Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump postpones meeting with Danish PM after refusal to discuss selling Greenland

Trump postpones meeting with Danish PM after refusal to discuss selling Greenland

Trump: “Strategically it’s interesting and we’d be interested… Essentially, it’s a large real estate deal, a lot of things could be done.”

Donald Trump has considered buying Greenland.

There are all sorts of things we could do with Greenland.

“Strategically it’s interesting and we’d be interested… Essentially, it’s a large real estate deal, a lot of things could be done.”

How about a Trump Tower in Greenland after we buy it from Denmark?

Trump says he wouldn’t do that.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163603361423351808

Despite that promise, Denmark has no interest in selling, so says its Prime Minister who called the idea “absurd.”

So Trump postponed a scheduled meeting with her in response:

Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time….

The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163961882945970176

So is it over?

https://twitter.com/MattsIdeaShop/status/1163966792953282560

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Serious question: let’s say that Denmark agree to sell Greenland, how will this work in practice? I suppose that congress have a role to play in it and also have to come up with the money for the purchase. Is that how this would work?

    BerettaTomcat in reply to Ulises. | August 20, 2019 at 9:43 pm

    Jefferson undertook the Louisiana Purchase with his Executive authority to negotiate treaties. The Senate ratified the treaty, and the House appropriated the funds for the purchase.

      Colonel Travis in reply to BerettaTomcat. | August 20, 2019 at 10:12 pm

      Sam thing happened with Alaska. Negotiated a treaty with Russia, House voted up the cash.

      Just like this proposed deal for Greenland, U.S. was ridiculed for decades after buying Alaska.

        Yes. So assuming the Danes suddenly decided to sell after all, there’s no way 2/3 of the senate and a majority of the house would go along with it. The Dems would all vote against it just because it would go down in history as Trump’s legacy. Even if they really thought it was a good deal they’d stall things until there was a Dem president who could get the credit.

        Though if you did have a majority in the house and enough to overcome a filibuster in the senate, but not 2/3, you could do it without a treaty. Just pass it as ordinary legislation.

          Jackie in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 6:51 am

          Doesn’t matter. It would be a campaign issue and the democrats will continue to look petty and Trump deranged.

          Jackie in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 6:51 am

          Doesn’t matter. It would be a campaign issue and the democrats will continue to look petty and Trump deranged.

“I’m gonna make them an offer they can’t refuse”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeldwfOwuL8

I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the title search and escrow on that one!

Babylon Bee has a few ideas https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-to-buy-greenland-install-shiplap-hardwood-floors-flip-for-profit

We need to start sending Denmark a bill for the protection.

Or, spend 30 minutes and invade them 🙂

He could use the same authority which allowed Obama to give Tran a half billion in unmarked bills without disclosing this to Congress or the American people.

    Milhouse in reply to JOHN B. | August 21, 2019 at 12:05 am

    That was Iran’s money, not ours, so he didn’t need Congress to appropriate it. Giving it back was a terrible idea, but it didn’t count as an expenditure; it was merely returning the money to its lawful owner. We’d been holding on to it because it was obvious — and should have been obvious to 0bama and Kerry too — that if they had it they’d use it to harm innocent people and threaten us, but we always intended to give it back eventually, as soon as it became safe to do so.

      puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 3:13 am

      I will quibble a bit. That very money had already been used for damages in civil suits. So the money given Iran was merely a first deposit prior to the suits, so the government had paid this money out. Just not drained the account. It would be considered a fraud, a hoax, if a Republican did the same.

What is not being mentioned is that the Chinese had offered to build airstrips on Greenland, and were poised to enhance their shipping to that region as well. They were offering billions.

And Greenland was “for sale” then, it seems.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3023282/chinas-arctic-push-behind-donald-trumps-wish-buy

Not Trump Tower, but Disneyland North, complete with Elsa’s castle where you could hear “Let it go…”

Hey if there is global warming, a Greenland New Deal!

DouglasJBender | August 20, 2019 at 10:55 pm

If he is able to buy it for the U.S., he should insist that Denmark waive the shipping fees.

GoFundMe

Trump Towers can go anywhere; they don’t have to be on US territory.

Since there isn’t a post about this yet, I’ll go off topic here to mention Trump’s other supposed “gaffe” that the Dem media have been going crazy about today. If you listen to them you’ll hear that Trump called US Jews “disloyal”. Even the Algemeiner, which is not a left-wing publication, uncritically cites “several Jewish organizations and social media pundits” as complaining that “charging Jews with disloyalty as a collective has long been a favored trope of antisemites on right and left.”

But far from being antisemitic, Trump’s comment was philosemitic. Far from charging Jews with disloyalty as a collective; he did the exact opposite. He charged those individual Jews who knowingly vote against Jewish interests of disloyalty to that very collective.

And that’s the key point the Dem media are pretending not to understand, and deliberately obscuring from their audiences. The “disloyalty” Trump accused these Jews of was very clearly not to the USA. If he’d meant that he would have said anyone who votes for Democrats while knowing what they stand for is disloyal. He singled out Jews because he was charging them with disloyalty to the Jewish people. Obviously gentiles owe no such loyalty.

    MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 9:28 am

    Geez, this is all I heard about yesterday, I thought it was just old news now. Just another reason to have a hissy fit.

    Valerie in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 11:13 am

    It’s in today’s Union-Tribune. They made the mistake of using lots of quotes and some real background information. I do believe there will be a Streisand Effect incoming over that article, assuming anybody besides me reads past the headline.

DJT is not an impulsive man. He thinks 10 steps ahead.

Wanna bet at least part of Greenland becomes a US territory?

Seriously guys. Trump is not going to buy Greenland.

This is the crap that Trump throws out when he’s bored.

“What can I say that will send the media morons into a frenzy? I know, BUY GREENLAND LUL”.

This is the functional equivalent of a troll shitposting on 4chan. Trump is a troll and twitter is his 4chan.

    Get serious. Trump may not end up buying Greenland but we are going to get something out of this. We cannot allow China to build bases smack dab in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean “for commercial shipping” purposes. They are unnecessary. Having established commercial assets, China would then argue a need for a military presence to defend those assets. THAT is what this is about.

    For the Danish PM to refuse to even discuss it is not a good sign. I expect that we will at least walk away with formal guarantees that Greenland is not for sale to anybody. Let’s see what happens next.

      Morning Sunshine in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 21, 2019 at 10:14 am

      That is my thought as well.

      plus, Trump is a master Troll, and he controls the media by their hatred for him. It is almost beautiful to watch

      Indeed. Today, China pretty much the Panama Canal that Carter gave away, even though it was built by the United States.

      On paper, it’s owned by Panama, but China heavily invested in the two ports that access the Canal, making it basically a Chinese asset.

        An asset that they cannot control nor defend. They have a major presence (Cosco e.g.) in Long Beach shipyard and elsewhere as well. Those are all assets that we can seize.

    tom_swift in reply to Olinser. | August 21, 2019 at 8:00 am

    Although it sounds daffy at first, after a bit of thought an acquisition of Greenland sounds like a rather good idea.

    Greenland itself is not economically viable—it has to be supported by somebody. Right now that somebody is Denmark. The US really doesn’t want it to be the Russians or the Chinese instead.

    It’s the same reason that we’re stuck with Puerto Rico. PR is beyond bankrupt, and needs money . . . whether the money is roubles, renminbi or dollars is a mere detail.

      CaptTee in reply to tom_swift. | August 21, 2019 at 11:22 am

      If you study history, you will learn that Greenland was economically viable about 1000 years ago during a period of non-man-made-Global-Warming!

      They had thriving farms and a huge fur trade. A renewed fur trade would drive PETA battier than they already are now!

      PapawR1 in reply to tom_swift. | August 21, 2019 at 9:22 pm

      According to this article, a “Chinese company”, which means the Chinese government, has already gained mining rights for rare earth metals from Greenland. One of the main reasons recent talk was even discussing this about Trump is that right now we are dependent on China for their rare earth metals. It also seems that Australia has teamed up with China on that enterprise as well. Why is Denmark signing such agreements with nations on the other side of the world, that don’t have either our or Denmark’s best interests at heart, when it’s only a few hundred miles from the US border? I believe we are just as close if not closer to Greenland than Denmark is. So many supposed “allies” continue to act in interests that aid our strategic rivals/enemies while we continue to foot the bill for most of NATO to protect them just as Germany is building a pipeline between them & Russia to import their oil & gas when NATO was formed to protect Germany & the rest of Europe from continued Russian/Soviet expansion. And yet they can’t afford to pay their share of their defense the NATO treaty calls for? Trump is 100% correct in that respect of far too many years & too many presidents being willing to allow other nations to enjoy our protection, and the income to their economies of bases there, while they spend their money on more & more social programs which now the Muslim invasion is enjoying the benefits from. Many, not all, of the NATO nations sent troops as required to Afghanistan when we called in the treaties mutual defense clause but many of those nations also only sent in their troops in strictly a non-combat “support” role where they defended the base they were at without joining in the combat against the Taliban & Al Qaeda. Most of those nations have now called those troops home while we are still there “nation building” nearly 18 full years later. I do give kudos to our traditional allies that have usually helped us as well as some new ones like Poland willing to fight with us because they want to stay in NATO after all the years under the USSR. Of course the EU is now trying to punish them for refusing to take in “their fair share” of Muslim invaders that Merkel invited in to impose on all the EU’s open border which is why Poland, Hungary & a few other nations are trying to build border fencing or troops to keep “migrants” out.

      https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3023282/chinas-arctic-push-behind-donald-trumps-wish-buy

It seems most likely that this sale has been under discussion for quite some time, and had already been generally agreed to. Trump intended to go in person to finalize the deal, and Denmark backed out.

It seems like political interference to me, probably from the EU or its senior members, that brought the present situation about. Otherwise, Trump had no reason to bring it up in public before consulting Denmark, or reason to go to Denmark at this particular time.

    MarkSmith in reply to Bisley. | August 21, 2019 at 9:31 am

    well it would make a nice state with two republican senators in it.

    artichoke in reply to Bisley. | August 21, 2019 at 1:29 pm

    Yes, I would assume the king of Denmark is onboard. He can’t afford it, he has to deal with his Muslims now, and we can use it much more effectively, so a win/win is sure to be possible.

    We both have problems with “progressives” in our respective legislatures who essentially want to kneecap progress.

      Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | August 21, 2019 at 3:11 pm

      The king would have nothing to do with such a proposal. He wouldn’t be involved at all unless and until the government agreed to it.

        artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 7:52 pm

        Don’t kings do that sort of deal? Our king is called a president and he has to stand periodically for election. Our president has primary responsibility for foreign policy, as kings normally do.

          Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | August 21, 2019 at 10:43 pm

          Not in constitutional monarchies. Kings do what their governments tell them to do. The government would handle the whole thing; they might trot the king out to sign the finished treaty, but more likely they’d just sign it in his name.

      Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | August 22, 2019 at 11:19 am

      Oh, and by the way, right now the king of Denmark is a queen.

    artichoke in reply to Bisley. | August 21, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    Wouldn’t be surprised if someone from the State Dept. leaked it. They still haven’t gotten all the spies out of there.

Today, the Danes are are remarking upon Trump’s insults to them after their Prime Minister, without first speaking to Trump, publicly called Trump’s proposal absurd.

It sounds like the Danes were planning on doing a deal for Greenland on the down low. Right now the main source of income for Greenland is Thule Air Force Base, which the US pays a lease for. And, still Denmark is running almost 3/4 of a billion dollars a year in subsidies to Greenland. Now Denmark, itself, has no strategic or trade value for the US, except for NATO. So, why would Trump even consider a state visit?

It really looks as though there was a deal in the works and it was leaked as being simply the ponderings of the President to allow Denmark to succumb to pressure and back out of the deal that is not official. So, The Donald thanks the Danes for their invitation, but says he is busy, at the moment and, if the Greenland deal is off the table, he will have to reschedule.

But the time he is done, I wonder if Trump can get the British to throw in Canada?

Putting aside the purchase nonsense, Trump’s reaction to Demark’s prime minister is that of a three-year-old. This whole subject could have been made into a huge win by Trump as a baited hook for the fake msm. But to reject a state visit that had already been planned and set up is pure ego and thin skin. This was a state visit, not a one on one visit to discuss a national issue. He just insulted all Dane’s. He could have made the msm of the world a laughing stock but instead made himself an insulting head of state. The people of Denmark are pro American but probably not anymore.

    artichoke in reply to inspectorudy. | August 21, 2019 at 1:32 pm

    Trump was in a difficult spot. To attend a state visit now and not consummate the deal would be essentially coitus interruptus. Better to turn down the date.

      Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | August 21, 2019 at 3:09 pm

      What deal? There never was any deal, there were never any negotiations, this is some random idea that he came up with overnight and the visit had nothing to do with it. It was fine to float it as an idea, but where does he come off getting miffed at the Danes not considering it? Why did he expect them to? Cancelling a visit over it really does make him look foolish and childish.

        tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | August 21, 2019 at 4:05 pm

        There never was any deal, there were never any negotiations, this is some random idea that he came up with overnight and the visit had nothing to do with it.

        None of which you can possibly know.

        Unless of course it’s all in your famous Invisible Book of Facts.

          Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | August 21, 2019 at 6:08 pm

          It’s obvious and everybody who is not a crazy conspiracy theorist or a brainless Trump-worshiper knows it. It’s fine. He’s entitled to throw out ideas and hope some of them catch on. And this was not a bad idea. But to imagine that there have been serious negotiations that nobody has heard about is just ridiculous.

    tom_swift in reply to inspectorudy. | August 21, 2019 at 4:02 pm

    He just insulted all Dane’s.[sic]

    That’s nice. So what?

    I’m pretty sure I didn’t vote for him just so he could jolly up foreigners.

Funny that the Danish PM used the word “absurd” to describe Trump’s overtures, then cried to Twitter that he doesn’t even have “basic diplomatic skills” when he decided not to meet with her.

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | August 21, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    It was an absurd idea. It was fine to float it just in case the Danes might be interested, but they’ve already turned down two very serious offers and nothing has happened to change their minds.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | August 22, 2019 at 2:28 pm

      The point is that using the word “absurd” to describe someone’s idea does not comport with “diplomat” language. So for them to whine like a bitch about something they themselves just did is really weak.

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | August 22, 2019 at 6:58 pm

        Since when is it unusual or uncalled for to call an absurd idea “absurd”. Is this like Fredo Cuomo deciding that “Fredo” is an ethnic slur? Or how in the 1990s “you people” somehow and overnight became something One Must Not Say?

          Since when? It has ALWAYS been a breach of diplomatic etiquette, which is the topic at hand. You must have missed that chapter in Milhouse’s Big Invisible Book of Facts™

          @Paul. Wut? Diplomacy is about being tactful but not to the extent of ignoring the obvious. Eventually we name our enemies, call them what they are and declare their nutty ideas to be nutty. Denmark may not be an enemy but they are taking a foolish position by standing in the way of our dealing with THE existential threat of our times.

          There are no “friends” in international relationships, only competing national interests. Diplomacy is a branch of politics and as we know, international politics is war without guns. We try to avoid the guns part by being skillful with words and tactical with actions but when that fails, “being nice” is abandoned. It usually happens in stages but we don’t waste time with minor fools and idiots who step in between us and a major existential threat.

          Denmark is being disrespectful which is a critical failure of diplomacy. It is an absurdly trivializing position to take given the importance to take and expressed by their Prime Minister who has openly attacked Trump with gutter snipe language in the past. He deserves to be treated with disdain.

If you can’t buy it from the management, you could buy out the stockholders.

I’m not comfortable with buying Greenland. It’s tough enough knowing Alaska is bigger than Texas, but to be number three would be terrible.

tommy mc donnell | August 21, 2019 at 7:43 pm

when the hell did the American people say they want to own Greenland? but then when was the last time what the American people want matter to an American politician.

    And that would be up to the American people’s elected representatives to approve or disapprove. They aren’t going to put it on a national ballot. Greenland does have a lot of strategic resources that many aren’t aware of. Resources that we are dependent on nations who are hostile to us for.
    I remember from history learning about “Seward’s Folly” until they found it was rich in gold, oil & other things very useful to the rest of the nation.
    If China is interested in it we should be interested in it. A Chinese “company” has already negotiated a contract for mining rights to the rare earth metals that they control most of the world’s supply of in China. And Afghanistan. After us spending trillions in blood & treasure “saving them & nation building” for nearly 18 years, they repaid us by negotiating a deal with China for the rare earth metals found in Northern Afghanistan. The only thing, so far, worth much of anything there to begin with other than their large poppy fields while China has invested nothing in the security or “liberation” of Afghanistan. That also happened before Trump was elected as well.
    China wants to build airports & ports in Greenland which will, of course, eventually require troops to guard them…just a few hundred miles off our border instead of the other side of the world. The Monroe Doctrine isn’t being enforced very well with both Russia & China in Venezuela & now China in Greenland if they can achieve it.
    With NATO allies like Denmark, Germany, Turkey & some others we may be better off out of NATO.

    When did the American people say they wanted anything? We don’t have referendums in the USA; we elect a president and congress and let them make these decisions for us. If we don’t like their decisions we can vote for someone else next time.

    You should spend a few minutes and study how the American system works.

I’m no peter buttegig, but I love this man.

America to Donald J. Trump: where you been my whole life??

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend