Only people who are More Runs, would actually believe that Trump would invade Greenland. First, it is not necessary, second, his party will not support that, third, we don't need to invade that country.

God, the ignorance of people who read the corporate news knows no bounds.

He is playing games and negotiating, but I guess it is too hard for you guys to understand how he operates and just react emotionally.

I guess Kamala would have been better dealing with Xi Xi and Putin as they move into Greenland.

16 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Well, more than 50% anyway.

But I always say, Trump is not the problem. He is just a talking head. The problem is that more than 50% of Americans think that the stuff he does is ok, or more than ok.

First off, not quite 50% of American voters voted for Trump. And now there's quite a bit of buyers regret going around.

Just now, Taboo2 said:

Only people who are More Runs, would actually believe that Trump would invade Greenland. First, it is not necessary, second, his party will not support that, third, we don't need to invade that country.

God, the ignorance of people who read the corporate news knows no bounds.

He is playing games and negotiating, but I guess it is too hard for you guys to understand how he operates and just react emotionally.

I guess Kamala would have been better dealing with Xi Xi and Putin as they move into Greenland.

The result of that game being that even if you negotiate an agreement with Trump, you can't depend on him to keep his word?

Keep consoling yourself with your nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Only people who are More Runs, would actually believe that Trump would invade Greenland. First, it is not necessary, second, his party will not support that, third, we don't need to invade that country.

God, the ignorance of people who read the corporate news knows no bounds.

He is playing games and negotiating, but I guess it is too hard for you guys to understand how he operates and just react emotionally.

I guess Kamala would have been better dealing with Xi Xi and Putin as they move into Greenland.

They don't move into Greenland. Trump is lying. 🙂

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Well as you can see Trump raised the white flag in total surrender, and essentially agreed that the same deal that's been on the table since World War II. This absolute fool could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag if his pathetic life depended upon it.

I'm sure Trump has different ideas about the deal. He'll come back to it with more threats.

Just now, stevenl said:

I'm sure Trump has different ideas about the deal. He'll come back to it with more threats.

And you'll keep howling whether he does or not.

Hey, howl about "the files" for a while....

Trolling post removed

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Hey, howl about "the files" for a while....

Yes, release them.

Trump's latest con product and change wine to whines and you have his speech.

On 1/22/2026 at 10:14 AM, calle k said:

Does this framework agreement mean that Donald Trump's good friends Jeff-Bill-Mark and Sam, who have been so nice and given him at least 243 million dollars for his election campaign, now will be allowed to empty Greenland's subsoil of minerals for free?

No, as Trump and NATO don't get to decide what Greenland has to do.

The PM from Greenland doesn't know about the framework

What gives Trump the right to interfere with Norway allowing China to mine uranium in Greenland?

Apparently, he's going to attack Iran as a distraction for the Greenland failure

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Apparently, he's going to attack Iran as a distraction for the Greenland failure

So Greenland was a distractions from "the files", and Iran is a distraction from Greenland.

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

First off, not quite 50% of American voters voted for Trump. And now there's quite a bit of buyers regret going around.

The result of that game being that even if you negotiate an agreement with Trump, you can't depend on him to keep his word?

Keep consoling yourself with your nonsense.

I believe for his first term it was slightly less than 50% of the vote, the second term was slightly more than 50% of the vote. Who knows what the non voting public think.

3 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

I believe for his first term it was slightly less than 50% of the vote, the second term was slightly more than 50% of the vote. Who knows what the non voting public think.

No, he did not win an actual majority, he just got the most votes by a clear margin,

2 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

Only people who are More Runs, would actually believe that Trump would invade Greenland. First, it is not necessary, second, his party will not support that, third, we don't need to invade that country.

God, the ignorance of people who read the corporate news knows no bounds.

He is playing games and negotiating, but I guess it is too hard for you guys to understand how he operates and just react emotionally.

I guess Kamala would have been better dealing with Xi Xi and Putin as they move into Greenland.

I have a few issues with what you say.

1. An “invasion” would be no more than simply landing troops. There is no military there to fight back. So he absolutely could do that.

2. He did not need his parties support to kidnap the President of Venezuela. I think that you are overestimating the so called checks and balances that are supposedly in place.

3. You/he would need to invade that country if what Tump said in the lead up to his climb down were true, juxtaposed against what Denmark was saying.

4. If he was negotiating rather than just bumbling, then he seriously overplayed his hand and came away with absolutely nothing. So much for the master negotiator.

5. I think people understand how he operates. Which means that a strong response, emotional or otherwise, is absolutely necessary.

6. The world SHOULD be fast at the way he operates. No way should it be normalized with a shrug of the shoulders. He is way out of line.

So, that’s what I personally think.

2 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

I have a few issues with what you say.

1. An “invasion” would be no more than simply landing troops. There is no military there to fight back. So he absolutely could do that.

2. He did not need his parties support to kidnap the President of Venezuela. I think that you are overestimating the so called checks and balances that are supposedly in place.

3. You/he would need to invade that country if what Tump said in the lead up to his climb down were true, juxtaposed against what Denmark was saying.

4. If he was negotiating rather than just bumbling, then he seriously overplayed his hand and came away with absolutely nothing. So much for the master negotiator.

5. I think people understand how he operates. Which means that a strong response, emotional or otherwise, is absolutely necessary.

6. The world SHOULD be fast at the way he operates. No way should it be normalized with a shrug of the shoulders. He is way out of line.

So, that’s what I personally think.

Out of line in what way?

Are the NATO "leaders" threatening to side with China against the US out of line as well?

2 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

He is playing games and negotiating,

Negotiating something that was already in place and alienating even more of what is left, if any, of his now ex allies!

(PS; That excludes Putin, Xi Jinping and all his other dictatorial cronies/bosses!)

1 minute ago, scottiejohn said:

Negotiating something that was already in place and alienating even more of what is left, if any, of his now ex allies!

(PS; That excludes Putin, Xi Jinping and all his other dictatorial cronies/bosses!)

Does negotiating not always involve something that is already in place!!!!???

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Out of line in what way?

Are the NATO "leaders" threatening to side with China against the US out of line as well?

Out of line in a number of ways, but let’s take the main one of threatening tariffs on whatever countries refuse to go along with handing over Greenland. That’s blackmail because trade tariffs have nothing whatsoever to do with territorial sovereignty. It’s not how you should treat allies. Allies whose soldiers died alongside your own troops when USA invoked article 5 of the NATO charter.

Please provide me with one, just one, example of a NATO leader threatening to side with China. And at the same time explain, side with China over what exactly? The sovereignty of one nation over its own territory? Hardly siding with China. That has been the NATO leaders position all along, irrespective of what China might think/say.

Trump went out on a limb, overplayed his hand and got his head handed to him in a bag.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So Greenland was a distractions from "the files", and Iran is a distraction from Greenland.

YES!

PS; I am glad to see that you know accept the obvious!

5 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Out of line in a number of ways, but let’s take the main one of threatening tariffs on whatever countries refuse to go along with handing over Greenland. That’s blackmail because trade tariffs have nothing whatsoever to do with territorial sovereignty. It’s not how you should treat allies. Allies whose soldiers died alongside your own troops when USA invoked article 5 of the NATO charter.

The US did not invoke Article 5, NATO invoked Article 5.

I did not/do not support Trump's treat of tariffs to strongarm allies into a Greenland agreement.

5 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Please provide me with one, just one, example of a NATO leader threatening to side with China. And at the same time explain, side with China over what exactly? The sovereignty of one nation over its own territory? Hardly siding with China. That has been the NATO leaders position all along, irrespective of what China might think/say.

Okay

5 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Trump went out on a limb, overplayed his hand and got his head handed to him in a bag.

The answer was already no, so I am not sure what you mean by having his head handed to him in a bag. He is still president of the United States, and it looks like no ground was lost with Greenland.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Norway allowing China to mine uranium in Greenland

Where is your proof of that statement please.

On 1/22/2026 at 1:12 PM, wensiensheng said:

Well, more than 50% anyway.

But I always say, Trump is not the problem. He is just a talking head. The problem is that more than 50% of Americans think that the stuff he does is ok, or more than ok.

And people like Miller, Besant and others think that the whole world, other than China and Russia, wants to be like America! News alert, I and people I mix with have no desire to be in a country like America.

In fact, Russia and America still aren’t out of the old Cold War scenario where they were the two pre eminent super powers where they embody good and evil and everyone cowers in the wake of their power. Well the world has moved on and those who take even a small amount of interest in history know that America bears more than its share of the evil brand.

And I think the world is getting tired of following blindly in Americas wake as it starts war after war. And just to get told that no one is ever “there” for America. What about all the dead non Americans that fought twice in the Gulf, Afghanistan, heck even Vietnam.Trump is right about one thing, Europe needs to grow a backbone, develop their own capability where they need to, so that America isn’t needed any more.

I think a lot of people are just sick of Trump because he showcases everything that is cr*p about America.

He was elected with well under a majority of votes, and since then a lot of his supporters have become quite disillusioned with his policies and the vast majority do not approve of the way ICE has carried out their domestic terrorism agenda.

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Where is your proof of that statement please.

That is not my statement thank you!!!!!

On 1/22/2026 at 7:18 AM, Mavideol said:

his frame work is ME- ME- ME-ME and MEEEEEE if I don't praise myself nobody in this room will

The ad with the Trump reference: Swatch made fullsized ads in several daily newspapers.

The "Me, Myself and I" watch shown in the current advertisement exists as a physical piece, but it is not for sale. The unique item is located in the office of Swatch CEO Nick Hayek in Biel.

Hayek has never attended the World Economic Forum.

Last September, Swatch offered a creative way to criticize the US president. The company launched a special edition watch in Switzerland to protest the 39 percent tariff. The watch was a resounding success: it sold out completely in less than 48 hours.

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

He was elected with well under a majority of votes, and since then a lot of his supporters have become quite disillusioned with his policies and the vast majority do not approve of the way ICE has carried out their domestic terrorism agenda.

Yeah, but he still won, and ICE is just doing what people voted for.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The US did not invoke Article 5, NATO invoked Article 5.

I did not/do not support Trump's treat of tariffs to strongarm allies into a Greenland agreement.

Okay

The answer was already no, so I am not sure what you mean by having his head handed to him in a bag. He is still president of the United States, and it looks like no ground was lost with Greenland.

NATO as a collective group does not invoke article 5. A MEMBER of NATO has the option of invoking article 5 and the USA is the only NATO member in the history of the group to do that. It did so after 9-11 and requested assistance when it later decided to invade Afghanistan. NATO countries, including Denmark, provided troops and equipment. Danish troops died in that deployment. Not one or two, hundreds.

Trump insisted he wanted something and would accept nothing less. He didn’t get it. You can argue that he didn’t have Greenland anyway, so the fact that he came away with nothing, means he didn’t lose anything. Except, that ignores the fact that so many people are laughing at him AND so many other countries now know that trying to curry favour with him is a pointless exercise. Did he enhance his reputation? No. Did he make it likely that more people will trust him? No.

Sounds like his head handed over to him in a bag to me.

1 minute ago, wensiensheng said:

NATO as a collective group does not invoke article 5. A MEMBER of NATO has the option of invoking article 5 and the USA is the only NATO member in the history of the group to do that. It did so after 9-11 and requested assistance when it later decided to invade Afghanistan. NATO countries, including Denmark, provided troops and equipment. Danish troops died in that deployment. Not one or two, hundreds.

okay

1 minute ago, wensiensheng said:

Trump insisted he wanted something and would accept nothing less. He didn’t get it. You can argue that he didn’t have Greenland anyway, so the fact that he came away with nothing, means he didn’t lose anything. Except, that ignores the fact that so many people are laughing at him AND so many other countries now know that trying to curry favour with him is a pointless exercise. Did he enhance his reputation? No. Did he make it likely that more people will trust him? No.

Okay

1 minute ago, wensiensheng said:

Sounds like his head handed over to him in a bag to me.

okay

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

He was elected with well under a majority of votes, and since then a lot of his supporters have become quite disillusioned with his policies and the vast majority do not approve of the way ICE has carried out their domestic terrorism agenda.

Not sure how you arrive at your figures: I’m seeing 49.8% for Trump, 48% odd for Harris

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What gives Trump the right to interfere with Norway allowing China to mine uranium in Greenland?

What has norway to do with greenland !!! unless you are talking about Erik the Red's Land which this claim was denied in 1933 so norway has nothing to do with greenland or are you getting it mixed up like your president with iceland !!