this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
245 points (97.3% liked)

politics

20690 readers
5274 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Serious question, if the states did invade somewhere, whether it's Greenland, Canada or Panama, what countries would actually be willing to use military force to stop them?

Would they end up going to China for aid?

[–] ramenshaman 2 points 1 hour ago

We might find out this year.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Trump is a Russian asset. Americans have become the taliban of the West.

[–] pyre 2 points 10 hours ago

🌍🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago

The United States of America is a rogue state.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 14 hours ago

This asshole is the kind of bumbling cartoonishly psychotic politician you read about on surviving pre-bomb terminals in Fallout.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Greenland isn’t for sale, and coercion isn’t diplomacy. This will backfire internationally.

🐱🐱

[–] notsoshaihulud 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

at this point, that seems to be the goal

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

War on the continent and suspended elections.

Seems petty obvious.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

It’s a very small population, but a very, very large piece of land.

Sounds like the king of clowntown has been looking at a Mercator projection again. It's an easy mistake for people who don't know what they're talking about to make.

I stole this from reddit:

And this interest in Greenland smacks of the game of "Risk", which might be the basis of his foreign policy.

I'm which case, he should mass forces on New Zealand.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's still, like, a quarter of the US landmass (eyeball measurement), which is big

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The total area of Greenland is 2.1 million km², but where other countries have usable land and maybe some lakes, Greenland has 1.7 million km² of ice. There's some land under there, but much less than you might think:

Topographic map of Greenland (Wikipedia)

The US has 9.1 million km² of actual land, so if we're counting the ice, a quarter is about right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

oh wow, there's a whole pond in the middle ! wonder if it's salty

[–] grue 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

there’s a whole pond in the middle

Well yes, but actually no.

That part in the middle is land that has a miles-thick pile of ice on top of it. There's probably not any significant amount of liquid water on that land under the ice right now, and (in the long term) there probably still wouldn't be any liquid water on it because isostatic rebound would cause the land to lift if the ice were removed. I haven't found any sources that definitively claim whether the magnitude of the rebound would be enough to get all of it above sea level, but my guess is that it would.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

That's mad, thanks for the link. Simply fascinating

[–] someguy3 8 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

It's still a very large peice of land.

This has interesting maps https://youtu.be/rCBt4XgCX-0

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 16 hours ago

I read a reaction from a Greenlandic politician. He was mostly upset about the laugh track that followed Trump saying "incredible people".

Watch the clip again if you didn't notice.

It's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be addressed like that. The politician went on to call it an "unacceptable human view".

I agree. The act of the middle school bully doesn't translate into anything remotely strong or respectable. It's just disgusting. It doesn't matter who or what they're talking about, and when presenting themselves by giggles and eye-rolling, they're really only presenting their own insecurity by hiding their disgusting views in the support of a laugh track.

I am from Denmark, which actually colonized Greenland. We have made mistakes and treated them badly in the past for sure, but never like that. We have never laughed in their faces when doing so.

[–] finitebanjo 116 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

NGL if the USA invades anywhere other than Russia, I'll be enlisting for the other side.

[–] kat_angstrom 86 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

As a Canadian, the moment tanks roll across the border I'm going feral. This is not the future we were promised in our youth. Sovereignty is non-negotiable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

As a German I will join you.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 20 hours ago

I'm with you buddy i will use the rest of my life making canada a useless wasteland before i let those fucktard take 1 inch of land

[–] [email protected] 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Might I suggest buying a few cheap drones? If every Canadian had five cheap drones and access to special recipes any occupation would be costly and extremely expensive.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The only recipes I have are for muffins. I'm a terrible baker though, so that might still work.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Make the muffins using Styrofoam and gasoline.

Stuff Styrofoam in a glass container. Fill up.

When ready to bake Heat wick to 350°

^I love the smell of napalm muffins in the morning.^

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

Just like momma used to make when protesting animal testing!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] breadsmasher 34 points 20 hours ago

if the military doesnt go against trump and refuse, itll be a repeat of “just following orders”

[–] eran_morad 21 points 20 hours ago (10 children)

Nah bruv, it’s probably far more effective to engage in sabotage at home.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

Start with the propaganda outlets and think tanks.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 15 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

If I was single and childless I'd be more than tempted to go fight in Ukraine. That might be the most productive and objectively noble thing anyone could do right now to stop Putin and maybe, by extension, the US.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

IDK. Luigi did a lot and didn't have to leave the US to do it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] finitebanjo 20 points 20 hours ago

I was tempted but Ukraine made a public statement that they need armaments, not untrained fighters.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] breakingcups 39 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

That sounds like a declaration of war

[–] [email protected] 19 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

A threat of war, sure. But you don't declare war like that clip of "declaring" bankruptcy. Even with all the wars the US has started, the last one declared was in 1942. Until Congress formally declares war, or troops start to move in, it's still just a threat.

That said, it is a threat that everyone should take very seriously.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 16 hours ago

Well then the concept of declaration of war you're presenting is worth jack shit since the US has ravaged countries for decades after 1942

All it means is that congress' approval is not needed to wage war, so this threat is way closer to a declaration than what you estimate

[–] aesthelete 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

This is true, but I'm unclear on what the last authorization of force -- that was hastily passed by Congress during whatever crisis or whatever lull between crises preemptively -- authorizes the prezzy to do without a war declaration.

Congress has continually abdicated its position as a co-equal branch of government.

[–] teamevil 20 points 18 hours ago

This dumb fuck is trying to speed run WW3 for no other reason than to suck up to his man crush...that bitch putin

[–] eran_morad 31 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

This shit show brought to you be the American voter, who pissed away 80 years of good will and American economic dominance out of sheer stupidity. Make Russia an Empire Again!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 16 hours ago
[–] raynethackery 10 points 18 hours ago

You know, you could always just buy their raw materials.

[–] Scott_of_the_Arctic 11 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Danish special forces are watching you...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] someguy3 16 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Ukraine was the Sudetenland, but I didn't expect like this.

load more comments
view more: next ›