Now He Wants to Buy Greenland

If the United States had a functional POTUS, he’d be working overtime applying strong but diplomatic pressure on India to back off Kashmir and China to back off Hong Kong. IMO these hot spots of oppression are happening now in part because the U.S. doesn’t have a functioning POTUS. The leaders of those nations know that Trump is an ineffectual joke. So anything goes. Oh, and did I mention that India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers?

Michelle Goldberg:

All over the world, things are getting worse. China appears to be weighing a Tiananmen Square-like crackdown in Hong Kong. After I spoke to Khan, hostilities between India and Pakistan ratcheted up further; on Thursday, fighting across the border in Kashmir left three Pakistani soldiers dead. (Pakistan also claimed that five Indian soldiers were killed, but India denied it.) Turkey is threatening to invade Northeast Syria to go after America’s Kurdish allies there, and it’s not clear if an American agreementmeant to prevent such an incursion will hold.

North Korea’s nuclear program and ballistic missile testingcontinue apace. The prospect of a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine is more remote than it’s been in decades. Tensions between America and Iran keep escalating. Relations between Japan and South Korea have broken down. A Pentagon report warns that ISIS is “re-surging” in Syria. The U.K. could see food shortages if the country’s Trumpish prime minister, Boris Johnson, follows through on his promise to crash out of the European Union without an agreement in place for the aftermath. Oh, and the globe may be lurching towards recession.

Regarding the recession, see Paul Krugman, From Trump Boom to Trump Gloom. Krugman’s not predicting a recession — although neither is he ruling one out — but says it’s clear the “smart money” has turned against Trump’s management of the economy. The famous inverted yield curve amounts to a vote of no confidence in Trump.

So of course The Creature wants to buy Greenland. “The president is said to have discussed the idea of purchasing Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, during dinners and meetings with advisers.” At least he’s providing comic relief in dark times.

11 thoughts on “Now He Wants to Buy Greenland

  1. Denmark reportedly said that Greenland is open for business, but not for sale!

    FSM, can you imagine the poor island as "TRUMPLAND"?"

    tRUMPty DUMBty would, if he could buy it, turn it into a melting toxic swamp, used for fossil fuels, and as a for-profit garbage dump! 

    Hmm… On the other hand, maybe we could convince his MAGAts to move there!!! 

    And from what I remember, Inuits love to eat blubber.  And what better to feast upon than grossly overweight American MAGAts?  And they wouldn't even need to hunt, like they do seals or whales.

    They could start with eating tRUMPty DUMBty:  The King of Whales! 

  2. You know, there's a question that's been bugging me. I mean, this is the sort of thing that so many people said we needed to avoid. We needed to avoid *normalizing* this. We needed to prevent people from saying "oh, well, the President of the United States just said something aggressively stupid, showing he has no idea what he's doing, but eh, it's Thursday." 

    The Constitution is what empowers the House and Senate, and their primary duty is to the Constitution, which is empowered by "We, the people of the United States (desirous of a more perfect union, the establishment of justice, the ensuring of domestic tranquility, etc.)." So, that's their responsibility, to faithfully serve those people. Sure, their constituents are their special interest, but their duty is to the whole of the American people – if they fought a bill that would save the lives of everyone in the country, but make their constituents pay an extra penny a decade in taxes, they'd be derelict in their duty by any rational standard. 

    Okay, well: we know it's corrupt to put a personal interest before one's duty; that's  a given, that's almost the definition of corruption in politics. Of course, it can be very tricky to *prove* corruption.

    A person might be a sweetheart of the fossil fuel industry, but insist that he curbs their worst impulses; sure, he has to be friendly or he'd never be reelected, but by golly, he is concerned about the environment, which is, after all, the home of the American people he serves! Well – if that person *really* is trying to be a good steward, it's not corrupt.

    On the other hand, if that person is all, "hah, the rubes *love* that 'I curb their worst impulses' BS, thanks for your PACs spreading that message so effectively! Now, how much more poison do you want to dump? I'll find a way to make it legal for you." – well, clearly, that person is corrupt, but we'd never prove it unless they get a Rains/Paine style confession (Ref: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). 

    And, of course, if there are competing bills, both of which seem to serve the American people equally effectively, there's no corruption in trying to block the other party's bill, and advance your own, though the primary concern should be getting a *good* bill, even if it's from the other party.  

    Still – what if we could prove that the Republicans were actually, actively, corrupt, in a clear, visible manner, one that couldn't really be questioned, *if* we accepted the principles above? Remember, it's a simple one: that it's wrong to put expressly *partisan* interests before the interests of the American people. You can't say it's okay because your serving your base – that's not your job, your job is to represent "We, the people of the United States".

    It wouldn't be easy to prove that, right? The Republicans can and will insist that they have a good reason to try to destroy anything the Democrats want to do – if nothing else, they'll just scream "socialism!" So how could you prove a state of mind?

    If you've read this far, I do have a point. If we could prove the Republicans were corrupt in legislative activity, if we knew that they would put something before their service to the American People, for purely partisan interests – just to make the Democrats look bad, or make the Republicans look good – then we'd have to recognize that we can't trust them in other areas as well.

    We'd have to consider their lack of action on President Trump to be evidence of corruption – refusing to perform their duties, for purely partisan purposes, because they consider their own personal interests more important than the good of the American People. 

    The House, under Republican control, has always observed the Hastert rule, even to the point of causing a government shutdown, or putting the nation on the brink of defaulting on its debts. In fact, you will find noted as interesting and almost controversial that Paul Ryan would *suspend* the Hastert rule, to allow a bipartisan vote, to end a shutdown, or avert a crisis. 

    The Hastert rule is inherently corrupt; it deliberately puts the Republicans in a position where they can deny any "wins" to the Democrats, even if those bills are supported by a large majority of the House – the Hastert rule was that all legislation must win the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. 

    While you could ask a question about every single bill, and they'd surely come up with an answer to why they had to oppose that bill, there is no satisfactory answer for questions like "why would you issue a blanket rejection on any and all bills that your colleagues might dream up? And why would you hold to such a partisan rule, when the good of the nation is at risk?" 

    The Republicans are corrupt; that's true, and by standards that we all pretty much agree on, by facts that are in the public record, and quite damning. 

    And therefore, we must ask "is their silence in the face of an incompetent, criminal, imbecile, further corruption?" Of course, they'll bluster, and refuse to answer, and swear that the Democrats do the same thing, except, the Democrats have never tried to impose something like the Hastert rule, and especially not in times of crisis. 

    Of course, if this is so simple and obvious, why haven't we discussed it? Well, the news media knows if they point out something like this, they'll lose access. Time was, if a reporter lost access for asking a legitimate (if pointed/barbed) question, that's it – that public figure just lost press access. That time is long gone; news reporting is a big business, and you *need* people with access, which means you can't have people who say "this is so obviously a corrupt abuse of power; how do you explain this to the American people?"

    Plus, after you've been observing corruption for 25 years (remember: that's when the GOP shut down the Senate to try to win the 1994 midterms – and a key use of legislative power, for purely personal reasons), it *does* start to get normalized. It does seem like "everyone does it". 

    But they don't. And the meek acceptance that it's just the way it is is part of what laid the ground for Trump. He's not different in *kind*, just in *degree*, from Republicans. Sure, he expects the Republicans, and even law enforcement, will attack his enemies. Didn't the Republicans go all in on "HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL!"? Didn't they investigate her until they found a more potent line of attack? Isn't that what Republicans *do*, corruptly investigate enemies while covering for friends? Come on, you can't blame him, he's not smart enough to realize that they need to *pretend* to have reasons that their press lickspittles will lap up without puking. He's been taught that you are *supposed* to use the levers of government to attack people who are hurting you. And he learned his lesson well. 

    Anyway: times are, I think "maybe we should point out the obvious corruption, and raise questions." Other times, I wonder if it's too late. See, the other side of the obvious corruption is, it only makes sense if you've drunk the Kool-Aid and decided that Democrats are evil enemies, so dangerous that the *only* defense is complete opposition. And there are far too many people who seem to believe that. 

    Sorry for the ramble dump.

  3. I say, we let him buy Greenland, and then send everyone who votes for him to the island to see if they can make his policies work! Start from scratch and show us!

  4. If Trump ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness. So just WHO proposed this idea and who was whispering into that aide's ear. There's a corporation behind this suggestion who tried and failed to get past Greenland's environmental restrictions or a company who realized not to try until the government was replaced with some administration open to the exploitation of Greenland.

  5. Greenland,  run by Denmark,  80 percent inuit, is not for sale.  However, if Elba is available,  I'd like to send the whole trump clan there.

  6. I would have put a bid on Brazil. Dollar for dollar I think we'd get a better return on our investment. At least on the surface Brazil has far more natural resources. Have you priced exotic hardwoods lately? Mahogany is through the roof. And don't even get me started on the cost of rosewood.

    I read an article in Rolling Stone this morning. The author of the article claims that Trump's rallies are losing their punch. Claims it's because he is replaying the same old shtick and it's wearing thin with the audience. I kinda figured that would happen. It reminds me of the early days of Howard Stern when he was all the rage because of his outrageousness and creativity, but eventually the creativity waned and he devolved into a childish repertoire of scatological humor. I don't suspect it will be long before Trump starts with the scat comments to attack his political rivals. It worked for Huey Long, and I don't think Trump is above that level of decorum.

  7. We shouldn’t make light of drumpf uck’s interest in Greenland. It is not the first time it has has expressed interest in her real estate, nor is it the first to ask: Truman looked into it the year I was born, prior inquiry dates to just after the War of Treason in Defense of Slavery, and it has long been an undercurrent of NATO – just who will control Greenland. This is no laughing matter.

    There’s oil, there’s minerals, there’s rare earth minerals, not to mention the Ruskies’ are a generation ahead of us in the Arctic… less than half a million people, no defenses to speak of, every pResident has to have a chicken-shit little war, an easy win. We’ll just take it, to the victor, all that. Who’ll stop us?


Comments are closed.