I think we can see the beginnings of Trumps way out of this.  Congress refuses to fund a 700 billion payout to buy Greenland, and Trump blames Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Joe Biden. 

good luck. trump will need every one of his asshole licking supporters he has in congress to go along with it ...

Dear Denmark...

Just rename Greenland to, "Epstein Island", and trump will never bring it up again. 

Interesting thought!

If the American people don't care that Trump has renamed the Gulf of Mexico to be the Gulf of America, they probably don't give a shit if Trump renames the United States of America to be Trumpland.

Greenland deal could cost the US more than $700 billion

If it were actually available at that price, we would be egregiously irresponsible not to buy it.

If it were actually available at that price, we would be egregiously irresponsible not to buy it.

WE do not need to own Greenland, Trump does.  His oligarch cronies will make much more profit off Greenland if it US property than if it is Danish/Greenland property. 

He wants the taxpayer to fund the future profits of billionaires. 

WE do not need to own Greenland

WE did not "need" to own Alaska, but we're damned glad we bought it.  WE did not "need" to buy the land from Louisiana to Oregon, but we're damned glad we did.

If we have the chance to buy Greenland, our grandkids will be glad we did.

Trump does.

Making generational strategic decisions based on the idea that "if Trump wants it, it's bad" makes a much stronger argument for the existence and severity of TDS than I think you would want to admit.

If we have the chance to buy Greenland, our grandkids will be glad we did.

Its not their 700 billion dollars. 

What happened two hundred years ago has little relevance to today.  We bought the Louisiana Territory because France didnt want it anymore. 

It’s believed that the failure of France to put down a slave revolution in Haiti , the impending war with Great Britain and probable British naval blockade of France – combined with French economic difficulties – may have prompted Napoleon to offer Louisiana for sale to the United States. Louisiana Purchase - Definition, Facts & Importance | HISTORY

Its not their 700 billion dollars. 

Since when does any president spend his own money?    Since when did you start caring about whose money the US Govt spends?  

News flash, the wealth tax you've supported for years is all about you wanting to spend money that isn't yours.

What happened two hundred years ago has little relevance to today.

Really??   You don't say?  I guess you'll quit whining about reparations for slavery or anything else you can use to demand we all join in your liberal white guilt.

I guess you'll quit whining about reparations for slavery

I have never advocated for reparations for slavery. 

Just because MAGA is uncomfortable talking about minorities and dealing with the 'fall-out' of minority suppression when properly questioned about it. . . RACE - which we all are a part of as hUMans, is shallow skin and hair-which every one of us has in common. Why one of 'us' thinks it is proper to own, bother, molest, and even if necessary destroy another part of 'us' is a sick state of mind (for the One, that is).

Wow. That is something coming from the party that makes an obsession out of harming their own kind: the human-race. And for that matter. . . why the ___ is TRUMP obsessing over Greenland anyway?

Rhetorical Question: Additionally, why are so many millions of us letting this man undermine the foundation of what this country branded itself to be anyway?  Our president appears 'touched' in the head. . . and what does that make us that we are forcing ourselves and our country to be led around by an 'obsessed and impulsive' single man. . .okay, and his team of 'obsessives'? 

I have never advocated for reparations for slavery. 

You have.   To me.  

Why   we   DONT   need   Greenland

The   United   States   does   not   need   Greenland   for   national   security   reasons.   The   island's   strategic   location   in   the   Arctic   Ocean   is   not   a   significant   threat   to   U.S.   interests.   The   U.S.   has   military   bases   on   the   island   and   has   traditionally   worked   closely   with   Denmark   on   security   matters.   The   U.S.   does   not   need   to   seize   Greenland   to   counter   Russia,   as   it   has   military   bases   on   the   island   and   has   traditionally   worked   closely   with   Denmark   on   security.   The   U.S.   does   not   need   Greenland   for   economic   security   or   access   to   minerals,   as   Denmark   has   signaled   an   openness   to   stronger   collaboration.   The   U.S.   does   not   need   Greenland   for   its   Golden   Dome   missile   defense   shield,   as   the   U.S.   has   military   bases   on   the   island   and   has   traditionally   worked   closely   with   Denmark   on   security   matters.  

why we DONT need Greenland - Search

The   United   States   does   not   need   Greenland

We didn't need Alaska.  We didn't need the Louisiana Purchase.  That doesn't mean they weren't the best investments in history.  

If it were actually available at that price, we would be egregiously irresponsible not to buy it.

At 175 times its GDP and given we already have access for military bases, what is your business case for paying 175x?   And yes, I am assuming your business case has in some way monetized strategic value and considers that we already have clear access for military purposes today.

At 175 times its GDP and given we already have access for military bases, what is your business case for paying 175x?

Why on earth would GDP be a relevant metric? 

Is that all you can offer?   I asked you an open question.

How do you justify spending $700 billion to acquire Greenland when we already have strategic access for military bases (for now)?

Especially since doing so further convinces the world that the USA is an imperialist power that can no longer be trusted.

Here, I asked ChatGPT to formulate an explanation for you.   Is this what you have in mind?

ChatGPT answering the question I just asked:

You justify it only by adopting a very narrow, high-stakes national security theory that treats formal sovereignty as materially more reliable than treaty based access, and by asserting that the reputational cost is either (a) overstated or (b) a price worth paying. Even then, a $700 billion figure is difficult to defend on cost–benefit grounds because you would be paying an enormous premium for incremental strategic certainty you largely already possess.

A defensible argument on each side looks like this.

The strongest “yes, spend it” justification

This is the best case a proponent could make.

1) Access is not ownership, and access can be renegotiated

Today’s access depends on:

• Greenland’s domestic politics

• Denmark’s politics

• alliance cohesion

• legal constraints that can change over time

A proponent would argue that Arctic geopolitics is moving into a period where reliability of access matters more than price, and that ownership removes the risk of future constraints on basing, radar modernization, or expansion of facilities.

2) The US would be buying a once-in-a-century strategic hedge

A proponent would frame Greenland as:

• the northern anchor of US missile warning and space tracking

• a buffer against Russian Arctic militarization

• a check against Chinese economic penetration

In that framing, $700B is not “for land,” but for reduced catastrophic tail risk. The rhetorical move is to compare it to the expected cost of strategic surprise, missile defense failure, or loss of early warning rather than to GDP or tax base.

3) The money could be positioned as a package, not a lump sum

To make it politically sellable, advocates would likely call it:

• a combination of economic development fund, infrastructure investment, and fiscal support over decades

• plus negotiated payments to Denmark and Greenland

That spreads the sticker shock and lets them claim it is “investment” rather than “purchase.”

The strongest “no, it is irrational” rebuttal

This is the argument your question is pointing toward, and it is far more persuasive on standard policy criteria.

1) The marginal gain in security is small relative to the cost

If the US already has strategic access for basing and sensors, the incremental benefit of ownership is:

• less about capability

• more about political certainty

You are paying $700B for “certainty insurance,” but you can purchase that insurance much more cheaply by:

• reaffirming and expanding the existing defense agreements

• investing directly in base upgrades

• increasing economic engagement with Greenland and Denmark

• strengthening NATO’s Arctic posture

Those actions deliver the same operational outcomes without requiring sovereignty.

2) It imposes reputational and alliance costs that directly reduce US power

Your second point is analytically strong: imperial optics reduce coalition capacity.

The US gets real power from allies voluntarily aligning with it. When the US appears to treat territory as an object to be acquired, it signals:

• coercion

• diminished respect for sovereignty

• unpredictability in US commitments

That creates incentives for partners to hedge and for rivals to portray the US as a revisionist power. Even if the US dismisses the criticism, allied domestic politics do not. The cost shows up as slower coordination, more conditions on cooperation, and less public support for US leadership.

3) It would be strategically counterproductive

If the stated rationale is to strengthen Arctic security, forcing a sovereignty confrontation with Denmark and Greenland is the opposite of what you want:

• it fractures NATO unity

• creates political resistance to US basing

• drives Greenlandic politics toward distancing from Washington

In other words, the act of trying to buy certainty could reduce certainty.

4) It fails ordinary public-finance logic

Even aggressive monetary valuations of Greenland’s economy and plausible resource rents do not come close to $700B. So the only way to defend the price is security rhetoric. That is a red flag because it avoids falsifiable metrics and invites mission creep.

The clean answer to your question

If we already have strategic access “for now,” the only rational justification for spending $700B is:

• you believe access is likely to be lost or materially constrained in the future,

• you believe losing it would create extremely large national security costs, and

• you believe the reputational and alliance costs of an attempted acquisition are smaller than those security benefits.

Most analysts would judge that chain of assumptions as weak because there are cheaper, alliance-consistent ways to lock in access and strengthen Arctic posture.

If you want, I can turn this into a tight paragraph you can use verbatim, or a longer op-ed style argument with a more formal national security framing.

Of course, it would be nice to have Greenland if they wanted to join the USA and we did not disrupt the fabric of our international relationships in the process.   So, in your own words, how do you justify buying (hostile) Greenland for $700 billion?

Greenland is the property of Denmark and the country has stated its property is not for sale (to the United States). Now then, how about something a little more interesting like end international law or break it and take the North Pole and hey. . . the South Pole too! Also, Iceland can be a counter to Denmark's big island in the same set of waters. . . why not threaten Icelanders - its GDP is minimal. . . ?

Technically, Denmark is more like Greenland's older brother who looks after it (e.g. defense) and has some influence but does not really control it.   Greenland is a self-governing, free territory of Denmark.  It can declare its independence at any time.

But you are correct in that both Denmark and Greenland insist that Greenland is not for sale.

Trump continues to single-handedly ruin the good will that the USA has spent decades building.   This is sickening to the core.   How can anyone with a rational mind support this lunatic?

Thank you for that sharing about the continuing independent and ascertaining of the same by Greenlanders and Denmark's role in the nation as a whole.

Here is the thing: The people of Greenlander are Inuit. They are in the vernacular of the United States what Trump would classify as Indigenous  "Other" or some such word. This open disrespect of any people groups existing anywhere perceived as not having the power, interest, or economic wealth to aggressively protect themselves against outsiders coming in is long and old with people like Trump (White nationalists). Trump (and Miller) seem obsessed with messing with and over minorities anywhere they are in the world. 

And all of us are made to 'orbit' Trump's disrespect for Inuit peoples. . . similar to what President Jackson put on display against the Native American peoples of the United States. Thus, this country has been in this position before. . . and history cursed the United States for it. Long apologies to Indigenous peoples have been made—in recent history. And yet. . . 

. . .Now the cycle seeks to repeat itself with a different set of lunk-heads in power.

Greenland is the property of Denmark and the country has stated its property is not for sale (to the United States).

I realize that.  But the hypothetical was raised and a number was given. 

My only point is "if we could buy it for that, we're crazy not to".  This isn't a new concept, BTW.  Talks about the US acquiring Greenland go back well over a century, and countries selling land to other countries goes back much longer than that.

"if we could buy it for that, we're crazy not to"

Why?

What is the compelling reason to acquire Greenland with $700 billion that we do not have?   And if we were to gain these funds (likely more borrowing) is this really the best way to use the money?

This is stated given the long-standing relationship (until Trump fucks this up) where we have full military access to Greenland.

Okay. So Trump will continue his attempt at persuading Greenlanders to 'relent' their homeland. Mine you the people there are Inuit. We're have to wait and see if the negotiating by Trump, a man who does not know how to take "No!" for an answer progresses. 

Looks like Trump is going to move on to some other distraction away from Epstein.

Why?

Second largest global reserves of rare earth minerals?  Huge deposits of everything from graphite to titanium?  Not to mention gold, silver, copper, zinc, tungsten, uranium, thorium, diamonds, etc, etc?

That doesn't include the potential oil or nat gas reserves.

Fresh water?  Fisheries?  Seriously, the list is very long.

Minerals aside, sovereign states don't sell land very often, and we're not talking about a small amount.  Greenland would increase the size of the US by over 25%.  At $1300/acre, we're absolutely insane if we're not buying every last inch they'll sell us.

What is the compelling reason to acquire Greenland with $700 billion that we do not have?  And if we were to gain these funds (likely more borrowing) is this really the best way to use the money?

"$700 billion that we do not have" is the most laughable phrase I've heard in a while.  Since when has that mattered? And when did Democrats start to care about it a single iota?

Would this  better than forgiving $1.6 trillion in student loans, most of which belong to graduate students?  Completely.  Is it better than spending $100 billion/yr for a decade subsidizing EVs for affluent people?  Absolutely.

This would be the unbelievably rare occasion of the US Govt demonstrating fiscal responsibility... investing rather than spending.

Neodymium sells for about $150/kg, and Greenland has about 40 million tons of it.  That's $6 trillion on just one mineral.  A lease deal for mineral rights or a very small minerals tax and this deal pays for itself before the World Cup hits Saudi Arabia.

Again, it's all exceedingly hypothetical, as the Danes are almost surely not stupid enough to sell it.  But if they were, we need to be buying.

The curiousness about all of this. . . at least to me is how Denmark and Greenlanders speak about 'ownership.' On one hand, Denmark seems to speak of having a say about Greenland and on the other Greenlanders are said to be a sovereign and (near) independent country. 

Alexa says: Denmark handles defense and foreign affairs for Greenland, while domestic affairs and politics are handled by Greenland. 

Now then, clarification is needed on which set of leaders 'do what' when it comes to selling or not selling Greenland! (I have read that the Danish believe a sell would be for Greenlanders to initiate and complete—not Denmark.)

"$700 billion that we do not have" is the most laughable phrase I've heard in a while. 

Why is that funny to you?    I would have thought you would lean towards fiscal conservatism.   Apparently not.

And when did Democrats start to care about it a single iota?

What do the Ds have to do with this?

Would this  better than forgiving $1.6 trillion in student loans,...?

It was $189B, not $1.6T (that is the whole pot) and I disagreed with that as well.

Is it better than spending $100 billion/yr for a decade subsidizing EVs for affluent people? 

I suspect you are referring to $825 billion over 10 years in clean energy tax subsidies (not just EVs and certainly not just for affluent people).   If so, promoting clean energy should be a priority and I would absolutely favor this over acquiring Greenland.   But I am not in favor of tax subsidies that are not linked to a clear program that will (with a high degree of confidence) result in the USA dominating (or at least remaining as a top competitor) in the clean energy market.

Neodymium sells for about $150/kg, and Greenland has about 40 million tons of it .  That's $6 trillion on just one mineral.  A lease deal for mineral rights or a very small minerals tax and this deal pays for itself before the World Cup hits Saudi Arabia.

Where do you get your facts?:   csis

Greenland ranks  eighth  in the world for rare earth reserves, with 1.5 million tons , and is home to  two rare earth deposits  that are among the largest in the world: Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez. Still, no rare earth mining has taken place on the island to date. The harsh Arctic climate is prohibitive to mining activities on most of the island throughout much of the calendar year. 

And do you recognize that there is a substantial cost to mining and refining this raw material into something usable?   So your $6T is nowhere close to reality.

A lease deal for mineral rights or a very small minerals tax and this deal pays for itself before the World Cup hits Saudi Arabia.

You are not considering the lack of infrastructure and what it takes to actually mine the minerals in Greenland.   Further, the USA already has plenty of rare Earth reserves.   What is lacking right now is the processing that produces usable product.

But, that said, I am in favor of establishing a deal with Greenland for mining rights.   That gives us another avenue for rare Earth minerals (raw) and that is net good.   The extraordinarily difficult challenges of mining in Greenland will, over time, be lessened with advanced technology.   The deal can be structured so that it becomes financially good for Greenland if we do make use of their resources and saves us dropping $700 billion to acquire them with all the negatives that go with that.

Second largest global reserves of rare earth minerals?  Huge deposits of everything from graphite to titanium?  Not to mention gold, silver, copper, zinc, tungsten, uranium, thorium, diamonds, etc, etc?

That doesn't include the potential oil or nat gas reserves.

Fresh water?  Fisheries?  Seriously, the list is very long.

And on this.   ChatGPT:

Parts of that claim are directionally true in the sense that Greenland is geologically diverse, but the overall framing is overstated. The most accurate way to say it is:

Greenland has a wide variety of mineral occurrences and some significant deposits, but it is not “second largest” in rare earth reserves by standard global rankings, and converting Greenland’s mineral potential into real production is unusually difficult and slow because of remoteness, infrastructure gaps, Arctic operating conditions, and political and environmental constraints.

Second largest global reserves of rare earth minerals

Not true on the most widely used benchmark, the USGS “reserves” table.

USGS reserve figures (REO equivalent) put Greenland at about 1.5 million metric tons , far below China and Brazil and not second globally. ( U.S. Geological Survey )

Huge deposits of “everything” from graphite to titanium and many metals and gems

Greenland is genuinely mineral rich and has many commodity types present, but “huge deposits of everything” is not supported as a blanket statement.

GEUS, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, explicitly cautions that only in a few cases have occurrences been thoroughly quantified , which is the prerequisite for calling them “deposits” in the formal, bankable sense. ( GEUS )
In other words, Greenland has many mapped occurrences, but fewer projects that have progressed to the level of proven size, grade, metallurgy, and economics.

Even where minerals exist, mining them in Greenland is often challenging for practical reasons:

1) Remoteness and lack of infrastructure

A core obstacle is basic access. Greenland has very limited road networks and no railways in most areas, so a new mine commonly requires building major infrastructure from scratch, including roads, ports, and onsite power generation. ( AP News )

2) Arctic climate and operating logistics

Seasonal sea ice, severe weather, and short construction seasons increase cost and execution risk. Reuters has described Greenland’s mining sector as tied up in red tape and opposition, with additional practical constraints in getting projects built and operating. ( Reuters )

3) Permitting, indigenous and local opposition, and policy risk

Greenland’s politics can decisively determine whether a deposit is mineable. The clearest example is Kvanefjeld Kuannersuit, a globally notable rare earth deposit whose development was halted after Greenland passed legislation banning uranium mining from higher uranium concentration deposits. ( Reuters )
That episode illustrates that even large deposits can become effectively non-developable due to environmental concerns and community consent dynamics.

4) Few modern success stories

Academic review work on Greenland’s exploration history notes that while Greenland offers interesting possibilities, “successful examples are surprisingly few” in the new millennium. ( Springer )

Bottom line

• Greenland is not second globally in rare earth reserves under USGS reserve rankings. ( U.S. Geological Survey )

• Greenland does have broad mineral diversity and many occurrences, but only a limited number are quantified to true deposit status. ( GEUS )

• Mining and developing those resources is often hard and slow due to remoteness, infrastructure requirements, Arctic logistics, and significant political and environmental constraints. ( AP News )

If you want, I can take your list (graphite, titanium, gold, copper, zinc, tungsten, uranium, diamonds, etc.) and separate it into three buckets for Greenland: “well quantified deposit,” “known occurrence or exploration target,” and “politically constrained,” using GEUS and project level technical reporting.

Okay. So Trump will continue his attempt at persuading Greenlanders to 'relent' their homeland.

I dunno.  There was announcement earlier that they've all supposedly struck some sort of deal.

Mine you the people there are Inuit. We're have to wait and see if the negotiating by Trump, a man who does not know how to take "No!" for an answer progresses.

I'm sure they can hold their own.

Why is that funny to you?    I would have thought you would lean towards fiscal conservatism.   Apparently not.

I do lean that way.  Which is why it's hilarious to see people who haven't cared about fiscal responsibility for years suddenly pretend to take up the flag when it means opposing Trump.

$700 billion is a tiny sum compared to what the US Govt wastes in any given 5 year period.  We lose that much to improper Medicare payments alone.  If we had a chance to buy Greenland for that small a sum ($1300/acre) we would have something of tremendous future value to show for it.  We'd be morons not to jump all over it.

Now.... we won't get that chance.  These people aren't stupid.  So this is all a completely academic discussion.

If so, promoting clean energy should be a priority and I would absolutely favor this over acquiring Greenland.

Right.  Well let's take a minute and work through the raw material supply chain needed for all that and see if Greenland doesn't look more attractive.

There is a reason Russia invaded Ukraine, and it isn't because "Putin was in a mood".

Where do you get your facts?

Correction on the earlier post, the total deposits of REE is 40 million tons.  But included in that are things like dysprosium, which is 3 times as valuable as neodymium, so the math still works in favor of acquisition.   Greenland also has gallium and other elements necessary for advanced semiconductors and their cooling systems used in AI servers.  China currently dominates those markets.

So we'll add that to the "supply chain" discussion.

And do you recognize that there is a substantial cost to mining and refining this raw material into something usable? 

Obviously.  But that's the exact same argument made about Canadian oil sands 30 years ago.  It was financially unworkable until demand drove new technology that made it work. 

You are not considering the lack of infrastructure and what it takes to actually mine the minerals in Greenland. 

Of course I am.  (Never mind that it's already going on.)  You're not considering that we're talking about a land mass 1/4 the size of the United States and we have no idea what else we're likely to find. 

We didn't know there was gold or oil in Alaska when we bought it, but today we laugh at the shortsighted idiots who talked about "Seward's Folly".

$700 billion is a tiny sum compared to what the US Govt wastes in any given 5 year period.  We lose that much to improper Medicare payments alone. 

Oh, you have assumed that we would buy Greenland in installments over 5 years?   Good to know.

Now, the U.S. government has wasted in Medicare:  $25B+$31B+31B+31.7B+28.8B over the last 5 years.   $147.5B in total.    Your math does not add up.

cms

If we had a chance to buy Greenland for that small a sum ($1300/acre) we would have something of tremendous future value to show for it 

Greenland is predominantly covered by ice.   What matters is the usable acreage, not total.   80% of Greenland would be unused so we are focused on 101 million acres.    That puts the price per usable acre at: $6,930.   Not that this is a bad price, but it more accurately represents reality if we are evaluating this in terms of acres.

Now to put this into perspective, per ChatGPT:

The Alaska Purchase (1867) cost $7.2 million .

Estimated U.S. GDP in 1867 was roughly $8.8–$9.0 billion (nominal).

Calculation

8.9  billion 7.2  million ​ ≈ 0.00081

Result

≈ 0.08% of U.S. GDP

Why this matters for context

• The Alaska Purchase was well under one tenth of one percent of GDP .

• By contrast, $700 billion today is roughly 2.5–3.0% of current U.S. GDP , depending on the year used.

That means, relative to economic size , a $700B Greenland purchase would be over 30 times larger than the Alaska Purchase.

I think maybe it would be more interesting to switch gears.    I gave your argument to ChatGPT and asked it to take your points and present the strongest, honest, practical argument for buying Greenland at $700B given they do not want to sell.   

This is what it produced:

Understood. I will take your original argument’s strongest elements, strip out the parts that are factually wrong or analytically weak, and present the best practical case for a $700B acquisition given the counterfactual that Denmark and Greenland ultimately do sell and Greenland becomes the 51st state , while candidly stating the major downsides.

Best honest, practical case for the purchase at $700B

1) Grand strategy: Greenland is a generational security asset, not a real estate play

The core value proposition is geostrategic. Greenland’s location makes it a central node for Arctic and North Atlantic defense, early warning, and space domain support. If Greenland is a U.S. state, the United States gains permanent, sovereign control over basing rights, sensor placement, and infrastructure decisions without future renegotiation risk. That reduces strategic uncertainty and makes long-range defense planning simpler and more credible.

In other words, $700B is best framed as a one-time capital cost to lock in a century-scale defense advantage in a region where operational importance is increasing.

2) Industrial security: statehood converts “access risk” into “jurisdictional certainty”

Critical-mineral supply chains are increasingly treated as national-security issues. The most practical benefit of statehood is not that Greenland instantly becomes a mining powerhouse, but that it shifts any future resource development into a U.S. legal, regulatory, and security perimeter.

That matters because the U.S. can then do all of the following with fewer strategic vulnerabilities:

• Build extraction and processing capacity under U.S. standards

• Apply predictable contracting rules for defense and industrial procurement

• Reduce exposure to geopolitical leverage in a crisis

This is an “option value” argument: you are buying the ability to develop or not develop assets later, under your own jurisdiction, as the strategic environment evolves.

3) Long-horizon optionality: you pay now to secure future flexibility in a changing Arctic

The Arctic is a region where the future is unusually path-dependent. If access increases and competition intensifies over the next several decades, the value of sovereign control over logistics corridors, ports, undersea cables, satellite ground stations, and airfields could compound dramatically.

This is the strongest honest analog to Alaska: not “we did not know what was there,” but “strategic assets can look overpriced in the short run and cheap in hindsight once the geopolitical environment shifts.”

4) Cost plausibility: $700B is enormous, but within the scale of U.S. fiscal capacity if benefits are long-lived

An honest pro-purchase case should not compare this to exaggerated “waste” figures. Instead, it should say:

• The U.S. routinely undertakes multi-hundred-billion commitments when leaders judge the strategic payoff to be generational.

• If statehood reduces future defense risk, increases resilience against supply shocks, and enables economically productive investment over 50–100 years, a $700B capital outlay can be rationally justified on a net-present-value basis.

The key is long duration. This only makes sense if you are explicitly taking a multi-decade view.

5) A credible statehood plan could create domestic economic value, not only strategic value

If Greenland becomes a state, the U.S. can justify large-scale public investment that would be politically difficult in a purely foreign partner territory:

• ports and airports

• power generation (with strict environmental constraints)

• broadband and satellite ground infrastructure

• education and workforce development

• healthcare delivery improvements

Those investments are not “free,” but they can create a durable tax base and a higher-quality-of-life dividend, turning the acquisition from a sunk-cost purchase into a national development project.

The major downsides that a serious advocate must acknowledge

1) Legitimacy risk and long-term political instability

You asked me to assume Greenland did not want to sell but does sell anyway. That implies a legitimacy problem. If a substantial share of Greenland’s population views the sale as imposed or coerced, you should expect:

• long-term political resistance

• legal challenges and independence movements

• governance friction that raises security and administrative costs

Statehood without perceived legitimacy is a recipe for persistent instability.

2) The $700B purchase price is not the main cost; the lifecycle cost is

Even if the purchase is completed, the U.S. would inherit decades of high-cost obligations:

• infrastructure buildout in extreme conditions

• public services, logistics, and subsidies

• defense posture and environmental stewardship

The realistic total fiscal burden could exceed the purchase price over time by a large margin.

3) Mineral value is uncertain and the bottleneck is processing, not geology

Greenland may have mineral potential, but monetizing it is not automatic:

• extraction is hard in Arctic logistics

• permitting and environmental constraints will be strict

• the biggest chokepoint for many minerals is refining and processing capacity, not ore in the ground

If you buy Greenland thinking you are buying near-term mineral cash flow, you are likely to be disappointed.

4) Environmental and climate liabilities are unusually high

Because Greenland’s ice sheet and environment are globally significant, any development agenda would face:

• intense international scrutiny

• domestic and global environmental opposition

• higher compliance costs and project delays

This can constrain the very economic upside that is being used to justify the purchase.

5) Alliance and global normative fallout

Even if Denmark signs, the “they did not want to sell” premise suggests the transaction could be viewed internationally as coercive or norm-breaking. That could:

• harm U.S. credibility on sovereignty norms

• complicate alliances

• create strategic costs unrelated to Greenland itself

A purchase that “wins” territory but loses trust can be net-negative.

A clean pro-purchase conclusion that remains honest

A defensible pro-purchase argument is:

• Greenland statehood is primarily a strategic and jurisdictional investment, not an acreage bargain.

• The value is in permanent Arctic security posture and long-horizon optionality for infrastructure and industrial resilience.

• The economics can work only on multi-decade horizons and only if the U.S. is prepared for very large ongoing costs.

• The largest downside is legitimacy: if the population did not want the sale, the United States should expect long-term political friction that can materially erode the strategic benefits.

If you want, I can rewrite this into a single tightly argued paragraph in the same rhetorical style as your original post, while keeping it factually disciplined and acknowledging the downsides without undermining the thesis.

---

In contrast now, I asked if buying Greenland under these circumstances right now is the best use of borrowed money and if not so, what might be a smarter way to use our money.  This is what it provided:

At $700B financed with additional Treasury borrowing , it is difficult to make a practical case that buying Greenland is the best use of funds—especially given that the United States already secures most of the near-term strategic benefits (basing, radar, Arctic presence) through existing arrangements. The better course of action, in most realistic policy frameworks, is to spend a fraction of that amount on targeted measures that deliver similar security and supply-chain outcomes with lower fiscal and geopolitical risk.

Why $700B is a very high hurdle in today’s fiscal environment

• The federal government spent $7.01T in FY2025 , so $700B is about 10% of a full year’s federal outlays . ( FiscalData )

• GAO reports federal debt at $37.6T as of Sept. 30, 2025 , and interest on the debt rising to $1.2T in FY2025 . In that environment, borrowing an additional $700B has a non-trivial opportunity cost. ( U.S. GAO )

Even if Greenland has large strategic value, the question is whether ownership yields incremental benefits worth (a) the purchase price and (b) decades of additional obligations.

What you already get without buying Greenland

The strongest “buy Greenland” argument is security: Arctic positioning and early warning. But the U.S. already operates critical missions there via Pituffik Space Base , including missile warning/defense and space surveillance. ( Peterson Schriever Space Force Base )

So a purchase is not buying access from zero; it is buying sovereign control beyond what existing agreements provide. That increment can matter, but it must be worth $700B plus long-run costs.

The biggest problem for the pro-purchase case: long-run obligations dwarf the headline price

Even if the acquisition were fully lawful and consensual, statehood-level obligations would likely include:

• Major infrastructure buildout (ports, power, telecom, housing)

• Ongoing public services at Arctic cost structures

• Environmental liabilities and stewardship

• Defense posture maintenance and expansion

Those are persistent costs that can easily rival the purchase price over time.

Would there be a better way to use a borrowed $700B?

In most credible strategy-and-budget analyses, yes. If the objective is what proponents usually claim —Arctic security and supply-chain resilience—there are more cost-effective options:

1) Maximize Arctic security outcomes directly (without territorial acquisition)

A $50B–$150B program could materially expand:

• Arctic basing resiliency, airfields, ports, prepositioning

• Space and missile warning infrastructure upgrades at existing sites (including Pituffik)

• Undersea sensors and communications redundancy

You keep the mission outcomes but avoid sovereignty, governance, and legitimacy risks.

2) Buy supply-chain resilience where the real chokepoints are

For many “critical minerals” narratives, the binding constraint is not ore in the ground; it is:

• processing and refining capacity

• qualified supply chains

• substitution and recycling

• stockpiles and long-term offtake contracts

For example, USGS reports China accounts for 99% of primary low-purity gallium production , illustrating concentration risk. ( Peterson Schriever Space Force Base )
A $700B package could fund a generational industrial program: domestic/allied refining, recycling, substitution R&D, and strategic stockpiles—reducing vulnerability more reliably than owning territory with uncertain, hard-to-monetize deposits.

3) “Option value” without ownership: treaties, leases, and joint ventures

If the goal is durable access and influence, the U.S. can pursue:

• 50–99 year leases for specific sites

• defense cooperation agreements with automatic renewal and expansion triggers

• infrastructure-for-access compacts

• co-investment vehicles for mining and processing, with U.S. offtake rights

These approaches often capture most of the strategic and economic upside with far less downside.

So does it make sense at $700B?

On balance: not usually. The incremental benefit of sovereignty over an already-accessible strategic area is hard to justify versus the opportunity cost of deploying $700B into:

• Arctic defense capabilities directly

• industrial capacity that addresses real processing chokepoints

• diversification across multiple allied jurisdictions rather than a single high-cost environment

The case could flip only if you assume several very strong conditions simultaneously: unusually large, economically recoverable mineral value; exceptionally high future Arctic conflict risk; and that ownership materially reduces that risk more than alliance-based arrangements. Those are demanding assumptions.

If you tell me your intended objective function— security , minerals/tech supply chain , geopolitical signaling , or all of the above —I can rank a few concrete alternative “$700B packages” and show which achieves the stated goals most efficiently given the FY2025–FY2026 debt/interest reality. ( U.S. GAO )

Oh, you have assumed that we would buy Greenland in installments over 5 years?   Good to know.

Do cite me saying so.

In actuality, we'll buy it in installments over 30 years (long bond duration).

Greenland is predominantly covered by ice.

So was Alaska.

   What matters is the usable acreage, not total.

Future usable acreage.

   80% of Greenland would be unused so we are focused on 101 million acres.    That puts the price per usable acre at: $6,930.   Not that this is a bad price, but it more accurately represents reality if we are evaluating this in terms of acres.

If you have the chance to increase the size of the United States by 25% for less than 25% of our annual budget, you're fiscally irresponsible if you fail to do so.

per ChatGPT:

Just FYI, I don't respond to pasted AI.

I don't respond to pasted AI.

The standard response when someone does not like what was posted.

The standard response when someone does not like what was posted.

Let me clarify.

I don't read AI cut and paste.  If you don't care enough to write it yourself, I don't care enough to read it.

Do you reject human quotes and links too?

It is sad that MAGA supporters do not want to do what is right by everybody. MAGA supporters are here for the 'argument' and to (ab)use laws for partisan purposes to beat up, suppress, and injure their fellow citizens! 

I don't read AI cut and paste. 

I've noticed some have a large amount of AI responses as their posts here. It's almost like independent, critical thinking does not exist anymore. 

Do you reject human quotes and links too?

Depends on the quote or link and the context in which it's posted.

If I have reason to think a link or quote is born out of laziness or trolling, no, I don't consider it.  If I think it's a rational person making a potentially valid point and using quotes or links to support something into which they've put their own effort, then I usually consider all the things they include as part of that assertion.

With a human quote, the person being quoted typically has a public history.  So as readers, we're able to understand context, this person's own bias, their level of expertise, and then develop an idea about how much of what they say might have merit in any particular situation.  Similar evaluations are made with a link. 

With AI, there is usually no prompt included, so you have no idea what parameters have been placed on the model.  AI models are also famous for factual errors. 

But mostly it's about the signal sent.  If the conversation is not important enough to someone to write their own posts, then it's not that important to me, either.

I've noticed some have a large amount of AI responses as their posts here. 

I think there is an easy temptation to let something else do the typing and express thoughts better than some people think they can.

It's almost like independent, critical thinking does not exist anymore. 

It would be an interesting study to see the correlation between the amount of AI posting and the unwillingness to consider alternative opinions.  I suspect that might be a bit strong.

TiG's comment at thenewstalkers pretty much tore your argument to pieces so yeah I can see why you don't like ChatGPT

Rolls eyes. No catering. AI is a tool we use to make responses easier and more objective for the very fact that information is pulled from outside of any one opinion (even if opinions, plural, are shared in the response). Use it or not. No CATERING! 

Do waste time lecturing on how to communicate. There is reason to suspect that MAGA supporters won't be (positively) persuaded even if an identified "angel from Heaven" dropped into NT to comment. Therefore, I suggest that commenters continue to use the communication tools available fully and let the MAGA 'chips' fall where they may!

pretty much tore your argument to pieces

I'm sure you think so.  

No catering.

What are you talking about?

AI is a tool we use to make responses easier

My point exactly.

Use it or not.

I choose not.  Thank you for time.

Do waste time lecturing on how to communicate.

If only it weren't a waste of time and people learned to communicate better.  Think about how much better the world would be.

Therefore, I suggest that commenters continue to use the communication tools available

You are free to post whatever you like.

I am free to disregard it.  

I'm not sure why that seems to upset you.

With AI, there is usually no prompt included, so you have no idea what parameters have been placed on the model.  AI models are also famous for factual errors. 

So are human beings.

If the conversation is not important enough to someone to write their own posts, then it's not that important to me, either.

Apparently, you did not even bother to see how I framed it.

I asked ChatGPT to make the best possible argument for buying Greenland (as I noted).

TiG@2.3.16 ☞ I think maybe it would be more interesting to switch gears.    I gave your argument to ChatGPT and asked it to take your points and present the strongest, honest, practical argument for buying Greenland at $700B given they do not want to sell.   

I then asked ChatGPT if buying Greenland under these circumstances right now is the best use of borrowed money and if not, what might be a smarter way to use our money.  

I thought it would be interesting to stop with the (boring) fact-checking on your posts (which was leading nowhere since you ignored the fact-checks) and just observe what a synthesis of the vast LLM corpus produced.

Ultimately, I do not wholly reject your argument.   I disagree with the use of the money today.   I think we have far better places to use the money.   And also note that when we purchased Alaska, we got it at a very affordable price (0.08% of US GDP) as noted by ChatGPT (but if you think it is wrong you can fact check, I did ... the GDP and purchase price numbers seem to be correct):

The Alaska Purchase (1867) cost $7.2 million .

Estimated U.S. GDP in 1867 was roughly $8.8–$9.0 billion (nominal).

Calculation

8.9  billion 7.2  million ​ ≈ 0.00081

Result

≈ 0.08% of U.S. GDP

Why this matters for context

• The Alaska Purchase was well under one tenth of one percent of GDP .

• By contrast, $700 billion today is roughly 2.5–3.0% of current U.S. GDP , depending on the year used.

That means, relative to economic size , a $700B Greenland purchase would be over 30 times larger than the Alaska Purchase.

Now note the technique.   Part of it is formulating an appropriate prompt the properly frames the topic and the question.   Then one reviews the results, fact checks where sensible, and then if all is well posts the cleanly presented information.

It is a brave new world, best to get with the program.

My point exactly.

Google is a tool to make responses easier.

Links to articles are a tool to make responses easier.

Human beings make errors (especially with bias).   

AI is a great tool, properly used, that continues to grow better.   I personally think it is silly for people to dismiss it.

The complaint that using tools means one is lazy is also absurd.   And so far, the complaint has come exclusively (on this site) from people who apparently dislike what the AI produced.

It is of course your choice not to make use of technology.   If you wanted to stop using Google and instead go to a library, I would find that to be backward thinking as well.

It does not upset me. . . and it would be a loss. . . except nobody that matters is going to ignore tech that works and makes life easier, despite the stalling and distraction STATEMENTS and so-called 'assertions' made by MAGA supporters.

BTW, "old-skool" MAGA supporters best get with the program. . . or fall behind as the world moves on. We are holding a door "Open" for MAGA supporters. . . and yet we can't make anybody step through it. . . figuratively or literally.

Perplexity AI:

Are MAGA supporters hiding their critiques of Trump from him publicly?

Some MAGA supporters are openly breaking with Trump, but many continue to back him publicly while softening or downplaying their criticisms rather than confronting him directly.

What MAGA supporters are saying

Recent national polling shows strong approval among self‑identified MAGA Republicans remains high but has slipped; in one survey, “strong approval” of Trump among MAGA identifiers fell several points over 2025, suggesting growing dissatisfaction inside the base.

Interviews with voters in heavily pro‑Trump areas find many who still say they will vote for him but complain about economic performance, chaos, or personal behavior, indicating that criticism often coexists with continued public support.
​

Why criticism is often muted
Republican officeholders and activists frequently describe a fear of primary challenges or social backlash from hard‑core Trump loyalists, which discourages them from criticizing him in public even when they express doubts privately.
​

Some long‑time Republicans have chosen to leave office or effectively exit the MAGA world rather than oppose Trump directly, which means those who remain visible in the movement skew more deferential and less openly critical.

Evidence of open breakaways

Organizations like Republican Voters Against Trump highlight GOP and former Trump voters willing to denounce him on camera, showing that a segment of conservatives now criticizes him very publicly.

So join the future or fall-back to the past. We're see who is the WINNER in the debate 'war.'

Additionally, as we learn about AI and its aid in formulation of summaries, answers, and analysis of protracted subject matters; MAGA supporters will be 'amazed' at how fast the facts will outpace them. . . as they use 'burnt-out' tools. That said, we will have the DIVERSITY such 'MAGA' lack since they literally and decry DIVERSITY! 

I repeat we will use all the tools of learning and understanding available. . . even when MAGA supporters won't and in fact won't know the difference!

Apparently, you did not even bother to see how I framed it. I asked ChatGPT to make the best possible argument for buying Greenland (as I noted).

I hope you enjoyed the exercise. 

I disagree with the use of the money today.   I think we have far better places to use the money.

There is no other place for us to spend that little money that would matter nearly as much to the future of this country.  In our modern economy where the Federal Reserve moves trillions of dollars every year without anyone batting an eye and where we waste hundreds of billions every year, this is a trivial amount of money for what we would get.

Now... it's not going to happen, because the Danes are not morons.  That alone should tell you something.

Google is a tool to make responses easier.

That's a moronic comparison.

On that note, I'm done with the argument. 

I'm not telling you what you can or can't post.  I'm simply telling you what I will or won't read.

If somebody doesn't care enough to write their own thoughts, why should I care?

It tells me,. . .us, that our politicians should stop wasting time, effort, and money on futile projects that do not advance. . . people first and things second. Consider the waste of time, effort, and projects designed to keep people suppressed instead of allowing for the free, liberty, and prosperous advancement of every POSITIVE-SEEKING citizen of this country. In case MAGA supporters have not noticed. . . this country spends way too much time, effort, and MONEY trying to control citizens that are being TOLD how free they are (they are 'sheep' being steered) instead of getting on with the same!

That's a moronic comparison.

Calm down.  You are dismissing very useful technology without a rational reason.

I'm simply telling you what I will or won't read.

You do not accept AI content.   In result, you are missing out on the utility.   Fine with me.

If somebody doesn't care enough to write their own thoughts, why should I care?

I had just spent many posts offering my thoughts.   You are being ridiculous.   Since we were going around in circles, I thought it would be interesting to see how an AI would make your argument.   I stated this.  But you either did not read or ignored my note.

Anyway, your 'logic' is flawed.   By your 'logic', you would not quote the words of others or link to sources of others.

As I noted, those who have rejected AI content seem to be those who do not like the facts and logic presented by the AI.

Finally, Alaska was purchased at a very affordable price point relative to the GDP.   The Greenland price point is an order of magnitude more (30x) relative to the GDP.

It is a brave new world and 'home-schoolers' best get on with it . . .or become living fossils in a 'tech world' sea of things. (Or worse, fall behind in understanding the power of processing machines (as a tool) to carry our nation forward. . . and we become a 'third world' nuclear nation looking at whole swaths of ourselves in a rear-view mirror!)

There is no other place for us to spend that little money that would matter nearly as much to the future of this country.

I am aware of your opinion.   I disagree.   Going around in circles is pointless.

Let MAGA supporters "go to the library". . . it is a tool. We can use the time 'away' to move farther ahead with positive discussion of facts (and opinions)!

If somebody doesn't care enough to write their own thoughts, why should I care?

Good point. If I wanted to have a conversation with an AI I could just do that and not bother with people.

Well AI is a tool. It is not quite ready for dating MAGA-styled yet! Which begs the question. When AI starts dating humans and being a companion for humans. . . MAGA supporters will miss out on all the 'action.'     

Or will MAGA supporters, being the spoilers that they are, try to legislate states and the federal system back to the 1950-70s? 

That brings up a good question (which I am afraid MAGA supporters are not allowed to answer). Here goes:

Is the Trump administration using a 'Dewey decimal' styled system' to learn knowledge or is using AI to aggregate knowledge? 

Inquiring minds want to know. Oh shucks! I could just ask AI (go figure)!

Perplexity AI:

Does the Trump administration use AI on a daily basis or at all?

The current Trump administration is actively involved with AI at the policy level and is enabling regular AI use across federal agencies , but there is no public evidence that Trump personally uses AI tools in daily decision‑making.

Policy actions on AI

Since early 2025, Trump has signed multiple executive orders aimed at deregulating and promoting AI, including “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.”

These orders focus on reducing what the administration views as burdensome regulation, preempting stricter state AI laws, and framing AI as central to economic competitiveness and national security.

Federal AI strategy and infrastructure

In July 2025, the White House released “America’s AI Action Plan,” alongside several executive orders covering AI development, federal procurement, and infrastructure, with an explicit goal of sustaining U.S. “global AI dominance.”

The plan directs agencies and the Office of Management and Budget to adopt processes for acquiring and evaluating large AI models and to accelerate AI adoption in government operations.

Daily/operational government use

The General Services Administration describes active deployment of AI to “transform federal services,” including expanding access to cloud AI tools and prioritizing authorization of conversational AI systems for routine federal worker use.
​

A federal AI testbed called “USAi” allows agencies to experiment with leading AI models, compare tools, and track use cases, which implies ongoing, repeated AI use in day‑to‑day federal work rather than isolated pilots.
​

Limits of what is known

Public documents describe institutional use and policy, not the personal habits of Trump or senior staff, so there is no concrete evidence that the president himself uses AI assistants or decision systems daily.

Reporting instead shows the administration positioning AI as a strategic technology and pushing agencies toward broader operational adoption under a relatively light regulatory framework.

Well there you go! It appears to me that its MAGA supporters that are falling behind. . . .  What about that?!

Calm down.

I'm not the one with my knickers in a twist.

  You are dismissing very useful technology without a rational reason.

No, I'm dismissing other people's lack of effort and their attempts to manipulate said technology.  Please read carefully.

Good point. If I wanted to have a conversation with an AI I could just do that and not bother with people.

Fascinating that none of them see that. 

Amazing how some rely on other's thoughts to make a point.

Even why those thoughts are blatantly wrong.

No, I'm dismissing other people's lack of effort and their attempts to manipulate said technology. 

Now you move to a fantasy.   Given I posted the ChatGPT, by context, you are implying that my posting of ChatGPT (after I had spent plenty of time discussing this with you, fact-checking your argument -which you ignored- and concluding we are going in circles) is a lack of effort.   Demonstrably false.

Further, you imply I am trying to 'manipulate' the technology.   Yet what I did (and what I explained upfront) was ask ChatGPT to make your (Jack's) best argument based on your actual argument (which I copied and pasted into ChatGPT).

I thought that would be an interesting way to use ChatGPT.   Still do.

Bottom line, your protests are silly.

Going forward, you can put on blinders if you wish.   Seems like a dumb move to me, but knock yourself out.

The "Ha-ha" is people not afraid of AI can do both: Conversate with people and get answers from AI. (BTW, not 'everybody' is literally sitting down to a "fireside" or any at-length discussion with AI. I know I don't.  I intentionally resist opening my heart to it.

I get the feeling the expectation is that you roll over because they phrased the question to AI to give them the answer they wish.  AI is far from an "expert witness" to rational folks.

Well go tell the Trump administration your 'concerns' because it is rumored that they have opened the AI 'gates' wide to flood the zone (no/few restrictions). Go ahead, MAGA supporters tell Trump how AI won't help to make the United States "great' (again).

Define "rational." Please proceed. .. or not!

I get the feeling the expectation is that you roll over because they phrased the question to AI to give them the answer they wish. 

ChatGPT usually delivers supporting links.

If you think the analysis is flawed or is not based on facts, you are free to show why.

But this ridiculous dismissal of AI is irrational except for the idea that it is just a feeble excuse for those whose claims often fall to ChatGPT's fact checking.

AI is far from an "expert witness" to rational folks.

It is not an expert witness;  what a laughable misunderstanding of AI.   AI is a tool that can present a synthesis of an enormous corpus on a well defined topic or issue.   Its base information comes from human beings and can be easily verified.   Indeed, one can even cross-verify one AI with another (beyond just manually following links).

Those who dismiss AI are engaging in classical conservative aversion to change.   It is counter-productive and, frankly, silly.

Ultimately, if AI tools were supporting your absurd argument, you would be using them.   The opposite is likely more true.

Those who dismiss AI are engaging in classical conservative aversion to change. It is counter-productive and, frankly, silly.

Again,.. hilarious....

Tell us. . . what exactly "did you do there"? Do be rational and clear when you reply. Now, please proceed. . . .

Now you move to a fantasy.

I'm very sure you've convinced yourself of that. 

But then again, you have a track record of assigning beliefs to people after you've failed to read their comments carefully (as you've done already in this conversation), so I'm sure that's helpful in your efforts.

If it's not important enough  to you to formulate your own ideas, it's not important enough to me to read them.  Full stop.  

A cane is a tool for old folks with walking afflictions. Water is a tool for those wishing to stay. . . wet internally. AI  is a tool for the mind of people who lack time, ability to aggregate infinite amounts of information. . . and who am I kidding MAGA supporters are simply contrarians. . . and will not admit to doing anything liberals 'do.' 

On that note: This liberal will enjoin some (more) AI right now in plain sight of everybody. I asked AI what its purposes are for humanity. This is AI's reply (Sponsor: DuckduckgoAI):

As I noted, feel free to irrationally refuse to make use of this technology.

I will continue to use AI and will benefit as it grows increasingly better.

No doubt...

And the 100 percent perfectionists among us can continue being. . .perfectionist!   /s

Exactly.

Those who refuse to learn about this technology (or refuse to acknowledge it because it typically shows the flaws in their arguments) are missing out on an extremely useful capability.

ChatGPT, et. al. are, in a sense, supercharged search engines.   With conventional search engines, one must formulate the proper keywords and then sift through individual documents and manually assemble a (hopefully) coherent, factually sound argument.   

In contrast, an AI LLM interface provides access to a corpus arguably broader in scope and depth since it is not limited to indexed web pages and can analyze the contents of attached documents.   On top of this, it can interpret highly specific, nuanced, contextual language and deliver relevant information directly tied to a defined topic or question.

The utility is enormous. As for quality, AI systems are imperfect—just like human sources—so claims should always be reviewed and verified.   When one asks for supporting links, that makes the verification easy.   

Even better, users can challenge the AI’s conclusions, demand clarification, and specify the level of rigor or formality required.   The AI can be cross-examined until the user is satisfied that the output is accurate, or until unsupported portions are discarded.

So it is amusing when some (whose arguments typically are countered by AI) object to the use of AI.   They try to bad-mouth it ("it makes mistakes!" ... yeah, no shit, so do human sources), call the use of AI "lazy", etc.

Not a persuasive criticism.   In fact, it illustrates a concern about a powerful technology that can easily refute their bullshit.

Those who understand the technology and know how to use it critically and effectively will continue to benefit from it and improve with it.  Those who refuse to engage can continue relying on traditional search engines, manually wading through lengthy documents—or simply parroting crap from their favorite talking heads, which is, it seems, the more common alternative.

As I noted, feel free to irrationally refuse to make use of this technology. I will continue to use AI and will benefit as it grows increasingly better.

You reinforce the proof of my points with every post.

You have failed to read carefully... again...  assumed my view... again... and done so incorrectly... again... and are now jousting imaginary windmills... again. 

The predictability of this pattern is truly remarkable.  One almost wonders if it's employed intentionally when you realize you can't find a rational argument against the points I'm actually making.

Review my comments and cite me saying I don't use AI.  Go ahead. 

You claim to use AI and thus presumably recognize the value, but when that recognized value is presented in a quote by someone else (in the same manner as we quote from articles), all of a sudden, you do not read AI content.

Makes perfect sense.  

( Reminder :  I gave ChatGPT your argument and asked it to adjust it so that it is the best argument for your position.   I did this after spending time fact-checking your posts while watching you ignore every fact check.   I thought it would be more interesting than going around in circles. )

Get a grip.

Again,.. hilarious....

Agree. 

AI is not all truth and unicorns. Much of it is designed to fit a particular narrative, and when that narrative is not met, the ones that use AI the most will ignore what they are told and find a different AI source...until they meet the bias confirmation they are looking for.

Much of it is designed to fit a particular narrative, and when that narrative is not met, the ones that use AI the most will ignore what they are told and find a different AI source...until they meet the bias confirmation they are looking for.

Confirmation bias is most common with search engines, where people like you shop for sources that present their views.

With AI, achieving a predetermined outcome is more difficult.   It is easy to find human authors who hold extreme or ideologically rigid positions.  Large language models, by contrast, are trained on broad, heterogeneous corpora and tend to converge toward consensus views rather than ideological extremes.  While AI systems do have biases that reflect their training data, those biases are generally milder and more transparent than those of individual human authors writing with an agenda.

Criticizing AI by projecting your search-engine tactics onto it illustrates a lack of understanding of the technology.

Emphatically!

So says s/he that for pretense is in the 'club' that actively looks for any means to downplay our outright not acknowledge AI as a useful, thoughtful, and increasingly more efficient tool.

I just asked "Alexa" about its training data (I am pleasantly surprised that his machine is 'trained' to speak about its internal workings) and it explains what training data is, how it is used (thereabouts), and that it pulls data and synthesizes it in meaningful ways to give a COHERENT response to any asker—including MAGA supporters. (Boy! I would love to be a fly on the wall in that Q/A session. )

Additionally, the AI points out it answers questions based on how the question is asked and it verbalized: "I try to match the asker's "style" and give the most helpful answer based on how a question is asked." 

The more one learns about these tools, the better.   The more one uses these tools, the better.    (Alexa .. Echo ... is however, far less capable than ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Llama, etc.).

Those who (irrationally) dismiss these tools quite likely have an ulterior motive.   In my view, it is because these tools deliver cogent, reasoned fact-checking and analysis that goes against what they wish were true.

Alexa, how does AI combat internal confirmation bias? 

"I use filters, content classifiers, and quality assurance exercises including "red team exercises (stress tests simulating attacks designed to make the system more secure)."

I read your last message and I am asking "Alexa" about these things because I am in a bit of a hurry and it fields answers on the 'quick'! (At times, listening to answers can be faster than reading answers.)

all of a sudden, you do not read AI content.

If it's not important enough to you to write your own post, it's not important enough to me to read them.

I'm not sure why causes you such distress.  

AI is not all truth and unicorns. Much of it is designed to fit a particular narrative, and when that narrative is not met, the ones that use AI the most will ignore what they are told and find a different AI source...until they meet the bias confirmation they are looking for.

Leaving aside the very common errors AI engines make, it's important to understand that they amalgamate the information upon which they've been trained.  They don't do particularly well imagining things that don't currently exist.

So when you're looking at something like the hypothetical purchase of land that would increase the footprint of the US by 25%, AI models will not (yet) consider the future potential technologies that would make the currently frozen parts of that land usable.

A human being with an understanding of history should see that immediately when prompted with phrases like "we didn't know there was gold or oil in Alaska when we bought it".  It's such an obvious idea to humans, if we have even a small capability to understand that our current knowledge is always limited.

Let's go with another example... Sam Houston had no idea what was under the Permian Basin when he fought Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto.  Had he access to an AI engine during the time, it would not have known either.  

What is your point exactly? 

What is your point exactly? 

1.  AI engines, while useful, are unimaginative and error prone.

2.  The copying and pasting of AI results is both unimaginative and lazy.

3.  Anybody who isn't blinded by Trump hatred sees immediately that if we had the chance to buy Greenland for $700 billion, that's the deal of the 21st century. 

Which one were you referring to?

Why do continue to harp on this?   Move on.

Why do continue to harp on this?

I was asked.

Move on.

As it happens, I don't need your permission to post.  Run along.

AI engines, while useful, are unimaginative and error prone.

Human beings are error-prone and generally are more biased than a (extremely broad scope) LLM.

The copying and pasting of AI results is both unimaginative and lazy.

By that reasoning, copying and pasting quotes and seeding articles is unimaginative and lazy.   You are being ridiculous.  Likely because you have found that the content AI offers does not agree with your views.   

Anybody who isn't blinded by Trump hatred sees immediately that if we had the chance to buy Greenland for $700 billion, that's the deal of the 21st century. 

Those who do not totally agree with you on this are 'blinded by Trump hatred'?   This seems to be your going excuse ... when all else fails go personal and make emotional claims.

As I noted, I do not totally disagree with your position.   But you seem to be all bent out of shape because I have fact-checked your argument.   The purchase of Alaska, for example, was equivalent to ~0.08% of the US GDP at that time.   The purchase of Greenland would be ~2.5-3.0% of US GDP.   Your comparison to Alaska is thus fundamentally flawed.

And while Greenland does have natural resources (especially Rare Earth minerals), the extraction and processing of same is expensive.   We would have to build an infrastructure (not there, only minor projects currently) for extraction, build the processing capabilities, etc.   So it would be good as a secondary measure in the future, but right now we should be using USA natural resources rather than deal with the extreme conditions of Greenland (the ice).

And importantly, the people of Greenland do not want to be bought.   A hostile takeover will result in plenty of negative unforeseen consequences.

I provided plenty more fact checks on your flawed argument but you just ignored them and repeated your mantra.

Bottom line, owning Greenland would be nice if we could just buy them and have them be a happy 51st state.   But even then, it is utterly naive to think that the $700 billion ends there.   Building a state infrastructure will take time and plenty of money.

Right now we can build military bases and can make all sorts of deals for mineral rights, etc.   We do not need to buy Greenland to get plenty of benefits.  There is no pressing need, and $700 billion is not pocket change (even for the US government).

So you wish "IMAGINATIVE" AI? And you wish for a 'perfect' tool. . .so much so that you are not willing to accept a working and USEFUL (your word) tool? Got it!

Excuse me, I will use AI and its practicality to respond to comments and commenters and as you are aware. . . I do not need permission to do "it."  

Not sorry!

Although there is some form of 'imagination' in AI, it certainly is no match for human capability (currently).

It is a confused expectation to seek imagination from AI.   The proper use of AI (today) is to present content in a well-structured form according to one's instructions.   The content can come from the (massive) corpora on which the LLM (underlying the AI) was trained supplemented by real-time web searches.   It can also come from what the user has presented the AI in terms of documents and contextual information.   For example, one can provide a lease agreement to an AI and ask it to identify liabilities for the tenant.

The AI can be instructed to verify whatever facts it provides and to provide supporting links.   It can also be challenged to prove whatever it has offered as truth in a dialogue fashion.

Given these capabilities, AI enables one to specify a 'seed' for them.   The user can, in a real sense, define the topic, etc. and have the AI produce the content described.   The content may not be what the user wants ideologically or politically since the AI will pull from its training, but the capability is extraordinary.

So, for example, if one wanted a 'seed' (an article that they did not write) which compares Trump's level of corruption with past presidents and provide links to articles and documents supporting the comparison, the AI will comply with a well-written comparison at whatever depth and verbosity one chooses.

And, again, the ability to interact with the AI once the 'seed' is generated, enables the user to feel confident that the result is as close to objective truth as they can get.

Finally, in simple terms, AI tools are excellent fact checkers.   They can zero in on the exact circumstances one seeks to check and provide fact-checking with verifiable links.

To wit, those who downplay this technology do not know what they are talking about.

Well stated, delivered, and received.

So you wish "IMAGINATIVE" AI?

I think people should use AI as a research tool and then formulate their own ideas and statements.

I'm not sure why that's so objectionable.

I'm not sure why that's so objectionable.

Using AI as a research tool and then formulating their own ideas and statements is fine.   One of many fine ways to use the tools.

What is objectionable is the silly refusal to read content from AI quoted in a post.   Quoting an AI is equivalent to quoting from an article.  The difference is that the article was written by a human being and the AI content was generated.   

By your reasoning, nobody should quote sources but rather should only use sources for ideas and then formulate their own words.

That is ridiculous.   Especially when dealing with people who demand corroboration and links with this 'just your opinion' bullshit.

Using AI as a research tool and then formulating their own ideas and statements is fine. 

It's such a relief to have your permission.

By your reasoning

Ah... this phrase usually announces a ridiculous, probably idiotic, and quite possibly intentional misinterpretation is inbound....

nobody should quote sources but rather should only use sources for ideas and then formulate their own words.

Yep.  There it is.

Because there is no difference whatsoever  between citing a known expert in a field as part of your own overall thought process and outsourcing the construction of your thought process entirely.  None.  They're exactly the same.  

Out of curiosity, did you never have to write a paper in college?  

It's such a relief to have your permission.

Always with the snark and dishonesty.   That was not permission, it was my opinion on the subject.

Because there is no difference whatsoever  between citing a known expert in a field as part of your own overall thought process and outsourcing the construction of your thought process entirely.  None.  They're exactly the same.  

There is a difference between every author of every article.   Some authors are highly biased, some are incompetent, some are true experts, some are quite objective and factual.

Instead of dealing honestly, you leap to another strawman to pretend that I have stated all authors are equivalent.

The point, which you (must) know and have ignored, is that if it is okay by you to quote a human author (rather than consume their words and then only post with your own words) then it should also be okay to quote an AI source.

Why is quoting a human source acceptable to you but quoting an AI source is not?

Offer some serious reasoning instead of snark and sarcasm.

If it were actually available at that price, we would be egregiously irresponsible not to buy it.

Greenland has deposits of rare earths:

Greenland holds   an estimated 36 million tonnes  of rare earth elements (REEs)—roughly 1.5 million tonnes of which are proven, ranking it roughly 8th globally

Yes.  And that's just what we know about.  It's also limited to REEs that we have a use for and therefore deem important enough to try and calculate.  Who knows what new technology we'll have in a decade that requires a mineral we currently don't think is important enough to count?

It would behoove the United States to realize that talking down to other nations can backfire. . .as those nations may choose to turn away and make new friends.

The geological potential of Greenland is estimated to be $5 trillion.  That's where I'd start the bidding.  $700 billion is a low-ball figure that only a sleazy crook or a neoliberal would offer.

The geological potential of Greenland is estimated to be $5 trillion.

Sure, after you dig through a mile of ice. Anyway, exploitation of Greenland’s resources is a thing that can be negotiated. Access is not really the problem. It’s just inherently very expensive because of the conditions.

Sure, after you dig through a mile of ice. Anyway, exploitation of Greenland’s resources is a thing that can be negotiated. Access is not really the problem. It’s just inherently very expensive because of the conditions.

It's only difficult with today's level of technical development.  NASA is planning to mine the Moon so Greenland should be a slightly easier environment for mineral extraction.  Besides, Trump is talking about a permanent acquisition and not a time limited lease.  That's why the long term potential is a better starting point for opening bids.

Nahhh! Mexico will pay for it.

Seriously, what makes you think Trump would ever pay for something? I swear, people do not fucking pay attention.

POS/POTUS would try to pay for it with his worthless crypto coins ...

Psychologically important for me.

It's all about him

He wants us to spend 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money so he can feel better about himself. 

The man wants Greenland, if for one reason only, to get it on the cheap! Thus, the idol threats by Trump and his MAGA officials. They hope to coerce Denmark to give them what they want at a 'discount' price just to end the harassment and abuse.

So less than Joe Biden tried to spend without congressional approval. 

easily worth it

Why would we spend 700 billion dollars for something we have necessary access to now? 

I doubt if even many Republicans would go for such a stupid deal. 

Trump said he wouldnt want to defend Greenland unless we own it.  Of course he means he owns it .  He told the NYT he has a psychological need to own it. Let him pool his own money to buy it and then he can move there and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. 

Don’t you think it would be better to spend 700 billion on greenland than the hundreds of billions we spend on illegals?

hy would we spend 700 billion dollars for something we have necessary access to now? 

Because what it true today is not always true tomorrow.  Greenland will probably be independent soon. It will not even be a part  of NATO.  Do you think Russia and  China will just leave it alone?  

doubt if even many Republicans would go for such a stupid deal.

The "Seward's folly" caucus rides again.. 

Non-sequitur. Unless one plans on sending immigrants of varying depositions and states of legality  in droves to Greenland for holding and permanence. . .the one thing has nothing to do with the other. Just saying!

Greenland will probably be independent soon

Good for Greenlanders. Then, they can assent or not assent to selling it for themselves without input from other than themselves.

BTW, this is that same old tired s-it that imperialistic whites are known the world over for: Always attempting to look down on Others and take something that does not belong to them through force (greed)!

People who think Russia or China would invade Greenland scare me. 

 think Russia or China would invade Greenland scare me.

You've spent four years claiming Russia is an existenital threat to the US and now think they'd never, ever dare to invade a country with 50,000 people? Lol.

But I wasn't talking about even invading.

: Always attempting to look down on Others and take something that does not belong to them through force (greed)!

Do you think only white people have done that?  Very, very odd to make this about race. 

You've spent four years claiming Russia is an existenital threat to the US

LOL, what the hell are you talking about? 

think they'd never, ever dare to invade a country with 50,000 people? Lol.

Why havent they done it then ? 

Why havent they done it then ?

In that case, why do we ever spend a dollar on defense in Europe?  They haven't invaded Poland or the Baltics, that's means it can never happen.  Is that your argument? Seriously?  

OL, what the hell are you talking about? 

I forgot Ukraine isn't the flavor of the month anymore.   All of the people who demanded we spend hundreds of billions in Ukraine to "STOP RUSSIA" before it invades other countries are back to the Obama view of Russia, who laugh at the idea of it being a threat to anyone. 

Your argument seems to be suggesting that European countries wont have a mutual defense pact in the forseeable future. 

You cant seriously believe Russia would invade Greenland. Or China either. 

I dont support the US helping Ukraine because otherwise Russia is a threat to the US. I support helping Ukraine because it is the right thing to do. 

g that European countries wont have a mutual defense pact in the forseeable future.

What is a "European defense pact" worth? This is a continent that subsidizes Russian aggression in Ukraine while performatively opposing it... Do you think Germans are going to die for Greenland?  America is European defense. 

Again, it's not just an invasion. It's similar to what they were attempting in Venezuela. Controlling and exploiting the country without invading it. China's mastering the process. 

Do you think Germans are going to die for Greenland?

No I think the prospect of Germans dying for Greenland will help keep Russia from invading it. 

Do we have to "own" Greenland to defend our interests there?  You sound like Trump who said it is a psychological problem for him if we dont own it. 

think the prospect of Germans dying for Greenland will help keep Russia from invading it. 

Now that’s funny. Nobody signs up to die for the EU. I’m not even sure Germans would die for Germany at this point. 

owning land makes it easier to keep the outside influences out who make defending it necessary. 

owning land makes it easier to keep the outside influences out who make defending it necessary. 

nonsense

'Everything' in this country for some groups and types are about race. Even when it is evidently clear that skin and color are just that- skin and color. Here is what would make this world "a better place" - No racist of any type in any group of the human RACE! 

Just for argument sake, we talk all this s-it about freedom and individual -though processes. . . and yet when the 'chips' come around all the 'alphas' pack together to try and take from the masses what they think they can. Freedom and individualism be damned or just a 'fond' thought. . .until it ain't. 

I get it: The 'alleged' big picture. That is, "possession is 9/10ths of the law (though now a real law). So when Trump figuratively pries open the virgin legs of Greenland to take what he wants and to hold. . . we will all as a nation have committed 'rape' on an unwilling nation (while mouthing all our 'grand' talk about how good it will be (and feel) for them to have us inserted and moving around inside). . . just remember this. . . Russia's annexation and 'power-trip' on Ukraine is EXACTLY the same as the United States 'plan' or threatening posture (at first) with Greenland.

We are the 'aggressor' who can't be content to get what it wants without the violence of land 'rape.' When Trump does forcibly take on Greenland or coercing that nation to not seek its best interests. . . MAGA will be blamed for it. . . as it should. . . and then all that talk about 'freedom' and individualism will ring hollow once more as it did in 1776 and the plan is to make it hollow (Again) in the present United States.

If that is not clear. Then let me be plainer: MAGA is so far up Trump that when Trump sleeps MAGA supporters fall into a hive dream-state.

owning land makes it easier to keep the outside influences out who make defending it necessary. 

Freedom means Greenlanders can sell there land to whomsoever they wish. Now imagine this: What is Denmark gets so 'bothered' and flustered by U.S. gunboat diplomacy ('talking down to another free and sovereign nation) that it sells Greenland to another NATO country or heaven forbid sells swaths of the country or allow bases to be established by other countries willing to pay rent to be there? 

All because Trump dared to talk bulls-it all the time instead of listening to the voices of free Greenlanders (and Denmark)?

Same guy that bought Alaska from Russia floated the idea ( never materialized though ) to buy Greenland, and its come up a couple times since most notably during WW2

The US has had bases there for some time as part of the DEW line , when i was in , it was Thule AFB that became a Space Force base in 2023 .

 Some thing not being mentioned ,is the US government had a base there during the Cold War , built under the Ice , that was nuclear.  It was abandoned and left for the Ice to do with what it does , think they cleaned everything out ?

 a lot easier to stave off environmental suits if its a state , and less likely a massive payout that international courts would impose . As a state it just becomes a superfund site .

 just some food for thought .

Unless one plans on sending immigrants of varying depositions and states of legality  in droves to Greenland for holding

Now that one i  found both sardonic and ironic, and funny , have ICE send illegals to the land of permanent Ice .

I am just waiting for oh say year 3 or 4 of Trump's presidency where he attempts to buy African nations on the cheap. Because clearly African countries are wasted on any Africans! /s

I am just waiting for oh say year 3 or 4 of Trump's presidency where he attempts to buy African nations on the cheap.

Well at least he wouldnt call them shithole countries anymore. 

Trump thinks 'everything' is a shithole. We can all see that when we look at what he has done and will continue to do to the white house! It's a s-it-hole that needs the Trump touch and 'mark' on it. These cosmetic changes and builds on the property are not the be all that end all. That 'house' in D.C. won't be done with its modifications until Trump leaves it. . . Watch this space. There is plenty more in the 'unseen' in D.C. than in the 'seen.'

I’m not opposed to acquiring Greenland, but I care how we go about it. Gunboat diplomacy and blowing up our most important alliance is not an acceptable course.

I think it would be important to prevent Russia or China from controlling Greenland, but we do not have to pay 700 billion dollars to accomplish that.  

And the 56,000 people who live there dont want to be Americans. 

Everyone is talking about the land based resources , there is another resource , that no one has mentioned that Greenland has . the fishing rights off its coast .  that itself is a pretty lucrative and important item, those that control the food , control the people usually.

Hi Mark, your statement control food-control people is remarkable. Also, you left yourself plenty of 'wiggle' room by not stating a position. Why?

Didnt know i HAD to take a position . I actually have no position on the matter, so whatever opinion i do have or may form  , doesnt matter .

 The US has been buying territory since it became a nation , starting with the Louisiana purchase .

just the ones i can recall off the top of my head ,

 Louisiana purchase, france was in a financial bind due to its ongoing wars with england .

treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo  where we purchased the us SW from santa anna after the US- Mex war .

The gadsden purchase again with mexico . Guess they figured it was better to get something for the territory rather than have it annexed like happened with texas after it declared independence .

Alaska from czar alexander II after his loss in the crimean war, to pay his war debts and keep his empire a float . 

What is the commonality you see in those transactions you list?

well the obvious commonality  even to one that isnt looking , is they are all results of war, whether the US was involved or not .

the 1800s were the era of manifest destiny , and fire sales on territory where the US was concerned , and by the end of the 1800s the US controlled a pretty good swath of land across the north american continent and then some , bordering on colonialism  .  some say that era is long over , yet some think the US still has some manifest destiny on the world stage .

"Manifest Destiny" aside; wars aside (as neither of those two is the case regarding Greenland I'm guessing you agree.) What other commonality do you see happening? (Hint: Before a purchase can be made. . . something has to be. . . . )

yeah , you're alluding to the mutual agreement to the exchange in the first place .

Funny thing im remembering , during a similar discussion you and I had about if someone said they were not going to sell , in that case it was about food as well, and resources , the great urban/ rural divide and all when prices started to rise because of the pandemic and biden era inflation, and you complained about $12 a doz eggs while i was paying less than $3.50 a doz  who had the food and who needed it . you came down on the side of that if someone decided not to sell it was ok just to go and take , by force what was was felt entitled by those told no , simply because there were more of them .

That discussion happened 3-4 yrs ago now so i doubt you will recall, but it did happen.

Well, you will have to offer more than a memory, because I found what I wrote using the NT search box "TWO YEARS AGO" on eggs. What I was unable to do was to find the article to read it thoroughly (for proper context or missing 'items' due to missing keyword/s).  Here you go: (See if this sounds familiar.)

---

Professor Expert

4.1.16    CB    replied to    shona1   @ 4.1.14       2 years ago

Eggs are ranging from 7.50 USD to 11.00 USD in California. And I have had enough. I love eggs, but the time has come to stand on principle!

(Damn it!  )  

Before inflation a dozen eggs WAS starting at 2.99 and I was okay to accept a 'premium' on 12 eggs up to $5.30 USD—but not 7.99 and 11.00 USDs. 

May those eggs ROT on the store shelves and be a lesson to those who are greedy over a basic stable in our daily lives. I have eaten only one egg in a month now (and it was served in a dish to me) by a friend. . . .

Normally, I would eat one five times a week thereabouts. 

I consider it time for me to 'give it up' anyway.

---

Also, when I tend to talk about someone taking something from somebody else. . . it usually is not me involved but a general "understanding" that when "Somebody" is pushed too far. . . extremes can happen including theft and walking up to someone and taking . . . or words to that effect. You will have to produce evidence of the wording you are attributing to me so as to be clear it is not a 'faulty' comparison or memory.

That said, let me be clear there is a 'world' of difference between taking a crate of eggs, two, or three - a full truck full even, and deciding to go to war with a nation over its 'benefits' and land possessions!

Incidentally, your comment came up too about $3 plus eggs!

Professor Silent

1.1.12    Mark in Wyoming     replied to    Buzz of the Orient   @ 1.1.11       11 months ago

Had a couple poached eggs for lunch , went and picked up some sundries for the weekend usual milk , bread and eggs .

 picked up 2 doz @ $3.19 a doz . funny thing , they are cage free vegetarian fed , no hormones or anti biotics . and i still havent pulled my hair into a man bun , or had any desire for a double mocha Capuchino with a double pump of vanilla .

Even boiled up 6 for egg salad tomorrow.

---

I’m not opposed to acquiring Greenland

That's like saying "I'm not opposed to marrying your daughter" when the daughter has not only never made any advances, she vehemently rejects your advances, and her father is also opposed. Trying to either take her by force or buy her is just an insult used only by the basest of humans. This of course would all be different, and I understand saying something like that, if Greenlanders were out in streets demanding to become American citizens and our Danish allies were giving us the wink and a nod.

As it is, it feels a lot like Trump just got bored raping women so now he wants to rape a country. It's shameful beyond shame, but it's what to be expected of the lowest common denominators in our country, those ridiculing higher education not because it's all lies but because they're just too fucking stupid or lazy to get educated. Those are the only kinds of folk who could watch this kind of rape of our nation and the proposed rape of an ally and be sitting back with stupid grins high fiving each other as they watch.

Those are the only kinds of folk who could watch this kind of rape of our nation and the proposed rape of an ally and be sitting back with stupid grins high fiving each other as they watch.

It's all so 'old world' - as in the human 'fossils' of the past are coming back in full bloom. Never content to be happy that others are happy; that we can all grow together - and be happy; these power-hungry pack of hyenas want to rent something-anything-everything into shreds in order to plunder ("booty").

We truly have crossed the line into Idiocracy and are now deep in it’s territory.

www.nytimes.com /2022/09/14/us/politics/trump-greenland.html

Cosmetics Billionaire Convinced Trump That the U.S. Should Buy Greenland

Ronald S. Lauder, the Estée Lauder heir, offered himself up as back-channel negotiator to purchase Greenland from Denmark, a new book says. Denmark said no.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/09/14/us/politics/14dc-trump/merlin_211154271_439115eb-d68c-4887-bafb-9d3439fe4b29-jumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp 1024w,static01.nyt 2048w" sizes="((min-width: 600px) and (max-width: 1004px)) 84vw, (min-width: 1005px) 60vw, 100vw" width="600" height="400" >

Internal studies were issued when President Donald J. Trump suggested the United States could purchase Greenland. Credit... Emil Lippe for The New York Times

Sept. 14, 2022

=======================================================

WASHINGTON — One of the odder moments of Donald J. Trump’s presidency came when he publicly floated the idea of buying Greenland. It caused a predictable furor, generated gales of late-night television jokes and soured relations with Denmark, which rejected the idea of selling the giant Arctic territory.

But it was no passing whim. While many assumed at the time that it was just Mr. Trump being Mr. Trump, expressing a far-fetched thought that came into his head, in fact the idea had been planted by one of his billionaire friends and became the subject of months of serious internal study and debate that flabbergasted cabinet secretaries and White House aides.

The notion came from Ronald S. Lauder, the New York cosmetics heir who had known Mr. Trump since college. “A friend of mine, a really, really experienced businessman, thinks we can get Greenland,” Mr. Trump told his national security adviser. “What do you think?” That led to a special team being assigned to evaluate the prospects, resulting in a memo that laid out various options, including a lease proposal akin to a New York real estate deal.

This account of the Greenland escapade is based on interviews with a wide array of figures close to the former president for a forthcoming book by this reporter and Susan Glasser of The New Yorker magazine called “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” to be published by Doubleday on Tuesday. The portrait that emerged of Mr. Trump was of a mercurial commander in chief with a retinue that struggled to manage him, baffled by his flights of fancy and fearful that he would launch a war or violate the law long before his drive to overturn the 2020 election led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

The Greenland idea was just one of many that left aides trying to find ways of steering Mr. Trump away from paths they deemed bizarre or reckless. After an early Oval Office meeting where he expounded on his interest in Greenland, one mystified cabinet member was struck by the delusional nature of it. Other advisers tried to keep the idea from leaking out for fear that it would cause a diplomatic incident.

Mr. Trump’s mercurial approach to the presidency so baffled John F. Kelly, his second chief of staff, that Mr. Kelly secretly bought a copy of a best-selling book by a group of psychiatrists questioning Mr. Trump’s mental health. Mr. Kelly told others that the book was a helpful guide to a president he came to consider a pathological liar whose inflated ego was in fact the sign of a deeply insecure person.

Mr. Kelly often regaled others with stories of Mr. Trump’s ignorance about basic historical facts and his inability to absorb information. But it was Mr. Trump’s flawed judgment that most rattled Mr. Kelly, and he concluded that the problem was not that Mr. Trump did not know right from wrong, but that “he always does the wrong thing.”

Mr. Kelly grew so disaffected from Mr. Trump that he snapped at him when the president refused to lower the flag after Senator John McCain’s death. “If you don’t support John McCain’s funeral, when you die, the public will come to your grave and piss on it,” Mr. Kelly told Mr. Trump, according to interviews for the book.

Rarely restrained in front of a camera, Mr. Trump nonetheless was even more caustic at times behind the scenes. He harshly criticized women for their looks, telling visitors that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was an example of why women should be careful about plastic surgery and that he would not pick Nikki Haley, his United Nations ambassador, as a running mate because she had a “complexion problem.”

He sometimes denigrated his own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, telling other aides that “all he cares about is his New York liberal crowd.” Some aides interpreted those and other comments by Mr. Trump to mean that he wanted Mr. Kushner and Ivanka Trump to leave the White House and return to New York, but he never forced the issue.

So many cabinet secretaries were disenchanted with the president that at one point they discussed a plan to resign en masse. There were other mutual suicide pacts during the Trump administration as well. Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, agreed with Alex Azar, the health and human services secretary, that they would both resign in protest if Mr. Trump resumed separating the children of migrants at the border from their parents.

Mr. Trump regularly sought to use government power to punish his enemies, ordering aides to block a merger in retaliation against CNN and to ensure that a government contract did not go to Jeff Bezos’ Amazon — actions aides considered illegal or unethical. He was so intent on targeting the former intelligence officials James R. Clapper Jr. and John O. Brennan that he demanded some 50 to 75 times that aides strip them of their security clearance. When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked one of his policies, Mr. Trump ordered aides to “cancel” or eliminate the court altogether, another demand they ignored.

While advisers sometimes were able to slow-walk or avoid acting on some of Mr. Trump’s desires, he often ignored their counsel. At one point, it fell to Melania Trump to push her husband to take the Covid-19 pandemic more seriously. “You’re blowing it,” she told him aboard Air Force One flying back from India, according to an account she gave former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey when she called him to implore him to talk sense into the president.

Greenland was one issue that absorbed the National Security Council staff for months. Mr. Trump later claimed the idea was his personal inspiration. “I said, ‘Why don’t we have that?’” he recalled in an interview last year for the book. “You take a look at a map. I’m a real estate developer. I look at a corner, I say, ‘I’ve got to get that store for the building that I’m building,’ etc. It’s not that different.”

He added: “I love maps. And I always said: ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States.’”

But in fact, Mr. Lauder discussed it with him from the early days of the presidency and offered himself as a back channel to the Danish government to negotiate. John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, assigned his aide Fiona Hill to assemble a small team to brainstorm ideas. They engaged in secret talks with Denmark’s ambassador and produced an options memo.

Mr. Bolton, concerned about expanding Chinese influence in the Arctic, thought that an increased American presence in Greenland made sense but that an outright purchase was not feasible. Mr. Trump kept pushing. He suggested taking federal money from Puerto Rico, which he disparaged, and using it to buy Greenland. On another occasion, he suggested outright trading Puerto Rico for Greenland.

After The Wall Street Journal reported the interest in Greenland, Denmark’s government slammed the idea. “When it became public, they lost their political courage,” Mr. Trump said in the interview last year, as if the Danes had ever been serious about selling.

But Mr. Bolton believed they lost a chance for something more realistic like an enhanced security arrangement, although the United States did eventually reopen a consulate in Greenland. “If Trump had just kept his mouth shut,” Mr. Bolton told others, “we could have found out. But it was just gone, just completely gone.”

He added: “I love maps. And I always said: ‘Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States.

Nothing in there about Russia or China. 

Trump is fanatical about climate change being a hoax, and goes out of his way to snuff out all forms of green energy while pumping as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as possible.  The more the climate is heated, the easier it will be to access whatever is beneath the ice in Greenland.  Is this making sense yet?

This seed is six days old and is played out.