Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Trump Threatens Tariffs on Nations Rejecting Greenland Takeover

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post
9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How does favoring domestic companies not favor residents with more jobs and a bigger tax base.

I am not concerned with domestic importers, as they are just a tax as well.

To be clear, I am generally against both tariffs and corporate income taxes, but I think corporate income taxes are worse. I also think good arguments can be made for both, but to be for one and against the other I think makes one a hypocrite.

Tariffs favour domestic manufacturers because it makes imported goods more expensive. So the only goods available are expensive locally produced and tariffed imported goods. The local manufacturer no longer needs to innovate due to lack of competition.

QED Residents have to pay more so this does not favour them.

In the long term, tariffs stifle innovation. You don't need to innovate if you don't have competition and you get products that get more and more old fashioned.

A good example is EV's. American auto manufacturers don't have to invest in EV's because the cheaper EV's from China aren't available, therefore they delay their investment and production. Residents have less choice and pay more for the outdated local supply.

I agree with you that tariffs and taxes both have their place. I am totally against weaponising either and Trump has weaponised tariffs.

  • Replies 202
  • Views 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Chomper Higgot
    Chomper Higgot

    What’s not to hate?

  • ronnie50
    ronnie50

    How is this any different from local mafia/thugs demanding 'protection money' from the local baker or bar owner, with threats against his business if he doesn't comply? It's not different of course. I

  • JBChiangRai
    JBChiangRai

    The world has mishandled Trump's Tariffs. There is only one way to deal with a bully.

Posted Images

  • Popular Post
36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You've made that claim twice without supporting it.

Cleary previous administrations have tried to acquired Greenland, the only difference may be the tactics.

In your attempt to evade directly answering a question your comments are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Either that are you have resorted to trolling.

My contention is that, 'No other US President has threatened to impose tariffs and/or threatened an invasion in response to his attempts to purchase Greenland being rebuffed.

What sort of 'evidence' would you like to see to support this contention? A written statement on headed 'White House' notepaper from each of those previous Presidents, with the statement: "I, <POTUS> promise not to impose tariffs on Denmark, Greenland, etc or invade Greenland because Denmark won't sell me the island"? If so, congratulations you're right, I can't produce that 'evidence'. However, more pertinently, neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce a counterexample showing that a previous US administration had threatened to forcibly acquire Greenland.

You now attempt to justify Trump's actions as just 'tactics'. That 'justification' could be applied to any event throughout history: Nazis could claim that the use of concentration camps were just 'tactics'. Stalin's gulags? Just 'tactics'. 9/11? al-Qaeda's 'tactics'. Trump's actions are not in the same category as those horrific actions but they share the same trait: a lack of morality.

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Tariffs favour domestic manufacturers because it makes imported goods more expensive. So the only goods available are expensive locally produced and tariffed imported goods. The local manufacturer no longer needs to innovate due to lack of competition.

QED Residents have to pay more so this does not favour them.

In the long term, tariffs stifle innovation. You don't need to innovate if you don't have competition and you get products that get more and more old fashioned.

A good example is EV's. American auto manufacturers don't have to invest in EV's because the cheaper EV's from China aren't available, therefore they delay their investment and production. Residents have less choice and pay more for the outdated local supply.

I agree with you that tariffs and taxes both have their place. I am totally against weaponising either and Trump has weaponised tariffs.

Will people generally pay more for what they perceive to be better goods?

  • Popular Post
8 hours ago, JimCM said:

Not nearly as bad as Bush, starting fake wars in Iraq.

Or Nixon, or Obama for that matter, and definitely Biden and Clinton.

A ridiculous 'whataboutery' argument.

Stalin was responsible for fewer deaths than Genkis Khan. Maybe we should reclassify him as one of the Good Guys.

  • Popular Post
4 minutes ago, RayC said:

In your attempt to evade directly answering a question your comments are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Either that are you have resorted to trolling.

My contention is that, 'No other US President has threatened to impose tariffs and/or threatened an invasion in response to his attempts to purchase Greenland being rebuffed.

What sort of 'evidence' would you like to see to support this contention? A written statement on headed 'White House' notepaper from each of those previous Presidents, with the statement: "I, <POTUS> promise not to impose tariffs on Denmark, Greenland, etc or invade Greenland because Denmark won't sell me the island"? If so, congratulations you're right, I can't produce that 'evidence'. However, more pertinently, neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce a counterexample showing that a previous US administration had threatened to forcibly acquire Greenland.

You now attempt to justify Trump's actions as just 'tactics'. That 'justification' could be applied to any event throughout history: Nazis could claim that the use of concentration camps were just 'tactics'. Stalin's gulags? Just 'tactics'. 9/11? al-Qaeda's 'tactics'. Trump's actions are not in the same category as those horrific actions but they share the same trait: a lack of morality.

Well said, Raymond........🤗

  • Popular Post
5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will people generally pay more for what they perceive to be better goods?

Without tariffs people generally pay less for better goods but it can put local manufacturers out of business.

  • Popular Post
8 hours ago, JimCM said:

The biggest sporting event, by far, in the world. You're having a laff..

They were 'having a laff' in 1980 when 68 nations boycotted the other 'Worlds biggest sporting event' to varying degrees.

To be clear, I don't expect a boycott to happen but if Trump doesn't back down, I'd be pleased if it did.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

In your attempt to evade directly answering a question your comments are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Either that are you have resorted to trolling.

What question have you asked that I have evaded?

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

My contention is that, 'No other US President has threatened to impose tariffs and/or threatened an invasion in response to his attempts to purchase Greenland being rebuffed.

Which may or may not be true.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

What sort of 'evidence' would you like to see to support this contention? A written statement on headed 'White House' notepaper from each of those previous Presidents, with the statement: "I, <POTUS> promise not to impose tariffs on Denmark, Greenland, etc or invade Greenland because Denmark won't sell me the island"? If so, congratulations you're right, I can't produce that 'evidence'. However, more pertinently, neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce a counterexample showing that a previous US administration had threatened to forcibly acquire Greenland.

My contention was that a number of administrations over the last 100-150 years have tried to acquire Greenland for strategic reasons, so the idea that the current administration would try to acquire it is not ridiculous.

All I know about tactics previous administrations used, is that they failed.

You seem to be claiming you know which tactics were not used or at least threatened. I find it hard to believe anyone alive knows that.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

You now attempt to justify Trump's actions as just 'tactics'.

I have not attempted to justify anything, I am generally against tariffs, and very much against all the noise Trump is making about Greenland.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

That 'justification' could be applied to any event throughout history: Nazis could claim that the use of concentration camps were just 'tactics'. Stalin's gulags? Just 'tactics'. 9/11? al-Qaeda's 'tactics'. Trump's actions are not in the same category as those horrific actions but they share the same trait: a lack of morality.

And now you are playing the Nazi card, how clever.

8 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Without tariffs people generally pay less for better goods but it can put local manufacturers out of business.

Is that a yes or a no?

  • Popular Post
10 minutes ago, RayC said:

In your attempt to evade directly answering a question your comments are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Either that are you have resorted to trolling.

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Well said, Raymond........🤗

Mangel an moral, das ist das hauptsächliche Merkmal von Donnie und seinen MAGA-Vasallen.

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

Trump's actions are not in the same category as those horrific actions but they share the same trait: a lack of morality.

A lack of any morals is Donnie's unique selling point and that of his MAGA-vassals.

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Will people generally pay more for what they perceive to be better goods?

15 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Without tariffs people generally pay less for better goods but it can put local manufacturers out of business.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is that a yes or a no?

Generally, Yes people will pay more for better goods. Without tariffs, they don't have to, they get better goods cheaper.

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

Trump's actions are not in the same category as those horrific actions but they share the same trait: a lack of morality.

A lack of any morals is Donnie's unique selling point and that of his MAGA-vassals.

4 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Generally, Yes people will pay more for better goods. Without tariffs, they don't have to, they get better goods cheaper.

If people will generally pay more for a better product, how is innovation stifled in a "free" market?

If you have to sell your product for 20% more, you have to make people believe it is better.

I import US stuff into Thailand and pay the duty, not because I am a patriot, but because I want better product.

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

If you want to talk about rants and being triggered, let me remind you of your original post:

"Alexandria Ocasio Cortez ... Some gobby leftist democrat bint who is even more stupid and annoying than cackling Kamala Highly unlikely she would ever be a presidential candidate unless the democrats want to lose again"

I think my post was pretty accurate, Note that I am not insulting you or speaking to you impolitely. A stark contrast to your reply to my comment But then again I am not a lefty

here's a reminder for you.....

On 1/18/2026 at 5:54 AM, rudi49jr said:

When it comes to intelligence, and just being a decent human being, both Harris and AOC run rings around you. That’s why sad and petty little men like you hate them so much, because you just can’t stand it that there are strong women who are superior to you in every possible way.

speaking to people like that for no good reason in real life could get you a well deserved slap, I think its time for you to reflect on your issues and learn some manners,

  • Popular Post

its immaterial what u call it Tariff tax the yanks end up paying for trumps trariff by consummer price rise dont know how this equates to quality should be the same !! trump is conning the yanks which have blinkers on

2 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

its immaterial what u call it Tariff tax the yanks end up paying for trumps trariff by consummer price rise dont know how this equates to quality should be the same !! trump is conning the yanks which have blinkers on

no need for any non yanks to get upset then

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

no need for any non yanks to get upset then

only when a madman is a threat to the free world !! the yanks have a putin on there hands !!!

5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

its immaterial what u call it Tariff tax the yanks end up paying for trumps trariff by consummer price rise dont know how this equates to quality should be the same !! trump is conning the yanks which have blinkers on

The rich yanks buy imported stuff, and the tax collected benefits all yanks. It's collectivism, you should love it.

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

only when a madman is a threat to the free world !! the yanks have a putin on there hands !!!

Trump is Putin's puppet, once he steals Greenland, he's going to give it to his master, Putin.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Trump is Putin's puppet, once he steals Greenland, he's going to give it to his master, Putin.

as i said yanks with blinkers on gettyimages-1490657821-612x612.jpg

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The rich yanks buy imported stuff, and the tax collected benefits all yanks. It's collectivism, you should love it.

All yanks buy imported stuff and they will be paying higher for it not lower the money goes to trump whats he doing with it NOT helping his people no free medicare not free schools its going to enrich his maga friends and himself. its time for the yanks to wake up

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

What question have you asked that I have evaded?

Your post:

"The US has tried to acquire Greenland for strategic reasons numerous times over the last 100-150 years, but all the sudden it is somehow ridiculous."

My reply:

"Is this meant to be some sort of justification for Trump's actions?"

You did not directly answer my question until now (see below). A simple 'No' - or the statement which you now make below - at the outset would have sufficed.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Which may or may not be true.

Are there papers which state that say, Truman, considered invading Greenland? That possibility always exists but as I said previously, the burden is on you to produce the evidence not on me to falsify it.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

My contention was that a number of administrations over the last 100-150 years have tried to acquire Greenland for strategic reasons, so the idea that the current administration would try to acquire it is not ridiculous.

Agreed.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

All I know about tactics previous administrations used, is that they failed.

Once again, agreed but that in no way justifies Trump's approach.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You seem to be claiming you know which tactics were not used or at least threatened. I find it hard to believe anyone alive knows that.

No, I am claiming nothing of the sort. However, in the absence of any evidence supporting the contention that previous US administrations had threatened force and/or tariffs to secure Greenland I remain unconvinced.

A more general point, is that using your line of argument, you quickly disappear down a philosophical rabbit hole - How can we know anything for certain? - and end up with solipsism (which in itself, doesn't provide a complete answer).

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I have not attempted to justify anything, I am generally against tariffs, and very much against all the noise Trump is making about Greenland.

Excellent. We both disagree with Trump's current actions wrt Greenland.

But I now struggle to understand what is the point that you are trying to make?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

And now you are playing the Nazi card, how clever

Nothing of the sort. I did not call Trump a Nazi. In fact, I clearly made the point that Trump's actions could not be considered as being similar to those of Khan, Stalin or Hitler.

54 minutes ago, RayC said:

They were 'having a laff' in 1980 when 68 nations boycotted the other 'Worlds biggest sporting event' to varying degrees.

To be clear, I don't expect a boycott to happen but if Trump doesn't back down, I'd be pleased if it did.

Good point, I'd forgotten. Although the Olympics are nowhere near as big as the world cup except perhaps in the US, so they wouldn't care.

42 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

All yanks buy imported stuff and they will be paying higher for it not lower the money goes to trump whats he doing with it NOT helping his people no free medicare not free schools its going to enrich his maga friends and himself. its time for the yanks to wake up

No, Trump sends all the tariff money to his puppet master Putin

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

Your post:

"The US has tried to acquire Greenland for strategic reasons numerous times over the last 100-150 years, but all the sudden it is somehow ridiculous."

My reply:

"Is this meant to be some sort of justification for Trump's actions?"

You did not directly answer my question until now (see below). A simple 'No' - or the statement which you now make below - at the outset would have sufficed.

Actually, your response was much longer, which I addressed, but you are correct, I ignored your first question.

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

Are there papers which state that say, Truman, considered invading Greenland? That possibility always exists but as I said previously, the burden is on you to produce the evidence not on me to falsify it.

I have not claimed that Truman considered invading it, but did FDR not occupy it for a few years during WWII?

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

Agreed.

Once again, agreed but that in no way justifies Trump's approach.

No, I am claiming nothing of the sort. However, in the absence of any evidence supporting the contention that previous US administrations had threatened force and/or tariffs to secure Greenland I remain unconvinced.

A more general point, is that using your line of argument, you quickly disappear down a philosophical rabbit hole - How can we know anything for certain? - and end up with solipsism (which in itself, doesn't provide a complete answer).

Excellent. We both disagree with Trump's current actions wrt Greenland.

I support the US acquiring Greenland peacefully.

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

But I now struggle to understand what is the point that you are trying to make?

I don't know why. I think first post of mine in this thread that you responded to was: "The US has tried to acquire Greenland for strategic reasons numerous times over the last 100-150 years, but all the sudden it is somehow ridiculous."

I thought that post made it clear that my point was that the idea of US acquiring Greenland is not ridiculous.

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

Nothing of the sort. I did not call Trump a Nazi. In fact, I clearly made the point that Trump's actions could not be considered as being similar to those of Khan, Stalin or Hitler.

So why bring it up?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

The rich yanks buy imported stuff, and the tax collected benefits all yanks. It's collectivism, you should love it.

Do you have any source to support your claim or are you just making that up? 🤣

Who buys cheap imports from China and elsewhere? Who spend a larger share of revenues to buy products?

59 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If people will generally pay more for a better product, how is innovation stifled in a "free" market?

If you have to sell your product for 20% more, you have to make people believe it is better.

I import US stuff into Thailand and pay the duty, not because I am a patriot, but because I want better product.

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The rich yanks buy imported stuff, and the tax collected benefits all yanks. It's collectivism, you should love it.

With high tariffs, it's not a free market, it's the opposite of a free market. If a local manufacturer doesn't have competition they don't innovate.

I buy imported cars because they are better than locally produced ones, I bought a German EV because there were none available locally and Chinese EV's (the most advanced in the world) had high tariffs. High tariffs meant no competition so the local Japanese auto manufacturers rested on their laurels and stopped innovating.

Once the tariffs were removed, Chinese EV's now dominate the EV market and local auto manufacturers are 2 generations behind and struggling to catch up and even exiting Thailand and closing factories.

Tariffs are useful to protect local industry, but they stifle innovation and stifle customer choice.

100% tariffs on Chinese EV's is the only thing keeping American auto manufacturers alive. But the poor consumer has to pay double to buy a better Chinese one so they don't - definitely not good for residents but great for Ford, Chevrolet et al.

Well he can kiss his World Cup Finals away as most European teams will boycott it. Which in my opinion will good for us all as the Yanks will spoil it with there over the top Hype and Razzamtaz. Stick to the game you know like Baseball ( Rounders what we played at School in the UK ) and that game with the padding and crash helmets.

17 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Well he can kiss his World Cup Finals away as most European teams will boycott it.

Extremely unlikely.

27 minutes ago, candide said:

Do you have any source to support your claim or are you just making that up? 🤣

What claim have I made that needs supporting?

Are you saying that rich yanks do not buy imported stuff?

Or are you saying higher taxes don't benefit all yanks?

27 minutes ago, candide said:

Who buys cheap imports from China and elsewhere? Who spend a larger share of revenues to buy products?

I give up, who?

What cheap products does Denmark export to the US?

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.