By convicted I mean convicted by the Senate. After Congress impeaches the Pres., the Senate needs to have a trial and if they convict the Pres., he is removed from office.
Republican congressman uniformly support Trump and his agenda. He has full support of republican party. So do senate and so do republican supreme court justices.
The Wikipedia article mentions a bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen in support of Denmark. Maybe they took along Republicans that have been a bee in the Trump administration’s bonnet, but it’s definitely not fair to say they uniformly support his agenda, only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.
And the US in turn abdicated its separation of powers. A US president lacks the ability to make treaties, or use military force without congressional authorization.
In what world does the president have the authority to annex an autonomous territory from an ally?
The world where he does it and then tries to present it to Congress as a fait accompli. If the security concerns around Greenland are seen as legitimate enough, he’ll get his Democratic congressmen to approve it, particularly as it’s unlikely that it would become a state (too few people).
The core issue is that the current US leadership has abandoned its status as a former trustworthy leader that accepted cooperation and responsibility as key operating tenets.
If anyone threatened to take your home by force if you didn’t sell at his favorite price, the sane social discussion would focus on their uncivil threat and pro-social responses, not on victim blaming “the core issue is that I’ve abdicated my ability to defend my house by force.”
You could have a reasonable conversation about sovereign defense budgets and alliance contributions, but not while you’re threatening the sovereignty of an ally.
And all of this will make American citizens less safe, not more. It’s madness. There’s nothing to be gained here for most people by threat of force or hybrid warfare.
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
Nice.
I'm sure this will stop Trump from invading.
If we had sane (or brave) people in congress, he would have been impeached and convicted by now and tossed out of office.
Isn't he already convicted?
By convicted I mean convicted by the Senate. After Congress impeaches the Pres., the Senate needs to have a trial and if they convict the Pres., he is removed from office.
That did not happen in the first term.
And into the jail
Or actually handled after Jan 6th...
Naw, this is a return to the same roots the Nazi's admired from affair and used US policies to shape their own...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc774zw
Republican congressman uniformly support Trump and his agenda. He has full support of republican party. So do senate and so do republican supreme court justices.
They stand up for this.
The Wikipedia article mentions a bipartisan delegation to Copenhagen in support of Denmark. Maybe they took along Republicans that have been a bee in the Trump administration’s bonnet, but it’s definitely not fair to say they uniformly support his agenda, only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.
It is too short sighted to blame this all on Trump. The core issue is the West has abdicated its sovereignty and military to the US long ago.
And the US in turn abdicated its separation of powers. A US president lacks the ability to make treaties, or use military force without congressional authorization.
In what world does the president have the authority to annex an autonomous territory from an ally?
The world where he does it and then tries to present it to Congress as a fait accompli. If the security concerns around Greenland are seen as legitimate enough, he’ll get his Democratic congressmen to approve it, particularly as it’s unlikely that it would become a state (too few people).
In the world that thinks and does: "Might is Right".
Oh wait, that's the history of humanity - especially the bloody brutal history of Colonialism & Imperialism.
USA (rather The Five Eyes led by USA), EU, China are not just nations or blocs. They are Empires.
And this is what Empires do best: war (war for oil/resources, war for territory, war for wealth & glory, war for slaves, etc.)
The core issue is that the current US leadership has abandoned its status as a former trustworthy leader that accepted cooperation and responsibility as key operating tenets.
If anyone threatened to take your home by force if you didn’t sell at his favorite price, the sane social discussion would focus on their uncivil threat and pro-social responses, not on victim blaming “the core issue is that I’ve abdicated my ability to defend my house by force.”
You could have a reasonable conversation about sovereign defense budgets and alliance contributions, but not while you’re threatening the sovereignty of an ally.
And all of this will make American citizens less safe, not more. It’s madness. There’s nothing to be gained here for most people by threat of force or hybrid warfare.
It would be the largest welfare state in the union.
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.