Then, as if that wasn’t enough, Fetterman took a flamethrower to the Democratic Party’s “freak-outs” over Trump’s interest in Greenland. Comparing it to historic deals like the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska, Fetterman dismissed the hysteria.
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) January 8, 2025
“If anyone thinks… pic.twitter.com/B6I6fK1HZw
January 8, 2025
Was the Louisiana Purchase bonkers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
93 comments:
Adjusted for inflation to 2025 the $15 million paid France for the territory comes to just north of 1/3 of a billion dollars. That's not a purchase. That's theft.
Fetterman displaying common sense.
what was national debt during those deals?
can USA apply for additional credit card?
France made up for it by looting Haitians to the tune of billions
In 1825, Haiti Paid France $21 Billion To Preserve Its Independence -- Time For France To Pay It Back
So to summarize, the only Democrat with some measure of common sense is the one with previous brain trauma.
Nobody loots Haitians the way Haitians have looted themselves. France isn't responsible for Haiti being a shithole, and the statute of limitations for white guilt regarding Haiti has long ago expired.
Fetterman was mentally unfit to serve when elected, and should have been taking care of himself at the time instead of running for office. That still sticks in my craw, just as everybody around Biden pretended he was okay. That said, I'm glad Fetterman has recovered and risen to be a voice of reason among Democrats. Granted, that's a low bar, but nice to see nonetheless.
Seen on the internet: Mar-a-igloo
The more he recovers from brain damage, the less democratic he sounds.
As human history goes and has gone, paying for land acquisition is quite civilized as opposed to rapine, looting, burning and rape. But that's just me. Others will differ.
"In 1916, Denmark sold St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John to the U.S., formalizing the transfer in the Treaty of the Danish West Indies, in exchange for $25 million in gold."
Is Trump Greenland with envy?
Trump on Hannibal Lecter.
France in 1825
Incumbents
Monarch – Charles X[1]
Prime Minister – Joseph de Villèle[2]
whoever would bring up white guilt in this context
American Greenland Acquistion Management (AGAM), A Maganational Corporation.
In what sense is paying the agreed upon price theft?
If the course of events eventually shows that one side got the better part of the deal, that's theft?
The world order changes all the time, just has not been here for quite a while. We wanted our govt disrupted, didn't bargain for our boundaries to be disrupted, but once you're down the "change is now critically necessary" why not take advantage of the moment in time? I'm here for it....:)!
Now it's the good guys saying, "Never let a crisis go to waste."
"Theft" is metaphorical, intended to express how good a deal it was. The same could be said for the purchase of Alaska from Russia, at roughly $0.02/acre. Alaska's purchase, like the Louisiana Purchase, has repaid multi-millions worth in value to the USA.
Consider then Greenland, whose primary value to the USA during most of the 20th century was strategic (Thule AFB, BMEWs, Camp Century, etc.), but is the largest island in the world and remains largely unexplored with who knows what contained within its landmass.
Just saying that the man who wrote "The Art Of The Deal" probably knows a good deal when he sees one.
True, but as it turns out the Left didn't know what they were getting from him.
I think you mean less :Democrat" - he is standing up for the notion that a democratically-elected President should be allowed to govern, even if it is a Republican.
I'll never forgive Jefferson for giving us Arkansas. Imagine a world without Bill clinton.
Acquiring Greenland is obviously in America's long-term interests, and there's a compelling argument to be made that, because the security of Western Europe depends on the U.S. maintaining its role as a superpower, Denmark should yield to the U.S. on this. Perhaps more important, there can't really be any question that, if the inhabitants of Greenland want the island to be American, they have the right to declare their independence. The argument against is an argument for colonialism.
Just saying that the man who wrote "The Art Of The Deal" probably knows a good deal when he sees one.
Where is the "good deal". Nobody has offered to sell or make a deal on Greenland.
Ya never know until you ask, Freder. Now get back to work.
Goddamn, I'm looking up the 1825 payment of Haiti to France, and damn NPR and these news sites can't help lying about it. Incredible. France got 150 million francs. Not dollars. Francs. That was the equivilent of 10x the LA. purchase. Wrong.
So here are the facts - we paid France $60 million francs in stock. We cancelled $4 million in claims against France. As you can see the ratio of dollars to France was 5-1. Therefore the LA purchase cost us 75 million francs.
Haiti had to pay 150 million francs for damage done to French citizens during the revolution. Not only in freed slaves but stolen land and destroyed property. The price was much higher than LA purchase because you could buy 1 square mile of unimproved land for $750 which equalled the price of 2 slaves.
Bear in mind, though, that objects in the Mercator projection may appear larger than they are.
If you want a pretty good heuristic to identify sh*h* countries, looking at former French colonies is a pretty good heuristic. Remember that the Brits took Lower Canada from the French in 1763, and we bought Louisiana. A very popular theory is that Quebec fell because it was so corrupt, that its leaders sold it out to prevent the French king from finding out how much they had stolen.
Fredo, "nobody has offered to sell or make a deal on Greenland" so far...
I hadn't thought of that, but it *is* a way for Europe to keep the US involved in its security. It's all a question of saving face.
Trump has not ruled out use of force for the acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland. That used to be called extortion.
Denmark is a NATO member (one of the founding members). Any attack on Denmark (and therefore Greenland) is an attack on the U.S. and the rest of the NATO members.
The Greenland purchase idea is visionary.
I love Trump's use of the old Obama trick of "stray voltage." Introduce a highly distracting issue (or two) that the media can't resist talking about (Greenland! Panama!) endlessly. Work on other matters that truly affect the transition quietly under the radar. I noticed his use of Seb Gorka, Don Jr. and Charlie Kirk yesterday, brilliantly distracting visit to MAGA hat-wearing Greenlanders, while Pocahontas was starved for oxygen with her 7000-question letter to nominee Pete Hegseth coming off more wimpy than warpath.
Yes.
@RideSpaceMountain : You have to do the finance costs correctly. $15 million at a conservative 4%, compounded over 223 years is roughly $94 billion. Still a bargain, but....
Boy Trump's got you all worked up, doesn't he Freder! (That was a dumb question that deserved the firm "no" Trump gave it.)
Ask not for whom the troll trolls Fredo, Trump trolls for thee.
"Canada as the 51st state" had a shorter half-life in the media. But at least he got Baby Castreau to future-resign.
Good point.
So America needs Greenland for both national security and economic security. Is there any truth to this? Absolutely. Clingendael Research, a Dutch think tank that produces “state-of-the-art analyses and policy research in international affairs for governments, businesses and NGO's,” reported that “in 2018, the People’s Republic of China published its first Arctic strategy, claiming that the Middle Kingdom is a ‘near-Arctic state.’” It added that “it is quickly becoming clear that China has built a geostrategic presence in the Arctic that is not to be sniggered at. It is already reshaping circumpolar politics in fundamental ways.”
The report detailed intense Chinese activity in Greenland beginning in 2005 and noted that “the void created when Greenland was given greater autonomy [in 2009] from central authorities in the Kingdom of Denmark and subsequently left the EEC was happily filled by China. Even though the Kingdom of Denmark remains responsible for foreign policy and defence, Greenland can now conclude international agreements with foreign states on its own. This raises issues for both the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU.” Yet “While the Arctic rises in geopolitical and geo-economic significance, the EU has been slow to reconsider its strategic interests.”
https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/01/07/okay-trump-is-serious-about-acquiring-greenland-and-the-game-is-heating-up-n4935764
"Rapine, looting, burning, and rape."
As my ancient history prof used to put it after describing some conquest, the last step was dishonoring maidens and boys.
Let us never forget the Gadsden Purchase!
The Greenland flag belongs on a high school geometry test.
For crying out loud, Freder, Trump isn't going to attack Denmark or Greenland.
With just a couple tweets, convos, Trump has put everyone on notice that Canada and Greenland are US interests. Especially important in the Arctic passage become viable. But Greenland is already in the US defense bubble and the Danes can't change that even if they wanted.
Lets see how he votes. that will be interesting.
Will he stay loyal lockstep demoraxtic?
Original Mike - D-MSNBC and NPR are certain Trump is going to bomb Denmark. You can trust that.
Trump doesn't have to attack Denmark, and attacking Greenland would be counterproductive. Denmark already surrendered its sovereignty to the US during the Biden years. All they can do is whine. Biden created a bogey man to the east, and scared all of the ducks right into the coop, including Sweden and Finland and sadly, Switzerland, which lost its neutral status. The actually successful aspect of Biden's Ukraine war has been in terms of bloc discipline. He has made the throne of the emperor of Europe the chair behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. Well, it's Trump's chair now.
Neither Denmark, nor NATO can project the military power to counter Russia and China in the Arctic. The UK used to be the kind of naval power that could do that, but the Falklands was their last hurrah, only the US has a chance of doing it. Of course, Biden declared war on the demographics who provided the vast bulk of soldiers and sailors, and you know what? We can't even man the ships we have anymore.
It's about "spheres of influence." Trump is declaring a new kind of Monroe Doctrine, and has, in a press conference yesterday, recognized Russia's legitimate security interests in what goes on on *its* border. I still can't believe he said it, but he did. Heads will explode, not because Trump lied, but because he told the truth. He also told the truth about how Biden killed a peace deal in Ukraine that could have left the country intact, which both Russia and Ukraine had initialed. Such a deal now is out of the question, given the number of Russian bodies that have been sacrificed in the continuation of this war since the date that the West killed the deal. To let Ukraine into NATO now would be to dishonor the sacrifices of those Russian troops, and the only way that happens is if Russia collapses, which seems kind of unlikely rn.
What Trump is going to do is what he did with China in his first term, move the war to an economic frontier. Trump's distaste for war is genuine. But I think that he plans to keep energy sanctions on Russia forever, in order to carve out a place for the US in world gas markets. What is keeping the US from producing more gas is that nobody wants to finance a market that could disappear as soon as Russia comes out of sanctions. If Trump can find a way to keep Russia out of the world gas market through sanctions, a big if, but still possible, I suppose, then even with the Ukraine laid waste by war, and left as the latest version of Libya and Syria, it's a win for the US.
Fetterman being the sane voice of the Democratic party continues to amuse me.
I like Fetterman. He even seems a bit like Matt Taibbi, only with a better speaking voice. If Trump does buy Greenland, we ought to call it Fetterman’s Folly in appreciation. Why not? Seward wasn’t president
I have nothing against US buying Greenland if it's for sale, just as Woodrow Wilson bought Denmark's Virgin Islands during WW1. But Greenland is not for sale. And no sign that it can't be economically developed by US interests without US sovereignty. And NATO Treaty already obligates US and other NATO allies to come to the defense of Denmark if needed. One thing to remember about how barren Greenland is. A minor part of Alaska and a minor part of Canada lie above arctic circle. Most of Greenland lies above.
Fetterman is the luckiest stroke victim since Goya. The clot suffocated only the mad part of his brain.
I wish he'd wear a suit -- at least a blazer with a turtleneck.
Greenland wants to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to be a fully independent nation, but they also want security guarantees from the United States. They know their island is very strategic and crucial to monitoring Russian subs entering the Atlantic from Archangel and other Arctic bases. They also know that the Russians would love to make a play for Greenland, either by subversion or direct intervention. Múte Bourup Egede thinks he can get long-term military protection from the U.S. essentially for nothing and remain independent, sovereign, and able to thwart our policies whenever it suits him. In other words, he wants to be the refrigerated Angela Merkel.
"Denmark is a NATO member (one of the founding members). Any attack on Denmark (and therefore Greenland) is an attack on the U.S. and the rest of the NATO members."
The scenario I'm envisioning involves the people of Greenland declaring their independence from Denmark and their desire to become a territory of the U.S. If that happens, or is about to happen, do you think it'd be in Denmark's interests to declare war on the U.S. and dispatch its navy in an effort to maintain "ownership" of Greenland? Or would it be better off negotiating a treaty severing its political ties to the island in exchange for monetary compensation (perhaps consisting of a perpetual share of mineral rights)?
"But Greenland is not for sale."
Readering, you may think you're a genius. Maybe you are, though I've seen no evidence of the same. However, you do not speak for Greenland, no matter how much you think the Greenlanders should grant you that office.
“Greenland is not for sale”, he said, without evidence
Everything is for sale, dummy. Did Denmark have a listing with RE/MAX for the Virgin Islands? It’s just a matter of making an acceptable offer
"Ya never know until you ask, Freder. Now get back to work."
Rotwang's Cabana Boy ought to toil hard enough to bring on a Fetterman-style CVA. Then he'd be able to make worthwhile contributions of his own rather than cut/pasting from Slate.com
My collection of classic Mercedes wasn't for sale until I got an offer that proved me wrong.
"...remains largely unexplored with who knows what contained within its landmass."
Frankenstein's monster was last seen up there somewhere.
It would be like buying Alaska from Russia.
"And NATO Treaty already obligates US and other NATO allies to come to the defense of Denmark if needed."
You (and many others, obviously) seem to be of the view that it's America's inherent job to protect Western Europe. Sure, Europe is required to come to the aid of the U.S. if we are invaded -- but under what scenario would that ever occur? Obviously, NATO was formed to keep the USSR from gobbling up countries in Western Europe, not to deter a Soviet invasion of North America.
NATO still may be relevant in terms of deterring western expansion into Europe. But Trump is right to insist that Western Europe, including Denmark pay its fair share of the cost of that defense. Denmark pays something like 1.4% of its GDP toward defense. The U.S. pays something like 3.4% toward defense -- and Denmark is probably 100x more likely to be invaded by Russia than is the U.S. Pay up, Denmark! Or give us Greenland!
RideSpaceMountain said...
"…remains largely unexplored with who knows what contained within its landmass.”
Tom T said…
“Frankenstein's monster was last seen up there somewhere.”
The Island at the Top of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_at_the_Top_of_the_World
RideSpaceMountain said…
“Nobody loots Haitians the way Haitians have looted themselves. France isn't responsible for Haiti being a shithole, and the statute of limitations for white guilt regarding Haiti has long ago expired.”
I would think that should have expired when the Haitians slaughtered most of the whites and mulattos (who chose to stay in Haiti) on the beach and forced the few remaining white and mulatto women to be the mistresses of powerful and connected black men.
Ditto.
NATO was founded to deter the Soviet Union from expanding. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That was 34 years ago. The world has changed since then. Perhaps a new look at agreements made at a time when the Internet was still not available to the general public is advisable.
RideSpaceMountain said:
Adjusted for inflation to 2025 the $15 million paid France for the territory comes to just north of 1/3 of a billion dollars. That's not a purchase. That's theft.
*************************
Has it not occurred to you that France accepted the offer? That it was hugely in debt because of Napoleon's wars? That administering the American colonies was very expensive? IOW there were compelling reasons for France to shed its American colonies, and thus is AGREED to sell them.
And Napoleon himself said: "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have just given England a maritime rival that sooner or later will humble her pride." So there was an element of revenge on France's part.
That doesn't sound like "theft".
QED
The last house my father purchased before he died he did so by putting a letter in the mailbox to the owners in effect saying "I really like your house and would love to discuss a sale if you're interested" with his contact information. It was closed within a month. The largest island in the world isn't going to a have a listing on Loopnet or CoStar.
What's bonkers is Joe Biden handing Ukraine more money whilst California burns...
Bad Hombre
@joma_gc
·
Follow
The most populated state in the country is up in flames, so naturally, Joe Biden is sending more money to Ukraine, just as he did during:
- the East Palestine train derailment
- the Maui fires
- Hurricanes Helene and Milton
https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1877058798335991999
If Greenland declares it's independence then Denmark is out of the picture, they will have no legal say in what Greenland does. Same thing happened with Iceland, which was part of Denmark until WWII and scores of other colonies that became independent from their European masters.
If Greenland becomes independent then they couldn't directly sell themselves to the US. They could however agree on a generous aid and subisdy package to join the US. But I think that's unlikely. More likely is the US giving funds to have military and economic rights in Greenland.
At the time of the Louisiana Bargain, the French were in debt because of the wars of the Revolution--Napoleon hadn't started any on his own yet.
The most important thing was that Napoleon knew he couldn't defend the place if the Americans wanted to take it.
Lazarus said...
Bear in mind, though, that objects in the Mercator projection may appear larger than they are
Brilliant!
Freder Frederson said...
Trump has not ruled out use of force for the acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland. That used to be called extortion.
"So, if you mention "extortion" again...."
Again, it was a metaphor, not literal.
What's missing from the discussion is that Denmark can't legally sell Greenland. Under the Danish Constituition, Greenland is a sovereign nation under the protection of the Danish Crown. Essentially it's in a federation with Denmark and the Faroe Island and can leave that federation if a majority wants to.
Also, this is not about US security. The US does have important security needs in Greenland but those needs are covered with the bases that the US have. What's interesting is that Demark is currently subisiding US security needs by paying heftly subsidies to Greenlanders. If Denmark were out of the picture, then the US would have to pay that one way or another.
What this most likely about is future econimic potential in Greenland.
Bonkers like a bunny hopping with a gay spring in his step. Eh, what's up doc?
Four years of a third-world invasion is apparently a-okay, but just let Trump mention doing something to actually benefit the country and some of the people posting here are wetting their pants over it.
The question put to Trump wasn't just about force, but also about economic action. I don' t know what he would have said if the question were only about force, but he was right to answer as he did.
It's nice and all if we get Greenland, but it's not going to bring back Nanoq, the stuffed polar bear dad brought back from Thule (I am referring to a small scaled-down polar bear toy, not to a full-sized stuffed carcass, though that might have been more fun to play with). Fare thee well, Nanoq, wherever you are
A minor part of Alaska and a minor part of Canada lie above arctic circle. Most of Greenland lies above.
One-third of Alaska lies north of the Arctic circle (a region about a third-again the size of California)—how “minor” is that again?—and while most of Greenland also lies north of that line—so what! One might note that while the bulk of Greenland's land area (which is about a quarter-again the size of Alaska) lies buried many thousands of feet deep beneath the ice of either its stupendous so-called “Inland Ice” ice sheet or other subsidiary glaciers, however that still leaves some 410,000 sq. km of ice-free territory—adding up to nearly (97%) as large as California, while even bigger than Montana or (the reunited) Germany.
Original Mike. Your ruining Freders fever dream.
What will probably happen will be that we will lease it.
You're getting awful close to dumbasss(Freder) territory.
Try this.
We're not going to develop it. We're going to put bases on it if we haven't already. The tourist and mineral exploration companies are going to develop it.
There is a cosmetic issue with your original post. Your introductory remarks/observations (which I find quite interesting and which also help set the context) get obliterated when the video thumbnail from X arrives...
We can't even man the ships we have anymore.
Only partially true. Under Joe Biden, for the first time in the history of the U.S. Navy, we now have more admirals than ships.
Proportionate to the size of the Navy, we have six times more admirals per sailor than we did when we won World War II.
The USA bought the US Virgin Islands from Denmark, and IIRC, at the end of the Span-Am War we paid Spain for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Buying territory is an old tradition in this USA.
Speaking of NATO, it was designed to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
I score it 3 for 3.
Weird that Denver was part of the Louisiana Purchase.
I'm betting they figured he'd continue to be a vegetable, like Biden.
Greenland is already a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. They are somewhat in the same position as the Scots are with respect to the English. Greenland may be technically able to declare independence from Denmark but they would take a drastic hit to their economy if they didn't get significant subsidies from the Danish government. I suspect the Danes keep paying largely for the status of being technically in control, though there are probably a few economic and strategic benefits to them for the arrangement, and the overall cost is probably minimal. We've had a significant air (now space) base on the Island for decades which was the impulse for the post-WWII offer to buy it.
eh - He's moving to the middle to keep his job. I think he will be a loyal democrat. loyal democrats are a-ho.
He's amazingly normal.
Post a Comment