Moderator Action: this thread is not about Israel or Ukraine!
Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama
- Thread starter GoodEnoughForMe
- Start date
Verbose
Deity
Svalbard is already contested. Move like Trump seemingly intends to in the Arctic, and it's relevant. Don't overfocus on then Trumpian hand-puppeting:
Norway: Could Russia try to seize Svalbard? – GIS Reports
There are considerable obstacles to Norway and Russia joining forces to exploit Arctic hydrocarbons, argues Professor Stefan Hedlund.
www.gisreportsonline.com
Evidently, which is why you called my point "stupid" and then claimed I was "driven by narcissism in pretending to have the moral high ground". And then blamed me, personally, for justifying actions I have never once justified.
We disagree that this is an entirely "new age", that's fine. I think this was an entirely predictable consequence of a series of actions that probably had their roots in WW1 (a lot of geopolitics between former Axis and Allied powers can trace back to there or even beyond), but were probably catalysed post-WW2. Ignoring my previous examples as per mod text, Russia and the US have been testing boundaries with each other for decades. The US has been scoffing at international law for about as long.
Didn't realise there was such movement in the region, thanks. But that doesn't reduce my concern, quite the opposite reallySvalbard is already contested. Move like Trump seemingly intends to in the Arctic, and it's relevant. Don't overfocus on then Trumpian hand-puppeting:
Norway: Could Russia try to seize Svalbard? – GIS Reports
There are considerable obstacles to Norway and Russia joining forces to exploit Arctic hydrocarbons, argues Professor Stefan Hedlund.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Justifying one evil by another one is misguided, if you enjoy better the British form of rhetoric.
Nowhere in my post did I justify it. I said it was to be expected.
Zardnaar
Deity
What's funny I several posters punting for Putin and Trump's a pacifist are whataboutism Trump.
A full expansionistic USA an actual superpower would be funny to see in a way. Unlike your favorite crappy authoritarian dictator of choice they have a competent military who hasn't been defeated on the field of battle since the 1950s.
Trump's a pacifist though lol.
A full expansionistic USA an actual superpower would be funny to see in a way. Unlike your favorite crappy authoritarian dictator of choice they have a competent military who hasn't been defeated on the field of battle since the 1950s.
Trump's a pacifist though lol.
banzay13
King
Are you ready to became American citizen?
With an unelected leader surrounded by courtiers at the top, if possible.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,896
For a pacifist, he seems overly loosey-goosey with wanting to press the nuke button. Welcome back, Gandhi!
I could be getting my history wrong, but I thought US involvement in Vietnam was in the 60s and 70s. Fantastic victory, that one.
Last edited:
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Here’s how annexing Canada would change American politics
We took Trump literally, not seriously, about the push to make Canada the 51st state.Donald Trump says Canada should become the 51st state. He should be careful what he wishes for.
No, it’s (probably?) not a serious idea, but the president-elect keeps trolling the United States’ ally to the north about becoming the next state in the union. On Monday, after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he will step down, Trump posted on social media that “many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State.” And he doubled down on Tuesday. (Trudeau didn’t take it well.)
So after weeks of this recurring bit, Score decided to take Trump literally, not seriously: What are the immediate political implications of Canada becoming part of the United States?
The answer, our analysis found, is that Democrats would benefit significantly, with the new great state of Canada serving as a kind of second California, a massive blue state that would hold dozens of House seats and create a huge Democratic advantage in the Electoral College.
Canada would be solidly blue, and we’re not just talking about the temperature: An informal survey of our colleagues in the Great White North — subscribe to Ottawa Playbook! — found they were confident their countrymen would vote for Democrats, and a hypothetical preelection poll found Canadians overwhelmingly siding with Kamala Harris over Trump.
With Canada secured, Democrats would need to win just two battleground states in the 2028 presidential election. (That doesn’t make the White House a sure thing: Trump would have still defeated Harris in 2024 even with Canada in the union, since she lost every battleground.)
Let’s run some numbers.
The Senate is easiest: Canada would get two senators, and given its overall liberal politics there’s little question they’d be Democrats. That would shrink Republicans’ margin from the current Congress slightly: There would be 53 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the Senate. Republicans would be able to afford two defections, with Vice President-elect JD Vance breaking a 51-51 tie.
The House is more complicated (and fun). Keeping the chamber at 435 members, reapportionment would give Canada 45 seats. That’d be just one fewer than California, which would have 46 seats.
In total, 31 states would lose seats to Canada. California would lose six; Texas would lose four; Florida would lose three; New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina would lose two each; and two dozen would each lose one seat.
That would almost certainly boost Democrats’ numbers in the House, but it’s impossible to know to what extent, because of redistricting. A blue state can lose a red seat and vice versa, and some of Canada’s 45 districts would be Republican. Aggressive gerrymandering by either party could significantly shift the outcomes.
The migration of House seats to Canada would also mean a significant shift in the Electoral College, reshaping presidential elections.
Right now, blue states make up 226 electoral votes, red states make up 219, and the seven battlegrounds — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona — have 93.
With Canada’s 47 electoral votes (45 House seats + 2 senators), Democrats would enter an election with 253 seats, Republicans would have 202, and there’d be 85 up for grabs.
The Democratic nominee would need just 18 electoral votes to get to 271 and clinch a majority of what are now 540 votes in the Electoral College. That would require a minimum of just two battlegrounds, while Republicans would need to win at least five.
That’s a daunting disadvantage for Republicans, but not an insurmountable one. Trump, after all, would still have won.
But 2028 would sure be interesting — especially once Greenland becomes the 52nd state.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/...ollege-001966?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
banzay13
King
Because they wouldn't just vote for a local option that proposed independence, would they?
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Hey! There are Dozens of Canadians who would welcome annexation. DOZENS!
Why the House is stuck at 435 members. Good article.
How The House Got Stuck At 435 Seats
Apportionment, or the process of determining the number of seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives, happens like clockwork at this point. Ever…
fivethirtyeight.com
Zardnaar
Deity
Thru won every battle lost the war.
Last outright defeat on the battlefield pf any significant size was Korea.
Ahhh! Played by a dual English-USian citizen for greater pleasure.
Klaus Hergersheimer
Emperor
No this is stupid and not worthy of discussion, though I imagine Trump thinks he will get certain world leaders to better appreciate him if he acquiesces to some of their own boneheaded ideas regarding economic lebensraum.
pob
Deity²
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 408
Was sagen Sie?
Similar threads
