politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Disagree on the Putin part. Putin is one of the richest and is the most powerful man in Russia, so he’s included in your rich cabal, but he’s also signaled for years that he’s a geopolitical colonizer and wants to reunite Soviet Union states. His main opposition is NATO which he’s able to dismantle with the help of Trump, thus opening up the door to further fracture resistance to his actions.
There’s a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to Trump being a Russian asset, his latest policies only further confirm that.
The rich cabal you’re talking about absolutely hitched their wagon to Trump to make money in the instability to come, but they don’t give a shit about Greenland. It’s a pawn that they don’t care about, but their friend Putin does.
Putin is mostly interested in the former USSR. Greenland wasn't part of that. Putin will gladly let Trump do whatever he wants with Greenland because if Trump takes action that automatically dissolves NATO as we know it and basically forces a war between the US and the rest of NATO which allows him to basically recreate the USSR by force while NATO trips over its own feet. Granted, Putin (just like any other world leader) would gladly take whatever he can get. But he doesn't need Greenland. There's enough Russian territory that Putin already controls that will also become prime real estate at the same time, making a Greenland annexation largely pointless. He wouldn't need to worry about sharing Greenland with the others in the cabal when he's got enough of his own to make Greenland seem like Gilligan's Island by comparison.
And yeah, we all know Trump's a russian asset. That's been known for years.
And I disagree about the cabals not caring about Greenland. They know where there's money to be made. Right now, much of Greenland is uninhabitable. Which means it's also cheap. So if they get in on the ground floor now, what will that land be worth in 10 years, when more people start feeling more effects of climate change and there's more of an eye on Greenland as a possible refuge? 20 years? Whenever that land becomes viable. That's a lot of land, and therefore a lot of money. Whether for short term profits, long-term hedging of bets against the very climate change they're fueling, or a combination of both, I can guarantee you there are a lot of people interested.
With that said, I think we both ultimately agree on who will benefit the most; we are merely disagreeing over how much each of them will benefit. And I think we can both agree that no matter which one of them win, we lose.