Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
112 Indlæg 75 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

    Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

    Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

    Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

    It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

    What do you get?

    vikxin@beach.cityV This user is from outside of this forum
    vikxin@beach.cityV This user is from outside of this forum
    vikxin@beach.city
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #63

    @futurebird he's a real estate developer. With the receding ice caps, he sees an opportunity to develop real estate

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

      There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.

      I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.

      But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.

      vikxin@beach.cityV This user is from outside of this forum
      vikxin@beach.cityV This user is from outside of this forum
      vikxin@beach.city
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #64

      @futurebird I'm pretty sure he's on-record about wanting to leave NATO. Presumably due to Putin whispering in his ear, and before that the Soviets. He's been a Russian asset since the 80s.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • O oyvindbs@nerdculture.de

        Probably extraction of minerals in a very harmful manner for the environment. Denmark and the EU does not give extractive industries free reign. @futurebird

        stevejb@beige.partyS This user is from outside of this forum
        stevejb@beige.partyS This user is from outside of this forum
        stevejb@beige.party
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #65

        @Oyvindbs @futurebird Bingo!

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • billiglarper@rollenspiel.socialB billiglarper@rollenspiel.social

          @EvilCartyen @futurebird

          I share your view of Trump.

          Just not that last part.

          Secessions shouldn't be done lightly, and never under push from an outside power.

          This was done in preparation of the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. I think we should have learned our lessons by now.

          Just like we might dream of the US coastal states leaving the US and joining Canada. But such a thing happening in reality? The potential for chaos and violence is huge.

          evilcartyen@mstdn.dkE This user is from outside of this forum
          evilcartyen@mstdn.dkE This user is from outside of this forum
          evilcartyen@mstdn.dk
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #66

          @billiglarper @futurebird

          Greenland has had the right to declare independence by a simple referendum since 2009, and it's been the stated goal of many Greenlandic governments since.

          It would have to be formally accepted by the Danish parliament, but it would be just a rubber stamp provided that the referendum is legitimate and fair.

          The main issue is facing an independent Greenland is economic - right now the nation gets about 40% of the state budget from Denmark.

          The big question is if true independence is attainable, given the harsh conditions, the huge distances, and the small population. Whoever brings the money will have some sort of disproportionate influence, and the question is whether it's better to have this influence wielded by Denmark, the US, or some other power.

          It's ultimately up to the Greenlanders what they want to do, but so far 85% say they don't want to associate with the US.

          lukeryanps@toot.communityL 1 Reply Last reply
          1
          0
          • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

            Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

            Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

            Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

            It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

            What do you get?

            darkling@mstdn.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
            darkling@mstdn.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
            darkling@mstdn.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #67

            @futurebird I think you're seeking rationality where there is absolutely none.

            T 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

              Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

              Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

              Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

              It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

              What do you get?

              debbiedoomer@ni.hil.istD This user is from outside of this forum
              debbiedoomer@ni.hil.istD This user is from outside of this forum
              debbiedoomer@ni.hil.ist
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #68

              @futurebird
              Also, to be clear. Military projection and strip mining for rare earth metals are a part of it

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • mmby@mastodon.socialM mmby@mastodon.social

                @futurebird breaking up NATO makes sense when you think that the EU will never be able to defend itself on its own - or if you think that European NATO countries get an unfair economic advantage by not spending so muchon their military (but get social security for that)

                then you can put even more diplomatic pressure on them, to get security guarantees - but we know that's not how it works - IMO people at the helm have started to believe their own propaganda

                billiglarper@rollenspiel.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                billiglarper@rollenspiel.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                billiglarper@rollenspiel.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #69

                @mmby @futurebird

                But the US could just leave. No need to have a costly war over it. And why Greenland, when invading Canada is probably easier?

                Or just do nothing. Silently decide to not support other countries when they get attacked. But keep on using the joint radar bases in the north and the logistical hubs in central Europe.

                This being a distraction and/or Trump the Conqueror wishing to turn more regions on the map US colored seems most likely to me.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                  Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                  Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                  Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                  It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                  What do you get?

                  steveclough@metalhead.clubS This user is from outside of this forum
                  steveclough@metalhead.clubS This user is from outside of this forum
                  steveclough@metalhead.club
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #70

                  @futurebird I believe it is about oil and minerals, that would suddenly become "his". So he could transfer them to the US without having to pay for them.

                  It is the typical bully scenario. "Give me your sweets". "No". Takes them "They are mine now. If you want them back you will have to pay me".

                  Of course, should he try, he would be met with force, and dead US soldiers. Which he would then blame NATO for, not his own stupidity.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                    Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                    Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                    Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                    It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                    What do you get?

                    thecasualcritic@writing.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                    thecasualcritic@writing.exchangeT This user is from outside of this forum
                    thecasualcritic@writing.exchange
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #71

                    @futurebird

                    I think a possible benign answer is they pressure NATO countries into footing more of the bill for Arctic defence. We're already seeing the Danes investing in more vessels as a result of this pressure.

                    But that's assuming the aim is something rational.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                      Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                      Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                      Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                      It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                      What do you get?

                      mxfraud@tabletop.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                      mxfraud@tabletop.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                      mxfraud@tabletop.social
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #72

                      @futurebird I think there is more than one party involved here, as it is something multiple entities want.

                      The libertarian wants a place to make their no government city.

                      Some mineral magnate probably want some of the stuff there.

                      Some oil magnate probably want some of the oil that will become available over time with ice cap melting.

                      Some military people probbaly want that land because of how climate change might make Greenland useful.

                      Operationaly, its on the US doors steps and its a lot of land to grab. Lots of developers would see this s a big opportunity to get cheap/free land to build on.

                      Greenland is the weekest of the neighbourghs to annex, there wont be a fight to speak off.

                      It would put the US even more in charge of NATO that already are. What are european going to do:
                      * Nothing, win for the USA.
                      * Leave NATO big win for other "Super power".

                      Ethno-nationalism: It is probably perceived as "White European", unlike say caribean islands/mexico.

                      Ego boost: Putin got to keep Crimea, he want something similar against his name for the hostory book.

                      "Foreign interference": It open the doors for China to do the same with Taiwan eventually, so that could be happening.

                      TL;DR:

                      Thinking about the number of people having Trump's ear, I can see how greenland fits the bill for many of his financier.
                      It has a lot to go for in the next escalation of american supremacy.
                      And he needs something to give them after getting power.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • depereo@mastodon.socialD depereo@mastodon.social

                        @futurebird set up weird slave cities for american billionaires

                        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/10/greenland-trump-silicon-valley-tech-utopia-mars/83025685007/

                        mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                        mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                        mostlytato@mstdn.social
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #73

                        @depereo @futurebird

                        "Wealthy tech investors including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen have invested in a venture-capital firm that has launched a half dozen charter-city projects globally."

                        #CharterCities #Palantir #PeterThiel #Fascism #USPol #USPolitics

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                          What do you get?

                          mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                          mostlytato@mstdn.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                          mostlytato@mstdn.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #74

                          @futurebird
                          Its seems to be about big tech charter cities.

                          https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/10/greenland-trump-silicon-valley-tech-utopia-mars/83025685007/

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • catherineflick@mastodon.me.ukC catherineflick@mastodon.me.uk

                            @futurebird also port cities that can open up when the arctic ice retreats (yay! Climate change!)

                            funkula@goblin.campF This user is from outside of this forum
                            funkula@goblin.campF This user is from outside of this forum
                            funkula@goblin.camp
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #75

                            @CatherineFlick @futurebird this is my understanding of it. An ice-free arctic is a potential major shipping lane, and Greenland is positioned to be able to control traffic into it.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                              Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                              Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                              Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                              It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                              What do you get?

                              roberte3@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                              roberte3@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                              roberte3@mastodon.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #76

                              @futurebird I think its a combination of a) mineral rights and b) the northern sea lanes opening up and new resources there.

                              a) is kinda bunk since no one is mining there.
                              b) if you squint sideways maybe. But we don't have new ice breakers (and that project has gone sideways recently).

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                What do you get?

                                happysteve@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
                                happysteve@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
                                happysteve@mas.to
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #77

                                @futurebird
                                My theory is that Trump is a toddler who wants to colour in more countries with his "owned by me" colour of crayon. He's probably only seen the Mercator projection of the world map. See also: Canada

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                  Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                  Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                  Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                  It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                  What do you get?

                                  geri@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
                                  geri@mastodon.onlineG This user is from outside of this forum
                                  geri@mastodon.online
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #78

                                  @futurebird

                                  Kuannersuit, in southern Greenland, contains the second-largest uranium deposit, possibly the largest thorium deposit, and the third-largest rare earth's deposits in the world. All of this will be required for AI data centres. To control knowledge that will lead to a white planet

                                  That's what it is all about.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                    Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                    Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                    Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                    It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                    What do you get?

                                    mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                    mxspoon@tech.lgbt
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #79

                                    @futurebird
                                    Resources and it likely turning a lot more hospitable place to be with climate change.

                                    Also bigger dick to wave

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • eugestshirley@m.ai6yr.orgE eugestshirley@m.ai6yr.org

                                      @futurebird
                                      Putin wants NATO gone. He's Donnie's puppeteer.

                                      mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      mxspoon@tech.lgbtM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      mxspoon@tech.lgbt
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #80

                                      @EugestShirley
                                      Eeeh, Donald and Vlad are cut from the same cloth but Duck ain't a puppet per se. The Home Alone star has just acted in Moscow's interests for selfish reasons for the most part and not because they've got the KGB agent's hand up their ass.

                                      For more direct russian control I'd look at the weirdos under and around El Presidentte.
                                      @futurebird

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                        Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                        Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                        Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                        It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                        What do you get?

                                        eliterrell@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
                                        eliterrell@mastodon.socialE This user is from outside of this forum
                                        eliterrell@mastodon.social
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #81

                                        @futurebird I think it boils down to him wanting his face on Mount Rushmore. Taking Greenland has no practical benefit. He might be able to enrich some of his people but not worth the cost.

                                        He was raised on a pathetically simple story about American history that lionized national expansion. He thinks if he can push the borders out he will finally be universally recognized as a Great Man.

                                        Same with Putin, who wants to be Peter the Great.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • futurebird@sauropods.winF futurebird@sauropods.win

                                          Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?

                                          Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?

                                          Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?

                                          It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.

                                          What do you get?

                                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          graydon@canada.masto.host
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #82

                                          @futurebird The petrofaction ("keep extracting fossil carbon no matter what") sees the Arctic Ocean as the Next Big Thing, it's practically an interior sea like the Med if it wasn't frozen over and there's decades of Russian "and soon it will not be frozen over and it is ours" positioning.

                                          Thing is, the Bering Strait is epicratonic (=shallow, over continental crust), it's not really suitable for major trade. The only really deep water access is Fram Strait.

                                          graydon@canada.masto.hostG 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper