- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:13 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:13 am to boosiebadazz
It's not fake news:
Independent: Full Contents of Trump Letter
It doesn't concern me, because I think Trump's unique personality is what we need to save the Republic. Yes, Trump is probably a megalomaniac, but that's outweighed (for me) by his positive traits....vision, hard work, thinks of America first, etc.
Independent: Full Contents of Trump Letter
It doesn't concern me, because I think Trump's unique personality is what we need to save the Republic. Yes, Trump is probably a megalomaniac, but that's outweighed (for me) by his positive traits....vision, hard work, thinks of America first, etc.
0
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:16 am to boosiebadazz
No, of course it isn’t fake. It also doesn’t make an iota of difference to his love slaves.
I loved it when the guy says to trump “you know the govt isn’t on the committee that picks the winner, right?”
And how can you argue with stable genius’ logic? “I tried peace, and you would not give me the Nobel, so now I’ll resort to war.”
I have to say this administration is wayyyyyyyy funnier than the last time around.
I loved it when the guy says to trump “you know the govt isn’t on the committee that picks the winner, right?”
And how can you argue with stable genius’ logic? “I tried peace, and you would not give me the Nobel, so now I’ll resort to war.”
I have to say this administration is wayyyyyyyy funnier than the last time around.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:17 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:18 am to td01241
quote:
Yes we need to own it no one else would ever have the drive, money, or capability to do this
I agree with this. We shouldn't invest as tenants.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:19 am to boosiebadazz
It’s real. It does not concern me. Trump has always been petulant. It’s not going to get Norway to sell.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 10:21 am
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:19 am to boosiebadazz
If real, that’s a pretty dumb thing to send.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:21 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
It does not concern me. Trump has always been petulant.
It doesn't concern you that the President is a petulant baby that’s lighting a fire to our international relations?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:25 am to boosiebadazz
I will need a better source than X, but it would not surprise me if true.
Trump has gone batshit crazy.
Trump has gone batshit crazy.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:27 am to PepeSilvia
quote:
What’s the intended outcome?
Do you agree that the inflationary impact, rising costs, higher unemployment and economic stagnation the pearl clutchers guaranteed hasn’t materialized?
At a basic level, tariffs work to protect domestic industries. This objectively has been accomplished. Trillions have been invested in our industries by foreign governments/conglomerates.
Beyond that, tariffs are a powerful negotiating tool. There isn’t a country/industry anywhere in the world that doesn’t depend on American markets. They risk insolvency without it. Canada is in the process of finding this out.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:27 am to boosiebadazz
quote:We tried to get it in the 1800s and Truman tried during his term as president. Nothing new.
This Greenland shite is pretty bizarre. I don’t think anyone had this on their bingo card.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:35 am to Jake88
Its strategic importance is not anything new. It’s this forceful push to own it outright, even to the detriment of our relationship with Western Europe, that is bizarre. If they were denying access then I might understand. But before this latest incident, we could have expanded bases or placed more bases if we wanted. Who know what will happen now.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:46 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
even to the detriment of our relationship with Western Europe
To what extent do you think these relationships have been beneficial to the U.S.? Don’t give me the generic and vague muh shared interests explanation.
I want actual, tangible results from the stated intentions of the formation of NATO.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:47 am to lurking
Sure. An easy one is our airbases in England and Germany allow us to project massive airpower into the Middle East.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:50 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
This Greenland shite is pretty bizarre. I don’t think anyone had this on their bingo card.
Why is it bizarre? The President wants to procure the territory for strategic defense purposes. Not just for the United States but for all of North America and the Western hemisphere.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:54 am to bbvdd
quote:
Andrew Johnson was the 1st president to float the idea of buying Greenland in 1867. It’s only “crazy” because its Trump.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:55 am to boosiebadazz
This is what I mean when I say this thinking is archaic. We don’t need these bases for modern military projection.
England and Germany need these bases for economic and military purposes.
England and Germany need these bases for economic and military purposes.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:55 am to rltiger
quote:
It reads like it was written by a low IQ leftist. Pretty sad.
I have some bad news for you
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:19 am to boosiebadazz
I’m concerned about the Communist Chinese meddling in Greenland while the EU and our so called NATO allies focus their efforts on suppressing the speech rights of their own citizens.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:49 am to Riverside
quote:
I’m concerned about the Communist Chinese meddling in Greenland
So far, Denmark has taken a pretty strong stand against Chinese interest in Greenland. They've stopped it multiple times, including when the Chinese wanted to buy a defunct airport and a port. They've also used what leverage they have to dissuade Greenlanders from courting Chinese interest in mining development.
It is very likely that if the strong arm antics are continued that will change, and we will actually drive Denmark and Greenlanders towards China.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:50 am to boosiebadazz
No. I hope it is real, and I hope he means it.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News