First of all, I'm sure this has been discussed in P&R already. But I hardly ever come here and I'm sure as hell am not going to read all threads trying to find out where this has been or is being discussed.
That out of the way, let me start by saying I'm neither a Trump supporter, nor a Trump hater. To me he's just the POTUS. And just like any other president, he's done good things, he's done bad things. In my opinion that is.
That said, I just saw snippets of his press conference and at first I was like: "this must have been made with AI or something". Then I heard this was real and he was dead serious. And I'm of course talking about his whole Greenland/Canada/Gulf of America speech. Here's a guy talking about annexation of two sovereign countries (or parts thereof). Is he actually threatening to invade a country of the European Union? Really? How is that any better/different than what Putin is doing? And demanding Canada becomes a part of the United States? And of course there are benefits. Both military and economic benefits. That's the whole reason Putin is invading the Ukraine. It's the reason native Americans were all but slaughtered because it was beneficial. It's the reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.
That doesn't mean you should be even considering it.
So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
Cliff, I won't mention a name and further embarrass the PFF member who posted the following video here in P&R, but this is the type of crapola that hard-core Trump supporters lap up.
Below the video at YouTube, it says right in the description the following...
quote
// ⚠️ DISCLAIMER 🚨 - The stories presented on this channel are entirely fictional and crafted solely for entertainment. Any resemblance to real events, individuals, or situations is purely coincidental and unintentional. These narratives are not intended to depict, reference, or represent any actual occurrences, persons, or entities.
Even without the disclaimer, five seconds into the video, any rational person would realize this is just AI generated hogwash. Read some of the comments under the video at YouTube. It's truly frightening how brainwashed these people are. And this is how megalomaniacs such as Trump and Putin are able to gain power and run rampant. It's like a mass hysteria.
First of all, I'm sure this has been discussed in P&R already. But I hardly ever come here and I'm sure as hell am not going to read all threads trying to find out where this has been or is being discussed.
That out of the way, let me start by saying I'm neither a Trump supporter, nor a Trump hater. To me he's just the POTUS. And just like any other president, he's done good things, he's done bad things. In my opinion that is.
That said, I just saw snippets of his press conference and at first I was like: "this must have been made with AI or something". Then I heard this was real and he was dead serious. And I'm of course talking about his whole Greenland/Canada/Gulf of America speech. Here's a guy talking about annexation of two sovereign countries (or parts thereof). Is he actually threatening to invade a country of the European Union? Really? How is that any better/different than what Putin is doing? And demanding Canada becomes a part of the United States? And of course there are benefits. Both military and economic benefits. That's the whole reason Putin is invading the Ukraine. It's the reason native Americans were all but slaughtered because it was beneficial. It's the reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.
That doesn't mean you should be even considering it.
So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
HAHAH... no, he's not going to invade Greenland or Canada. There is a point to him doing this. A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.
So, Greenland for example... they say they're not for sale... but with all this, maybe Trump ends up with more favorable terms for a base expansion. For Canada... for example... they're obviously not going to join the United States, but maybe it mobilizes the citizens to vote Conservative (replacing Trudeau) and they end up with a new leader in Canada who's more aligned with Trump's goals (border controls, etc.).
For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...
Gulf of America, I think that sounds awesome though... I already call it the Gulf of Florida. Hahah...
Originally posted by Patrick: Cliff, I won't mention a name and further embarrass the PFF member who posted the following video here in P&R, but this is the type of crapola that hard-core Trump supporters lap up.
You're kind of being an ******* now Patrick, you're better than this.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: HAHAH... no, he's not going to invade Greenland or Canada. There is a point to him doing this. A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.
So, Greenland for example... they say they're not for sale... but with all this, maybe Trump ends up with more favorable terms for a base expansion. For Canada... for example... they're obviously not going to join the United States, but maybe it mobilizes the citizens to vote Conservative (replacing Trudeau) and they end up with a new leader in Canada who's more aligned with Trump's goals (border controls, etc.).
For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...
Gulf of America, I think that sounds awesome though... I already call it the Gulf of Florida. Hahah...
I agree with most of Todd's posting. Most of DJT's bold statements (to me) are simply attention getters to achieve goals that will be better bargaining positions for the US. I don't believe most Americans really want to take on Canada's social issues, we've already got enough WOKE issues of our own. Greenland's location for better security IMHO is the primary goal. Although, that's true with Cananda also. Panama is walking toward China's influence; it appears US ships are having to pay much higher transition fees to go through the same canal as non-US ships. It should not cost a penny more for a US versus non-US ship to transition through the Canal.
Don't really care what the "Gulf" is called and I doubt most Americans do. I believe renaming the "Gulf" is simply a shot across the bow of Mexico to get serious with the program on border issues.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
Well, there's a bold statement if I ever heard one. But, again it's all about perspective.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-09-2025).]
First... We (at least the rational ones) don't want Canada to be annexed. That would give the lefties a huge advantage. Personally, I think Canada should annex the left coast, from Baja, all the way up to Vancouver. Give us all a damned break.
And no, Trump isn't serious about this stuff. Maybe 10% serious, as alluded to earlier. (Panama needs to shape up.) But he so seems to enjoy getting a rise out of all the people who are just looking for something to scream about.
It's working well, isn't it?
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-09-2025).]
A lot of it is talk. If you read "The Art of the Deal" which is a book he wrote, he discusses a lot of the things that he's actually done as president. You talk big... and people think you're being outrageous. They are then more likely to accept something at a much lower level that perhaps previously would have been considered unthinkable.
That’s an interesting perspective, and I get where you're coming from. The whole 'talk big to shift expectations' strategy does make sense in a negotiation context. I'm sure Trump used it successfully in business. But diplomacy, especially on a global scale, is a different game. Unlike business deals, where you can walk away or re-negotiate, international politics involves long-term alliances, trust, and public perception, especially with partners like Europe and Canada.
The problem is, if the goal is to gain leverage or favorable terms, this kind of rhetoric can backfire when you're dealing with countries that already view him unfavorably. Instead of softening their stance, it might just harden it. Whether he means it seriously or not, remarks like this don’t just stir the pot - they can damage credibility and relationships in ways that aren’t easy to repair.
So yeah, maybe it’s all part of a strategy. But when it involves talk of annexing parts of sovereign countries, it feels less like clever negotiation and more like reckless posturing.
Originally posted by Patrick: Cliff, I won't mention a name and further embarrass the PFF member who posted the following video here in P&R, but this is the type of crapola that hard-core Trump supporters lap up.
Below the video at YouTube, it says right in the description the following...
Even without the disclaimer, five seconds into the video, any rational person would realize this is just AI generated hogwash. Read some of the comments under the video at YouTube. It's truly frightening how brainwashed these people are. And this is how megalomaniacs such as Trump and Putin are able to gain power and run rampant. It's like a mass hysteria.
Oh Patrick, oh Canada, I can not be embarrassed. Yeah, I, cliffw, posted that. You must not have taken your "smart pill" today.
This is Politics and Religion. Did I post that in a political thread ? You are a curious breed. Do I need to hold your hand and walk you through the reason I posted that ? I did not believe that actually happened. The religious message, I found worth sharing. Myself ? I could not have given a better answer.
Panama is walking toward China's influence; it appears US ships are having to pay much higher transition fees to go through the same canal as non-US ships. It should not cost a penny more for a US versus non-US ship to transition through the Canal.
This nonsense was first mentioned a month ago... and shot down as pure BS. Yet here it is, mentioned by the same person again. It's a perfect example of the mindless rhetoric that is pushed and pushed by those who wish to support and promote Trump's madness.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-09-2025).]
This nonsense was first mentioned a month ago... and shot down as pure BS. Yet here it is, mentioned by the same person again. It's a perfect example of the mindless rhetoric that is pushed and pushed by those who wish to support and promote Trump's madness.
Well Gee Whiz, if you say it's it must be Your hate of anything having to do with DJT is not worthy of more of a response. BTW, just because you say it was shot down doesn't make you right.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-09-2025).]
You're had almost three weeks since you first brought this up to provide any proof of your bogus claim that US vessels are being charged more to use the Panama Canal than vessels from other countries. Come on, show us something/anything to back up this BS.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: And I'm of course talking about his whole Greenland/Canada/Gulf of America speech.
Is suggesting buying Greenland from Denmark an outlandish mention from Trump ? He was not the first POTUS that expressed that thought. Why would he want to ? Could it be because China and Russia are wanting access to the Artic Circle ? Perhaps the mineral resources ? How does Greenland benefit Denmark ? Trump is only offering to buy it.
Canada ? Different can of worms. He threw out an idea of which many Canadians would find appealing.
Yes. It is different from what Putin is doing. He used and is using force to take over Ukraine. Why ? Trump has not suggested using force at all.
The Gulf of America ? Why is that such a bad Idea ? All countries bordering it are in North, Central, and South America.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Here's a guy talking about annexation of two sovereign countries (or parts thereof). Is he actually threatening to invade a country of the European Union? Really? Demanding Canada becomes a part of the United States?
No talk about annexation nor invasion. No demands.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: It's the reason native Americans were all but slaughtered because it was beneficial. It's the reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.
Close but no cigar. The native Americans were nomadic. As are all humans. They wanted to own all the land while owning none of it. Slaughtered them ? They drew blood first and then upped the cruelty.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
You are the one which seems to take your thoughts seriously.
By the way, you weighed in about Trump and NATO. Wondering if America would not defend Europe countries if they did not pay their promised shared expense. I am not sure if you noticed my remark that we defended Europe in WW I, WW II Before NATO existed. It was replied that no, we did not defend it, but that we saved it.
Originally posted by Patrick: You're had almost three weeks since you first brought this up to provide any proof of your bogus claim that US vessels are being charged more to use the Panama Canal than vessels from other countries. Come on, show us something/anything to back up this BS.
You're had almost three weeks since you first brought this up to provide any proof of your bogus claim that US vessels are being charged more to use the Panama Canal than vessels from other countries. Come on, show us something/anything to back up this BS.
Prove I and the reports that are at your finger tips is incorrect. Just because you say something isn't correct, doesn't make if factual. I'm also not the one who admits that arguing in P&R is half the fun. Personally, I find it rather strange anyone would get off doing that but, it's your choice.
Edited: Every report I've read says the Canal is not charging more for US warships. Nothing has been revealed concerning commercial US ships.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-09-2025).]
Edited: Every report I've read says the Canal is not charging more for US warships. Nothing has been revealed concerning commercial US ships.
That's right... nothing. It's bad enough that you posted this BS the first time around, but even when corrected, you come back and do it again three weeks later. Do you think if you repeat it enough times that it somehow becomes factual? Sounds like something right out of the DJT playbook. There is nothing mentioned anywhere that says the US is being charged more for any type of vessel to go through the Panama Canal than what other countries are being charged.
Trump stated he was upset with the amount of the fee that was being levied to make use of the canal. It was you and you alone who somehow twisted this into the US being charged more than anybody else.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Panama is walking toward China's influence; it appears US ships are having to pay much higher transition fees to go through the same canal as non-US ships. It should not cost a penny more for a US versus non-US ship to transition through the Canal.
The reason why it ticks me off that this type of nonsense gets propagated, is that in this situation for example, US military occupation of a sovereign country's property becomes "justified" because the US was supposedly being discriminated against. Lies and deceit have led and can continue to lead to all sorts of conflicts and atrocities.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-10-2025).]
Is suggesting buying Greenland from Denmark an outlandish mention from Trump?
No, the idea of buying Greenland isn’t inherently outlandish. However, threatening military force if they refuse absolutely is. That’s where the line is crossed from making a proposal to engaging in reckless rhetoric.
quote
How does Greenland benefit Denmark ?
That’s like asking how my old Fiero benefits me - it might not have a direct, daily impact on my life, but I still don’t want to sell it. Plenty of people have offered to buy it, and I’ve always declined. The difference is, none of those people followed up with, “Well, if you don’t sell it, I might have to take it by force.” That’s what makes the situation alarming.
quote
Trump is only offering to buy it.
No, he’s not only offering to buy it. He explicitly mentioned that he couldn’t rule out military pressure if Denmark refused to sell, which goes well beyond a simple offer. When the possibility of coercion is introduced, it’s no longer just a business deal - it’s a threat.
quote
Canada? Different can of worms. He threw out an idea of which many Canadians would find appealing.
"Many"? How many exactly? Are we talking about a significant portion of the population, or just a vocal minority? After all, "many" people around the world would also find the idea of bombing the United States appealing, but that hardly makes it a reasonable proposal. Popularity among a small group doesn’t justify throwing out extreme ideas.
quote
Yes. It is different from what Putin is doing. He used and is using force to take over Ukraine. Trump has not suggested using force at all.
Actually, he did. While he didn’t explicitly state it, he strongly suggested that military pressure could be an option. When someone says they can’t rule out the use of force, it’s hard not to interpret that as a threat.
quote
The Gulf of America? Why is that such a bad idea? All countries bordering it are in North, Central, and South America.
By that logic, we might as well start calling the Gulf of California the Gulf of Mexico - after all, Mexico is the only country bordering it.
quote
Close but no cigar. The native Americans were nomadic. As are all humans. They wanted to own all the land while owning none of it. Slaughtered them ? They drew blood first and then upped the cruelty.
The suggestion that Native Americans had no more right to the land than European settlers is a gross oversimplification. Yes, some tribes were nomadic, but they lived on the land for thousands of years and had complex societies, cultures, and territorial boundaries. The violence began because settlers encroached on their lands, not the other way around. To suggest that Native Americans ‘started it’ overlooks the fact that they were defending their home from what was essentially an invasion.
quote
You are the one which seems to take your thoughts seriously.
Please avoid making it personal. This isn’t just my personal opinion - Trump’s words are taken seriously by leaders and citizens around the world, and they have real diplomatic consequences. It’s fair to discuss differing views, but dismissing concerns like this doesn’t add to the conversation.
quote
By the way, you weighed in about Trump and NATO. Wondering if America would not defend Europe countries if they did not pay their promised shared expense. I am not sure if you noticed my remark that we defended Europe in WW I, WW II Before NATO existed. It was replied that no, we did not defend it, but that we saved it.
The U.S. didn’t get involved in WWI and WWII purely out of goodwill - it was a strategic necessity. In both wars, American interests were at stake. In WWI, unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany was affecting American shipping and trade. In WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor forced the U.S. into the conflict, and a Europe under Axis control would have posed a serious long-term threat to American security and global influence. NATO was later created precisely to prevent another such conflict by ensuring a unified defense strategy. So yes, the U.S. saved Europe, but it also acted in its own vital interests.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...
In 1978 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties gave eventual ownership of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians.
On December 20, 1989 the U.S. initiated "Operation Just Cause" with a military invasion of Panama to oust and arrest Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.
All U.S. troops were removed from Panamanian soil about 1 MONTH later, (Jan, 1990).
The final phase of the Torrijos - Carter treaty was enacted on 31 Dec. 1999, giving full ownership and control of the canal and the former "Canal Zone" to Panama.
...
"Communist Chinese companies such as Landbridge Group and the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings now operate ports at both ends of the canal. This presence raises concerns about potential dual-use infrastructure and strategic maneuvering, particularly given China’s deepening ties to Latin America."
In 1978 the Torrijos-Carter Treaties gave eventual ownership of the Panama Canal to the Panamanians.
On December 20, 1989 the U.S. initiated "Operation Just Cause" with a military invasion of Panama to oust and arrest Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.
All U,S. troops were removed from Panamanian soil about 1 MONTH later, (Jan, 1990).
The final phase of the Torrijos - Carter treaty was enacted on 31 Dec. 1999, giving full ownership and control of the canal and the former "Canal Zone" to Panama.
...
"Communist Chinese companies such as Landbridge Group and the Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings now operate ports at both ends of the canal. This presence raises concerns about potential dual-use infrastructure and strategic maneuvering, particularly given China’s deepening ties to Latin America."
And as an FYI... I swear to God I saw Manuel Noriega at La Carreta in Fort Lauderdale back in 2009. I **** you not... this dude looked exactly like him. The hair, the pock-marked cheeks like Lt. Martin Castillo on Miami Vice. Randye... I would bet half my paycheck this was him. I don't really think it was him, but this guy looked EXACTLY like him.
Anyway, I was talking to one of my buddies from SOUTHCOM last night, and he told me that this was a plan that China had all along. The biggest benefit that they have from being in Panama is their ability to obtain the ship manifests. Since all the cargo goes back and forth through the canal, they're able to see literally what people are buying, and what product is moving. They then use this information to emphasize production of things back home in China, in order to take that product market share from wherever else it's being produced.
The reason why it ticks me off that this type of nonsense gets propagated, is that in this situation for example, US military occupation of a sovereign country's property becomes "justified" because the US was supposedly being discriminated against. Lies and deceit have led and can continue to lead to all sorts of conflicts and atrocities.
Well, the last thing we want is to tick you off. One would have to assume you're still having fun arguing in P&R.
I think the problem a lot of people have is how closely these bizarre claims mirror something we'd expect from Putin, or a Kim Jong of one flavor or another, or from Saddam before we invaded Iraq. They're generally used by a country in a position of weakness angling against NATO or the US, which makes sense because that's the only route some of those leaders have to being taken seriously. The US, however, has the preponderance of the world's political capital behind it, giving our leaders a plethora of routes to accomplish our country's goals. Watching Trump spurn all of those options in favor of threats to annex is alarming because we don't have any reference points for world power leaders acting that way that end well.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: For the Panama Canal though... I would not be a bit surprised if something does happen there. I don't think Trump will invade Panama (though I wouldn't doubt it), but we built the Panama Canal, gave it to them for a dollar, built their entire military, built the entire country's infrastructure, and Carter (I think) handed it off to them. It was our territory back then. I'm not great on my history, but I think we had to recover it once before when they had some sort of socialist uprising and they had a dictator...
Hey look, revisionist history being used by a MAGA supporter to justify an invasion of a non-hostile country.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Anyway, I was talking to one of my buddies from SOUTHCOM last night, and he told me that this was a plan that China had all along. The biggest benefit that they have from being in Panama is their ability to obtain the ship manifests. Since all the cargo goes back and forth through the canal, they're able to see literally what people are buying, and what product is moving. They then use this information to emphasize production of things back home in China, in order to take that product market share from wherever else it's being produced.
...and a follow up conspiracy theory making further justification for it.
No sir, I cannot imagine any reason why the world might be concerned by a superpower threatening to annex/invade peaceful countries and using revisionist history and anti-minority conspiracy theories to justify it, while also using those same conspiracy theories to carry out purges of minorities from within its own borders.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Hey look, revisionist history being used by a MAGA supporter to justify an invasion of a non-hostile country.
...and a follow up conspiracy theory making further justification for it.
No sir, I cannot imagine any reason why the world might be concerned by a superpower threatening to annex/invade peaceful countries and using revisionist history and anti-minority conspiracy theories to justify it, while also using those same conspiracy theories to carry out purges of minorities from within its own borders.
You betcha... I have Trump on speed dial and I'm going to tell him to get the war machine moving as soon as he gets in. Better watch out those nuclear codes... even though the Democrats are the only ones in history, anywhere, who have used nuclear weapons in war time, and literally killed 380k people in a day. But no... we need to be scared of Republicans. Haha...
It's interesting to see how you've changed from New Dustin (feigned centrist) prior to the election, to REAL New Dustin (fearful liberal). The next four years are going to be pretty exciting, and you shouldn't be scared of it!
Anyway, I feel bad... because I know these fears to you are legitimate. The next four years will feel terrifying for you, Patrick, and others... but nothing bad will happen, the economy will be gang-busters, and there will be increased peace in the world. Don't buy into the theatrics... we'll all be just fine. I want to see our Trump 2019 economy come back.
Cliff, this one is for you! haha... (it was from 2017)
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It's interesting to see how you've changed from New Dustin (feigned centrist) prior to the election, to REAL New Dustin (fearful liberal). The next four years are going to be pretty exciting, and you shouldn't be scared of it!
I went from NewDustin, socially libertarian, neoliberal economic proponent to...NewDustin, socially libertarian, neoliberal economic proponent. Hell dude, I've cited Mises at you more than once. I've all but spelled this out for you repeatedly. Do I need to send you a copy of 'Foundations of Morality' to make the point? Ultimately I take from this that you are confused by conservative economics principals and frightened by folks who don't want the government to regulate our genitals.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Anyway, I feel bad... because I know these fears to you are legitimate. The next four years will feel terrifying for you, Patrick, and others... but nothing bad will happen, the economy will be gang-busters, and there will be increased peace in the world. Don't buy into the theatrics... we'll all be just fine. I want to see our Trump 2019 economy come back.
What fears are you talking about specifically? I don't recall saying I was afraid, being afraid, or driving my opinions based on fear. I'd ask you to elaborate or substantiate that, but we both already know how that'd go. I know you believe that now that Trump is in office things will be great. I also know that no matter the outcome of his policies you will hold onto that belief. Facts and reality don't appear to play a role until very late in your opinion-forming process, and are largely devalued in your established opinions. Pointing out, say, that you completely misunderstand how much Trump added to the debt wouldn't even yield an acknowledgement that you were wrong about it, or it wasn't as ideal as you imagined.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: No, the idea of buying Greenland isn’t inherently outlandish. However, threatening military force if they refuse absolutely is. That’s where the line is crossed from making a proposal to engaging in reckless rhetoric.
I never heard or believe he did from live press conferences or anywhere else. You may have been right. What you saw was AI.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: The reason Hitler invaded the rest of Europe. Because it was beneficial.
How ? Why ? More tax money ? Is that why he killed six million Jews. He was deranged.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: So how can anybody take this serious? Again, don't tell me because it benefits the US. Or because it benefits Canada. Because if you do, you justify every single war (massacre) there has ever been.
It was an offer to buy Cliff. Nothing else. No threats.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: "Many"? How many Canadians exactly? Are we talking about a significant portion of the population, or just a vocal minority? After all, "many" people around the world would also find the idea of bombing the United States appealing, but that hardly makes it a reasonable proposal. Popularity among a small group doesn’t justify throwing out extreme ideas.
My apologies. I know nothing of the Netherlands's governmental "environment". Just as there are almost half of the United States citizens who despised Trump in his first administration, and also now. I think your opinionated citicizens who disagree with policies, who want something different, a change, is many.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: By that logic, we might as well start calling the Gulf of California the Gulf of Mexico - after all, Mexico is the only country bordering it.
I have no problem with that. Do you know how California got it's name ? Who named the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico ?
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: The suggestion that Native Americans had no more right to the land than European settlers is a gross oversimplification. Yes, some tribes were nomadic, but they lived on the land for thousands of years and had complex societies, cultures, and territorial boundaries. The violence began because settlers encroached on their lands, not the other way around. To suggest that Native Americans ‘started it’ overlooks the fact that they were defending their home from what was essentially an invasion.
More rights than European settlers ? ???
I would say just as many rights. As did all of the different Native American tribes. Who claimed land from other tribes by force. Racism prevailed.
Actually, we are experiencing illegal aliens encroaching on our land. I am sympathetic for the illegal immigration.
Our illegal immigration is much similar, perhaps exactly the same, as the European settlers.
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Trump’s words are taken seriously by leaders and citizens around the world, and they have real diplomatic consequences. It’s fair to discuss differing views, but dismissing concerns like this doesn’t add to the conversation.
I am not dismissing the concerns of anybody. Concerns are what dialog solves. Perhaps.
Cliff, why would the Nazis want to threaten US ships ? It was not goodwill. The United States did not use submarines to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis. We put a blockade on unwanted threats.
How ? Why ? More tax money ? Is that why he killed six million Jews. He was deranged.
The war was beneficial to him and the Third Reich - at least, that was his belief when he initiated it. He wasn’t acting out of pure madness with no rationale. He had a clear vision of expanding German territory, seizing resources, and restoring what he perceived as Germany’s rightful dominance after the Treaty of Versailles. Yes, he was deranged, and his ideology was deeply rooted in antisemitism and racial superiority, which led to the Holocaust (and other atrocities). But there's a difference between being deranged and acting without motive. His actions were driven by an ideology as well as a belief in economic, military, and political benefits for Nazi Germany.
quote
More rights than European settlers ? ???
I would say just as many rights. As did all of the different Native American tribes. Who claimed land from other tribes by force. Racism prevailed.
Really? The indigenous peoples of the Americas absolutely had more rights to the land than European settlers because they were, well, indigenous. They had lived there for thousands of years. That’s not about assigning moral superiority but recognizing the basic principle that people living on their land have inherent rights to it. Be it the Americas or, say, Denmark.
Yes, Native American tribes sometimes fought over territory, but that’s not comparable to large-scale European colonization, where settlers came from another continent, disregarded existing societies, and claimed vast areas by force. Racism did play a role, I agree to that; European settlers justified their actions by dehumanizing Native Americans, framing them as "savages" to legitimize taking their lands.
It’s all about recognizing that settlers weren’t simply joining in local disputes - they were invaders establishing dominance over a continent that was already inhabited by "organized" societies.
What fears are you talking about specifically? I don't recall saying I was afraid, being afraid, or driving my opinions based on fear. I'd ask you to elaborate or substantiate that, but we both already know how that'd go. I know you believe that now that Trump is in office things will be great. I also know that no matter the outcome of his policies you will hold onto that belief. Facts and reality don't appear to play a role until very late in your opinion-forming process, and are largely devalued in your established opinions. Pointing out, say, that you completely misunderstand how much Trump added to the debt wouldn't even yield an acknowledgement that you were wrong about it, or it wasn't as ideal as you imagined.
Ok, I'm trying not to be a jerk... but tell me... you voted for Joe Biden, right? If the answer is yes... then I think you need to take a serious look at your own criticism...
"Facts and reality don't appear to play a role until very late in your opinion-forming process, and are largely devalued in your established opinions."
Which, if I'm being honest... doesn't make any sense at all being applied to me with what I do for a living.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-10-2025).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, I'm trying not to be a jerk... but tell me... you voted for Joe Biden, right? If the answer is yes... then I think you need to take a serious look at your own criticism...
omg, how many times do we have to cover this... No, I did not vote for Joe Biden. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.
omg, how many times do we have to cover this... No, I did not vote for Joe Biden. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.
Ok, so you're one of those people who vote for weird 3rd party candidates, even by the end of the election cycle when it's clear they have absolutely no chance.
Ok, so you're one of those people who vote for weird 3rd party candidates, even by the end of the election cycle when it's clear they have absolutely no chance.
Except those times I voted for Bush, Romney, and McCain, sure.
it must be 
haha... (it was from 2017)
