this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
100 points (96.3% liked)

politics

22605 readers
4530 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Dude, give it up. Greenland doesn't like you CF Vance.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 44 points 4 days ago (1 children)

America hasn't invested in America since 1950s

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

This made me laugh, than frown 🙁

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What the hell is the obsession with Greenland? It's ridiculous.

[–] BillDaCatt@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If we assume that this is a move for Putin against NATO, the US taking control of Greenland could result in Russia gaining a naval staging area to attack Europe.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

Yup NATO bases in Greenland monitor Russian activity in the North Atlantic. The US taking over means Russia gets to do what it wants.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

More that it normalizes a return to military expansion of national borders.
Russia is trying to grow their territory by annexing neighbors.
China would plainly like to.
The US didn't, which made the scales tilt towards Russia acting badly and unusually badly.

With the shift, Russia is just the only one acting on a policy item that all the major powers have.

And like clockwork: https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-arctic-trump-greenland-2dbd00625c2c0c3bd94a2c96c7015b69

"Putin says US push for Greenland rooted in history, vows to uphold Russian interest in the Arctic"

Speaking at a policy forum in the Artic port of Murmansk, Putin noted that the United States first considered plans to win control over Greenland in the 19th century, and then offered to buy it from Denmark after World War II.

“It can look surprising only at first glance and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current U.S. administration,” Putin said. “It’s obvious that the United States will continue to systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic.”

The US and Greenland; Russia and Ukraine: it only matters that it's rooted in history, right?

[–] ItsLucky@pawb.social 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Looking at this question through geological lenses it's quiet simple: they want the resources underneath the ice. Under the ice there are deposits with quality that is pretty unheard of for todays day and age. You see during the Bronze ago we humans used up ore deposits that were around 20-40% Copper/Tin, but as we continued needing resources we used those deposits up and started using deposits that only had 1% of resources and so on. If I'm not mistaken we are down to mostly around using deposits that range somewhere around 0.1% of the actual mineral we want. Here comes the near part about Greenland: There is a lot of ice that made it impossible for any human in history to get to those deposits, even more so to mine them. So once the ice is gone you will provably find deposits of bronze age quality, which is just amazing as mining these things gets like 100 fold easier :D Oh and also I think the USGS estimated that there are like 30+ Billion barrel of oil under Greenland Source: I'm doing a bachelors in geology and this was part of one of my lectures, its been a while though so I fear I might have gotten things wrong, not sure though. Please please correct me if I wrote bogus

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

To add on, it also provides a staging area for whatever Arctic ocean resource conflicts happen in the next 10 years or whatever

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why did they even let him in?

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm assuming so they could tell him to piss off.

And probably because they have class and didn't want to make themselves an international spectacle.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They should have revoked his entry rights and then deported him someplace unfriendly.

Well, maybe they shouldn't have. but it's what I'd have done.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 4 days ago

I nominate you to be Greenland

[–] Dagrothus@reddthat.com 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The base is controlled and run independently by the US. Greenland lets us do that because theyre supposed to be our ALLIES

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

After JD Vance landed at Greenland he cried that: “It’s cold as shit here. Nobody told me.”

He doesn’t even know anything about the land he wants America to annex.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We could make them much more secure. We could do a lot more protection. And I think they’d fare a lot better economically as well.

It's like a Mafia racket, we will protect you, but if you don't like it we will attack you to force payment... It's in your best interest.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

I mean, he just started doing exactly what you said to Canada

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 6 points 4 days ago

Fucking clown

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Wait for it, it's coming: some variation of "make Greenland great again" political campaign to try to win over Greenlanders so they'll support annexation by the USA.

Thankfully they get a preview of what making a country great looks like according to Trump.

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Imagine getting imperialistic threats from a fascist wearing guyliner. Weird.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The Kurgen has entered the chat

Edit: actually can he please enter real life and visit a few people who need a date with a guillotine anyway

[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Queen also. Princes of the universe

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

They want to run governments like businesses...

The reason that's a stupid idea, is governments have to plan years, and ideally decades ahead of time.

A publicly traded business wants to exploit every possible resource as fast as possible because that's short term profit which makes the stock price go up. And eventually when all the resources are gone, you sell stocks before the number goes down and takes a parachute or declare bankruptcy.

But there's only so many countries and so many natural resources to exploit.

It's like an uncheck cancer when countries start acting like this, because there's no one to hold them in check.

[–] pepperjohnson@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago

Motherfucker we are underinvested here.

[–] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

They won't give up. This is a threat that should be taken seriously.