this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
397 points (99.3% liked)

politics

22570 readers
4393 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
 

Summary

Trump stated the U.S. will "go as far as we have to go" to gain control of Greenland, citing national and international security needs.

JD Vance will visit Greenland’s Pituffik military base, scaling back a broader visit amid backlash from Greenland and Denmark.

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede condemned the move as "aggressive pressure" and insisted that "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders."

Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, asserting that U.S. control is essential for security.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Nobody wants to be the first person to “go there,” and really protest (beyond waving a few cleverly worded signs on the sidewalk). The first person to take protests to the next level (i.e., throwing fists, rolling cars over, occupying government buildings, confronting masked cops during kidnappings, showing up with arms, whatever) gets mowed down rather quickly.

Ineffective, and it gives the current admin the leverage to bring the hammer down quickly, before an opposition can recoup and really organize.

People are waiting for a critical mass, and “the moment,” when they’re assured that everyone else will turn out en masse at the same time to set shit ablaze, French-protester-style. But nobody knows when “that moment” will be, exactly. Or if it’ll ever come. So, who’s gonna go first?

And who wants to go at all? It’s easy to talk a tough talk when you’re young and you don’t have family depending on you for their survival. Then again, those with children also want their kids to have a country to grow up in that resembles the one we grew up in (or, optimally, far better). So, quite a pickle.

Perhaps “the moment” will never come anyway, and we’ll all just whimper our way into Fascism.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Someone went first. But they might have went too early.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There's a lot more to come. His trial is going to be a circus. His biggest influence on socity is still ahead.

[–] Auli 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Nope. It's not going to start a movement Americans are to far lazy and comfortable. Also still think they are the best. They well ride that all the way down.

Also the second amendment can be removed now as everyone who said we need it for government protection.... it was all bs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

While its true that the far right has way more gun owners than the left. There are still a fair number of us that are armed. I do think it will be interesting if they try to take back all the guns, like maybe that will be the thing that finally wakes up so of these assholes. Not the super MAGAs that are just drinking in the shit, but I personally know a few people that said the biggest reason the vote Republican is because they are afraid of the left taking their guns

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, I'm also personally of the opinion that violence being the first answer is a losing proposition in a surveillance enabled police state with the largest and most advance military in the world.

I think it's a much better idea to organize on a national level mutual aid groups, community gardens, community doctors, community mesh-networks not connected to the internet for information sharing, people working outside of capitalism and then when enough of a support network is built, going all-in on a general strike. Violence will still happen anyway, but take the time to prepare parallel systems and starting from a defensive position instead of offensive is the smarter move.

I think with the massive boot of law enforcement, the surveillance tools they have, and the military backing them, starting by fighting is a fools errand that will be crushed quickly, mostly because there won't be enough logistical planning. I've met enough antifa wannabes who just wanna go out and recklessly shoot shit to understand that it's not organize enough.

We need to be organized at a community level to care for each other so people can feel supported enough to stand with each other.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

The irony of anarchism is it requires more organizing to be effective and not descend into chaos. If you discard lame ass cookie cutter institutions you are always working on ad hoc replacements in the moment.

This is not a weakness, just another social chore.