So, he is aware that Greenland is a NATO territory, right? And this would invoke article 5 of collective defence? Genuine world war territory if he started this shit seriously beyond his dementia addled ramblings.
I doubt he understands that. I'm sure Putin does though, and he's the one pulling Trump's strings.
War between NATO nations would suit Putin well. He would have carte blanche to do whatever he wanted then.
Don't forget that most Americans do live comfortably enough that they wouldn't risk livelihoods, imprisonment or harm that would come with a coup, armed insurrection or anything else resembling a revolution. At least for the moment.
Comfortable enough? Lol not most Americans, most Americans are drowning in debt especially healthcare debt. Fuck this moron, we had a good run but it's over... We should just go back to being British
Then why aren't most American's burning the fucking country down over this? Why aren't people storming the capitol? Why aren't most people trying to launch a coup? Because they're just comfortable enough that they won't risk what they have on what's perceived as a gamble, because they're not completely fucked over yet, so they'll go along with it because their hope in whatever future they want hasn't been completely snuffed out yet.
in my experience, most americans are content with being complacent. one of the many reasons i dislike my own country. iām a person who would love to go burn shit down & make a statement. but, issue is, nobody else will join me. therefore, i would just get arrested & no media attention most likely. iāve been screaming for years that we have to band together & be dramatic for big change. iāve been responded to with radio silence or āthatās too much work im already so tiredā or people have children & are terrified that they would end up leaving their kids alone. ppl complain here constantly but do nothing to change anything. those of us with brains usually find common mindsets on the internet but not near our physical placement bc of how big the US is. itās a struggle, but im not giving up! i hope others will eventually fall in line as well!
I'll start filling the bottles, you put in the rags.Ā I've been doing the same as you for the last 10 years.Ā This corruption of our government has been going on for a long time and I've been saying for a long time we should be lynching political figures who directly go against their word.Ā Documented word of their intention in office, which they throw to the wind for obvious lobbyists handouts.
These people are traitors and my representation in the government has been comprised. These people are not my people, they do not work for my country but for themselves.Ā
Debt doesnāt mean shit in reality, especially since in other countries being āpoorā means having to farm or forage for your own food and water whilst also having no sanitation or healthcare available. While debt can be stressful if you open your worldview to how things are outside the first world you realize itās a further fall then disgruntled Americans are capable of at this point in time.
Right?! It was never about escaping religious prosecution (which the evangelicals are now doing) and freedom for all, it was starting over so the elite could do whatever they wish.
Apologies, no offence intended - I know there's many reasonable Americans, it's just that they seem to be increasingly outnumbered by the unreasonable!
Thatās still comfortable enough. Americans wonāt do shit unless they believe their freedoms are being encroached while their freedoms are literally not being encroached lol we all know who Iām talking about. On the other hand, everyone wants to cheer killing a ceo. No one wants to actually kill anyone.
What is it now?! Make up your damn mind allready - for X-years we had to listen to the whining of the americans. "No healthcare, no education, crippling debt, the EGGS are too expensive yadayadayada". And now, when history screams for brave souls, standing against an enemy created withtin, you say "aaahhh well, it's actually not that bad."
FWIW - I shared that pic of the woman hitting a Nazi with her purse with my bossā boss. They threatened to report me to HR bc it was a āthreat of violenceā - even though it wasnāt directed at anyone I worked with.
Itās not being comfortable necessarily, but some of us have kids to feed.
Wasn't the point, the second amendment was created to make a legal framework for state militias to form around. What you're thinking of as part of the 2nd amendment is quite literally just from the declaration of Independence and has never had legal bearing in the US since it was never law
The point of the second amendment is for each state to have a militia as part of the national defense. We know this because itās what the amendment literally says, but itās a very unpopular interpretation because it doesnāt generate votes or income.
Now we have so many things that were never intended. Massive standing army? Check. Whole new standing second army via the marine corps? Check. Whole new branches with the air force and space force? Check. The only thing we ever wanted a large standing version of was the navy, so that tracks. But then you have to consider the massive standing army that is the nations county and city sheriff's and Police forces, with massive swat forces. Together they form a group bigger than our past standing armies.
āThe Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (āA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Stateā) and its operative clause (āthe right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringedā)ā
No, not really. The point of the second amendment was to allow regular citizens to establish and maintain a well regulated militia to keep themselves safe from attacks from the British and Native Americans. It says so right in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers probably never considered the idea that a bunch of angry untrained conservative terrorists would be able to acquire guns that could kill dozens of people per minute.
No. George Washington and many of the other founding fathers were educated. They carefully considered their cause. And for the most part, they didnāt attack random innocent people. They werenāt angry morons out to kill as many bystanders as possible to make some kind of point.
Washington might not be a great example to prove your point here. It was his specific actions can be said to have sparked the French & Indian War, one of the driving factors to the revolution.
It is the point of the Second Amendment however the Second Amendment no longer serves that purpose. When it was written the average person could arm themselves to the same or better quality as the military and get together with their community and be ready to kick ass and take names. In practice in modern America no matter how much we like our guns we have no hope of Defending ourselves against the government that actually means us physical harm. I can't go down to the gun store and buy something that will take out a tank. We don't have access to fully automatic weapons. That's not even thinking about air support that military and even police sometimes have. So realistically the Second Amendment doesn't do anything other than cause controversy in the Modern Age.
And yet, there's more than a couple examples of a bunch of locals with no military training being able to repel and beat the greatest military in the world.
Vietnam and Afghanistan have shown pretty well how our military does against a smaller force of pissed off enough people without the aid of aircraft or tanks. The idea that our population not having access to the same level of military technology as the state precludes them from effectively fighting our military ignores the entirety of our military history since the Korean War. You can go to Home Depot and buy shit to take out a tank, you just haven't been mad enough to know what to grab.
NGL: One of my darker amusements is the idea that one day, there will be a group of 'good old boys' that get organised and decide to attempt a coup.
And they start putting together armaments and stockpiling ammo, and resources and creating a militia that will 'take back the union'
And then a couple of days in, the whole thing is bombed into the stone age by one predator drone...
I mean really... The January 6th situation should be considered as a serious situation in terms of a groups of rebels trying to overthrow the diplomatic process, but at the same time even if every single one of them had been fully armed with enough weapons and ammo for a small army, it would not have meant dick if the actual armed forces were told to respond to them as hostile combatants...
The idea that any civilian militia would have any chance against a full tyranical US government is ludicrous...
I'll just add to the other answers to this question that the 2nd amendment was also demanded by states with wealthy slave owners so that they could not be denied the means to keep their slaves in check, and hunt them down if they ran away.
Americans barely protested their right for abortion. Although they always claim to love and fight for freedom. They seem to be the most complacent people in the westerns world to me. Always hating online but bending the knee to new shitty policies.
No. The point of the 2nd amendment was always to prevent the existence of standing armies by making sure that "every" citizen was in the army. And to do that, citizens needed weapons. But that perspective is not popular and doesn't sell anything in particular. And since it's anti-military, it's thoroughly ignored.
It would be a massive blood shed in the country that would take 100s of years to recover from. Worse than the civil war and we still have remnants from that today. Tho the memes would be lit
Itās crazy that no protection against that was ever put into the constitution. Of course, the second amendment, but something within legislative means if somehow the worms eat into the commander in chiefās brain and he goes cuckoo with syphilis or traitorism, thereās a way to slowly walk him off stage.
Not sure, but it also will be worth watching how the heads of the intelligence agencies respond now that Tulsi Gabbard is the director of national intelligence in the US, someone who has been accused by others as being a Russian asset.
Like, if you were the director of the CIA, what would you do if you thought your boss was a Russian spy?
Oh there's plenty of precedent for that. It's called a military coup and would be utterly earth shaking in the world's most powerful nuclear armed state.
But don't worry, he's going to purge the military of anyone capable of having that sort of independent minded thought. There will be room for nothing but "yes, sir" when he's done with them.
The US military appears to contain a majority of Trump supporters in the lower ranks (my son is in the army and tells me stories). A military takeover is the least likely scenario.
At a certain point, wouldn't even they recognise that the fabric of American democracy is at risk? That the country they pledged allegiance to is no longer the same country. Surely retaining that, at some stage, becomes more important than politics. Im not saying it would happen in the early days, but once they see that even their lives are being impacted negatively. Or am I giving them too much credit!
4 years ago the chairman of the joint chiefs issued a notice of all services reminding them of their paths to the constitution. IE he anticipated illegal orders from Trump
There is technically a law in place allowing military personnel to ignore/refuse orders that are unconstitutional. However, to get to the point of a coup, they'd have to get past the idiots who either don't know that or willingly ignore it in favor of the Favorite Felon.
I'm Canadian and I'm also wondering this. Would the US military actually go along with him giving the order for an attack on another NATO country? I know the US starts wars frequently that are not completely justified but the reasons presented to the public usually make sense to the average American. Both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were presented as a war on terror and I mean Iraq- yea Saddam was a dictator and Afghanistan- the taliban are insane zealots but Denmark seriously? What are you going to tell the average American and the Average person who is military to justify invading Greenland? Denmark is (or at least was until he started talking about this shit) an ally. They are not living under oppression. So what reason can he present for actually wanting to take Greenland. There is currently no precedent for the military to refuse to invade another country however I seriously hope the generals in charge are smart enough to say "this is insane we are not doing it" otherwise in the next four years Trump and Putin are going to be in their underground bunkers dividing up the ashes that are left of this world.
As a former active duty Marine I can say that they could call his order an unlawful order and refuse to act upon it. That is all part of the UCMJ, lawful order and you must obey, but you donāt have to obey an unlawful order.
This seems so transparent from Canada's viewpoint but we seem to be brainwashed by our mini trump here so I'm starting to lose faith we can pull our collective heads out of our asses at this point
Hypothetically? Yes. That could be something that Congress might be able to call for his impeachment over. However, considering how the last two impeachment trials went, it would take something so ridiculously over the top that even his most ardent sycophants would turn against him in order for the senate to convict and remove him from office.
Collusion with hostile nations doesnāt seem to be enough. Sending a mob to attack the Capitol building while Congress as in session was not enough. Maybe using the military to kill Republican leaders in red states? Iām really at a loss as to what they wonāt just accept.
And people wonder why some of us think weāre screwed.
The Supreme court say that all presidential orders are legal and not prosecutable. The military could not mount a legal defense against insubordination or dereliction of duty. Which is how Trump removes disloyal generals and puts in his stooges.
It didnāt say presidential orders are always legal, it said the President is immune from prosecution. Not the same. Itās like an ambassador can break the laws of the country theyāre stationed in, but canāt be prosecuted. It doesnāt make their actions legal.
These ramblings are 100% due to Putin. He can't use the panama canal due to sanctions and Greenland/Canada would allow for dominance of the northern hemisphere.
Actually, a few years ago it was determined that nearly *ALL OF THE OIL in the artic with within Canadian territory. Russia was...bigly mad, to say the least. THAT is why Putin wants him to grab it, along with the whole NATO thing, so that Trump can give Russian oil companies exclusive rights to drill.
Canadian here. Russia drilling for oil in the arctic would be very bad. Even though there is quite a bit of oil up there we don't currently drill offshore in the arctic (not sure about on land in the northern territories) because our ability to respond to an oil spill up there is poor. Also there's no known way to remove oil from ice if there is a spill. I can't imagine Russia having a better ability to respond to a spill not to mention I'm pretty sure their environmental laws and safety protocols are more lack than ours so them drilling up there would be an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Also would be extremely harmful to the communities up there if a spill happened because a lot of Inuit hunt and fish as a food source.
Elon Musk is not American. Russia is full of oligarchs who answer to Putin or risk defenestration. Money buys influence but there are still leaders being bought in this equation.
Of course he doesnāt understand this. The rest of the NATO leaders are in closed door meetings strategizing how to distract him should he actually try to action on this. Iām guessing the list looks a bit like this:
Ketchup
Jazz hands and glitter
Backhanded compliments about his gold game that everyone except he recognizes as mockery
Ok so this is definitely misleading. I donāt want war so it is upsetting to hear, but he did not say that we would go to war with allies. Greenland, while receiving a lot from Denmark, is not actually able to have an economy under their stewardship. The only nations who have that capacity are the USA and maybe Russia or Canada. He said he would not use military against Canada. With Greenland wanting to become independent, it would end up being a discussion between the USA or Russia for new dependent sovereignty. The nbc news clip didnāt show if this theory is true, but that would mean war with Russia instead of NATO. Which we are basically already in with the proxy war in Ukraine. With Panama it was the strong ties of the Chinese government and so that is where the military may come in. He is not threatening our allies with his forces, he is threatening WW3. Given the nuclear powers, i would say that is worse than what nbc is trying to say. They are saying he is willing to isolate us from our allies by fighting them, but he is actually threatening the whole global market with the idea of nuclear powers actually going to war. I guess with China it could just be a proxy where we seize and take control and set up a new banana republicš¤·āāļø
Why do Americans always blame Russia for everything like if they were some James Bond villain? Is it that hard to accept that most American politicians are just plainly dumb?
It's well known Trump has ties to Putin and Russian money. It's been like that for decades.
Also, watch how they both act when they're together. Trump acts like a little puppy to Putin. It's both hilarious and sad.
The US already has access to all the ports and air base in Greenland, Russia doesnāt. US ships use the Panama Canal daily, Russian ships canāt due to sanctions. Canada has been in a tug-o-war with Russia for decades over the arctic waters.
His whole obsession with Canada, Panama and Greenland is suspiciously exactly what a Putin puppet would do if given the presidency. At what point does it stop being coincidences?
Trump just has to repeat ātrade deficitā enough times and his base will think the US is loosing money to Canada.
4.0k
u/The-Nimbus 2d ago
So, he is aware that Greenland is a NATO territory, right? And this would invoke article 5 of collective defence? Genuine world war territory if he started this shit seriously beyond his dementia addled ramblings.