fund. Not the government.


Streamer