12
As a Dane I am grateful that so many countries have expressed support for Greenland and Denmark in this situation.
Saying and acting are unfortunately a world apart. Let's hope that expression manifests into something tangible if necessary. I feel like I'm living through my history lessons at the moment and I don't like what happened next.
I think EU has demonstrated that we can act in concord when needed. We can't beat USA militarily, but we can make it very expensive for USA if they invade Europe. Europe is already working on independence from USA both economically and militarily, if USA invades a European country, I guess we have no other option than to work with China instead of USA.
I have no idea how Trump see it as a good idea to get former allies to turn against USA. It is already happening to some degree, the alliance is very uneasy now, in a way that has never before been the case between Europe and USA after WW2, and the exact same with Canada and USA.
USA has no real allies left, only allies of convenience. And at some point USA will learn the difference. That point will probably be pretty instant if USA invades Greenland.
We saw what Europe did to defend Venezuela
They be moooonitoring
It probably includes most Americans. I think even a lot of his voters don't want this. He did run on being the candidate of peace and getting us out of wars. That was enough to fool enough people into voting for him.
Yes there are a lot of good Americans, unfortunately they are a minority. 🙁
I don't think they are. I think the minority are running the show right now.
Unfortunately you are obviously wrong.
Trump got the majority vote, Republicans have behaved like sociopaths for decades, and Trump even turned it up to a whole new level.
It was very obvious, and despite that he got the majority vote. That clearly shows the Majority of Americans accepted these sociopathic policies. There is no way around it, it was too obvious to claim afterwards that "this was not what we voted for", because USA got EXACTLY what they voted for. And lame excuses like it's only half the population that vote are frivolous. Because despite the clear danger, people did NOT turn up to vote against Trump.
Everybody who didn't vote but could have, accepted that Trump might win, and was OK with that.
If you didn't vote, or voted Trump, you don't get to whine about it afterwards. It's not like he changed character after the vote.
He got slightly less than half of the vote with a voter turnout of 64%, meaning only a third of eligible voters actual voted for him. The turnout in 2024 was slightly lower than 2020, but it was still higher than most years before. He has never even reached 50% approval rating, which is low compared to the highs of most presidents before him.
Fascists rarely have majority support, only needing a reliable plurality. They did gain power because not enough was done to stop them, but the lack of action was not just from non voters. The Democrats made multiple political blunders that even their own internal investigations revealed. Not only did they fuck up on Gaza, they completely dropped the ball on economic issues; failing to even acknowledge problems let alone offer anything new.
He got slightly less than half of the vote
No he won the popular vote, there is no evidence otherwise.
And all the ones that didn't vote who could have, were OK with Trump winning, or else they would have turned up to vote against him.
So 2 thirds either wanted him to win or were OK with it.
He got 2.3 million more votes than Harris, which 1.5% more than her for a grand total of 49.8% of the vote. Almost 2% voted 3rd party, which basically means they didn't vote in FPTP. That still doesn't mean a majority voted for him. Both Obama and Biden won more than 50%, so him not breaking that threshold in either election he won was noteworthy. He's always been the most popular of the unpopular.
And all the ones that didn't vote who could have, were OK with Trump winning, or else they would have turned up to vote against him.
You're not wrong on this point, at least mechanically. Unfortunately for all of us who understand this, most people are don't view voting this way. They lack the imagination for an election meaning the death of liberal democracy. Many who sat out might not have thought Trump would win. They thought even if he did win, he'd only be as bad as his first term, which while bad, could still be passed off as more of the same. Even to this day, people still think we live in a nation of laws, that things will go back to normal next election, that we aren't doomed to decades of instability where nothing is off the table.
I really don't blame them for thinking this, as a Democrats didn't really campaign with the desperation they needed to. They tried a new way Democrat approach of appealing to the middle, thinking the left was secure. They didn't harp on project 2025 or Trump's open promises of dictatorship. They didn't want people to panic, to realize how fragile things were, to realize that the rich donors they served were already on Trump's side. They made everyone, even the loyal voters like me, feel like we had no choice in policy. They made clear that their promises of promoting democracy and regulating capitalism were lies. They made it as hard as possible to rationally support them, so I'll never blame those who didn't vote blue more than I blame the Democrats.
You are correct that Americans failed to prevent this; that everything we see is our collective fault. However, most don't want this. Fascism taking power doesn't mean it is popular or what most really want. It's stupidity, not malice.
Would be pretty great if the majority could do something about it, then.
It sure would be. The problem is we have a republic, not a democracy. So even though a candidate runs on one thing, if they change their stance then we just have to live with it.
we just have to live with it.
George Washington rolling in his grave right now.
He's part of the group that setup this republic because they wanted rich white men to run the country...
Have they closed the US military base? Stripped the soldiers of weapons, kicked them off base, deported them? Sent in people to secure the base? These are high alert actions.
In "full crisis mode," this should be the first step, and I hope it's what Denmark & Greenland do.
If the US takes Greenland, I fear that NATO will be effectively dissolved. Denmark probably invokes Article 5... does anyone come to their aid against the US? Seems unlikely. If they do, let's be real here, the US will just acquire new colonies. Either way, NATO means next to nothing; total Russian victory. Russia gets to sabotage/colonize western and then eastern Europe, and China gets Taiwan (if they feel like calling the US's bluff) and whatever else they want. The only truly sovereign countries left will be the ones with a hefty nuclear arsenal.
If the US takes Greenland and NATO doesn't respond Canada is next.
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
12 points (92.9% liked)
News
37365 readers
242 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS