Political Posts

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@73 Reds,

 

DR - dr.dk - Greenland [March 22^nd 2025] : US National Security Advisor and Vice President's Wife Travel to Greenland

 

Subtitle : According to DR's information, the visit is scheduled to take place next week.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Sermitsiaq [March 22^nd 2025] : Malik Berthelsen has refused to meet with JD Vance's wife

 

Subtitle : Mayor of Qeqqata Municipality, Malik Berthelsen, has declined a request to meet with JD Vance's wife during her visit to Sisimiut. He informs Sermitsiaq that he has received an inquiry, but due to the ongoing election campaign, he has chosen to decline their request for a meeting.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

DR - dr.dk - Inland [March 23^rd 2025] : Plane with Danish officers on its way to Greenland

 

Subtitle : The Police are going to Greenland in connection with the upcoming visit from the United States.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

YouTube - FOX 29 Philadelphia[March 5^th 2025] : President Trump has special message for Greenland

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Guardian News [March 13^th 2025] : Nato 'might have to get involved' in US takeover of Greenland, says Trump

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

What to think? 

 

 

 

Great clips. If you are a Greenlander, you have to love this. All of a sudden, everyone wants to be your friend.  I'm pretty sure the Danish are showing them lots of love now!

Edited March 23, 2025 by cubsfan

[John Hjorth]

SD [ @SharperDingaan ],

 

We could also - for security reasons - throw them in a temporary asylum camp, like USA does with incoming strangers, whose papers aren't in order [temporary, because there isen't already such a camp in Greenland]. 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Colurful americans have visited Grenland recently - please enjoy the video of this guy from Bikers for Trump, up there, just to help... The best part of it is there aren't really any roads up there to ride on. [ - It's almosty killing me!]:

 

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/live/2025-01-06-kampen-om-groenlands-fremtid/bikers-for-trump-sender-live-fra-nuuk--jeg-er-her-for-at-stoette-trump?entry=bea92dce-c2ea-48f6-ae91-d858b364922b.

[james22]

16 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

The whole approach by USA to this conflict by now is sick, deranged, unless you can explain the logic in it to me. [You can't.]

 

Defending Ukraine as a way to gauge/weaken Russia at little cost is (was) logical.

 

[John Hjorth]

3 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Defending Ukraine as a way to gauge/weaken Russia at little cost is (was) logical.

 

 

That I'll buy that at par, James [ @james22 ], thanks.

Edited March 23, 2025 by John Hjorth

[changegonnacome]

On 3/22/2025 at 12:11 AM, Spekulatius said:

i can’t believe this - the Trump administration considers VAT as tariffs?  VAT is applied to any goods, foreign or domestic. It’s nondiscriminatory in term of origin.

What sort of logic is this?

 

Yep - administratration officials have been spouting on about this on various business programs and to my amazement not a single business 'journalist' has raised the obvious flaw in using VAT/sales taxes in other jurisdictions as some sort of tariff reciprocity yardstick.

 

I'll wait till April 2nd - if I'm being kind perhaps the VAT/sales tax talk is just lazy language and what they really mean are the digital services taxes (DST's) many individual European countries levied on digital services but only for groups with large revenues....in effect the only companies captured we're the Mag7.

 

Many of these we're to disappear anyway as part of BEPS OECD process....which given its multilateral nature is probably dead now.....as every global multilateral institution is deemed by the current President to be a scam designed to rip off America.

 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/digital-tax-europe-2024/

Edited March 23, 2025 by changegonnacome

[Red Lion]

On the VAT subject, it seems like a really decent approach to even out the US tax system as part of a tax bill, it's a shame we are going down this tariff path. 

[LC]

Some more news from Goofy Elon and His Dumb Decisions (a working title):

 

DOGE bro cutting 20% of IRS workers (~18,000 jobs)

-Very obviously meant to reduce enforcement of complex audit cases (i.e. the 1%)

-Projected $500B in lost revenue:

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-doge-cuts-tax-filing-b2719911.html#:~:text=The IRS is bracing for,layoffs%2C according to a report

-IRS investment has a great  ROI: "CBO estimates that portions of the Administration’s proposal to increase funding for the IRS by $80 billion over the 2022–2031 period would increase revenues by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years"

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444

 

How does the board feel about this? Negative ROI, negative enforcement? I wonder who here will breathe a little easier when they fudge their returns?

 

Here's another funny one from Goofy Elon and His Ketamine Konclusions (another working title):

 

 Pentagon announces leak investigation that will include polygraphs

The Defense Department is the latest government arm to announce it will use polygraph tests on employees. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said earlier this month her department will continue the practice after reports she directed polygraphs in the department to include a question about leaks to the media

www.cnn.com/2025/03/22/politics/defense-department-polygraph-tests-leaks/index.html

 

My guess? Elon was up late with some Special K running thru those big-brain-veins of his, and stumbled on some Maury best-of repeats:

 

Edited March 23, 2025 by LC

[changegonnacome]

3 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

On the VAT subject, it seems like a really decent approach to even out the US tax system as part of a tax bill, it's a shame we are going down this tariff path. 

 

Yep.....if you we're to design a tax system from a blank page.....you wouldn't tax labor, capital or corporations at all....you would simply tax consumption.

[lnofeisone]

6 hours ago, LC said:

DOGE bro cutting 20% of IRS workers (~18,000 jobs)

-Very obviously meant to reduce enforcement of complex audit cases (i.e. the 1%)

-Projected $500B in lost revenue:

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-doge-cuts-tax-filing-b2719911.html#:~:text=The IRS is bracing for,layoffs%2C according to a report

-IRS investment has a great  ROI: "CBO estimates that portions of the Administration’s proposal to increase funding for the IRS by $80 billion over the 2022–2031 period would increase revenues by approximately $200 billion over those 10 years"

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444

 

 

I had lunch with someone fairly senior at the IRS dealing with these layoffs. The IRS hired seasoned professionals from the top 10 accounting firms in the last several years. They felt they had pulled off a recruitment coup dealing with complicated issues, and now the program is dismembered.

 

If you are US-based, feel free to be as aggressive as you want on your taxes - especially if your taxes are going to SB/SE or LB&I. Short of you not mailing your payment or committing fraud, there is no way the IRS will be able to get to you in time (3 years by law, 26 months is the guideline). I think $500B underestimates how much of a loss there will be. But all is good! Elon saved us some ceiling space on some random contract. What a clown show.

[LC]

33 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

3 years by law, 26 months is the guideline

 

46 months to go under this administration. 

Get in all those BS deductions and ridiculous interpretations of tax law while you can, people!

[Spekulatius]

It is important to note that this war (like any other war) is also an economic one. I think it’s important  now that Germany seized a Russian shadow fleet tanker:

https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/germany-seizes-russian-tanker-its-100000-tonnes-of-oil-cargo-worth-43-3-million/

 

Quote

The German officials stated that their country would not stand idle as Russian oil is shipped through the Baltic Sea, violating the sanctions.

The Ruropeans can easily make the Baltics a NATO lake, they don’t need US assets to do so. much of Russias shipping goes through the Baltics. I expect more along these lines to follow.

 

Without money from oil and gas sales, Russias economy will no be able to support the war, they are spending already about 40% of the GDP on war and war related expenses by some estimates.

Edited March 24, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Sweet]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

It is impotent to note that this war (like any other war) is also an economic one. I think it’s important  now that Germany seized a Russian shadow fleet tanker:

https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/germany-seizes-russian-tanker-its-100000-tonnes-of-oil-cargo-worth-43-3-million/

 

The Ruropeans can easily make the Baltics a NATO lake, they don’t need US assets to do so. much of Russias shipping goes through the Baltics. I expect more along these lines to follow.

 

Without money from oil and gas sales, Russias economy will no be able to support the war, they are spending already about 40% of the GDP on war and war related expenses by some estimates.

Stopping Russia shipping in the Baltics was one of the tactics the allies used to win The Crimean War.  They allies blockaded Russian ports to squeeze and weaken the Russian economy. 

[Charlie]

Over the weekend I watched Tarzan 3D with my two six year old boys.

At one scene he behaved exactly like Elon in January.

That was pretty funny. 

Edited March 24, 2025 by Charlie

[John Hjorth]

On 3/16/2025 at 2:18 PM, 73 Reds said:

It's not ridiculous but what is ridiculous is any notion that the population of Greenland lacks self-determination.  If they should vote to become a possession of the US so be it.  The way the issue is portrayed by the media is that somehow the US will forcibly take over Greenland.  That is ridiculous and a sign of Trump derangement.  

 

@73 Reds,

 

Especially for you [H/T to @Sweet ] :

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Furthermore :

 

In Danish :

 

Aarhus University - Danmarkshistorien.dk : Erklæring fra USA om Danmarks højhedsret til Grønland, 4. august 1916

 

Text : 

 

Quote

Kildeintroduktion:

 

Den amerikanske regering udstedte 4. august 1916 en erklæring til den danske regering om, at amerikanerne ikke ville gøre indsigelser, hvis Danmark udvidede sine interesser i Grønland til at omfatte hele øen. Erklæringen blev givet som et særskilt tillæg til salgstraktaten mellem Danmark og USA angående salget af Dansk Vestindien til USA. Salgstraktaten blev også underskrevet 4. august 1916. Danmark havde siden kolonisationens begyndelse i 1721 overvejende været til stede på den grønlandske vestkyst. Men fra 1880’erne begyndte flere danske ekspeditioner at trænge frem i hidtil ufremkommelige områder i Nord- og Østgrønland. I 1894 grundlagde søofficeren og polarforskeren Gustav Holm (1849-1940) byen Ammassalik på østkysten. Og i 1909-10 grundlagde polarforskerne Knud Rasmussen (1879-1933) og Peter Freuchen (1886-1957) den private handelsstation Thule i Nordgrønland, der blev solgt til den danske stat i 1937. På vegne af den amerikanske regering underskrev den amerikanske udenrigsminister Robert Lansing (1864-1928) erklæringen, der gav amerikansk støtte til Danmarks ønske om at få højhedsret til hele Grønland. Med et pennestrøg anerkendte amerikanerne dermed, at hele Grønland retteligt var et dansk område.

 

Det var en meget vigtig tilkendegivelse. På den ene side forhindrede erklæringen, at Danmarks bestræbelser på at underlægge sig hele Grønland, der ellers var foregået siden 1880'erne, pludselig blev anset som et brud på Monroedoktrinen. Doktrinen var blevet bekendtgjort i en erklæring af præsident James Monroe (1758-1831) under et møde i 1823. Den sagde, at USA ikke ville acceptere nye europæiske fremstød i Amerika. Grønland var også omfattet af Monroedoktrinen. På den anden side banede den amerikanske erklæring vejen for, at andre stater ville acceptere de danske krav. I takt med USA’s indtræden som storpolitisk aktør i de sidste årtier af 1800-tallet, så var det meget forudseende at sikre amerikanernes støtte til dansk højhedsret til hele Grønland. Den eneste statsmagt, der åbent protesterede imod de danske krav, var den norske regering. Norge ønskede på det tidspunkt at udvide sine aktiviteter i Arktis til gavn for den norske fiskeindustri. I den forbindelse kom de danske krav på hele Grønland i vejen. Den 21. maj 1921 erklærede Danmark, at hele Grønland var underlagt dansk overherredømme.

 

Nedenfor er erklæringen gengivet først i den originale version på engelsk og derefter i en version på dansk oversat af ph.d.-stipendiat Simon Mølholm Olesen. 

 

 

In English :

 

Aarhus University - Danmarkshistorien.dk : Declaration from the United States on Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland, August 4, 1916

 

Quote

Source introduction:

 

On 4 August 1916, the US government issued a declaration to the Danish government stating that the Americans would not object if Denmark extended its interests in Greenland to include the entire island. The declaration was given as a separate appendix to the sales treaty between Denmark and the United States concerning the sale of the Danish West Indies to the United States. The sales treaty was also signed on 4 August 1916. Since the beginning of colonization in 1721, Denmark had been predominantly present on the west coast of Greenland. However, from the 1880s, several Danish expeditions began to penetrate previously inaccessible areas in North and East Greenland. In 1894, the naval officer and polar explorer Gustav Holm (1849-1940) founded the town of Ammassalik on the east coast. And in 1909-10, polar explorers Knud Rasmussen (1879-1933) and Peter Freuchen (1886-1957) founded the private trading station Thule in North Greenland, which was sold to the Danish state in 1937. On behalf of the American government, US Secretary of State Robert Lansing (1864-1928) signed the declaration that gave American support to Denmark's desire to gain sovereignty over all of Greenland. With a stroke of the pen, the Americans thus recognized that all of Greenland was rightfully Danish territory.

 

It was a very important statement. On the one hand, the declaration prevented Denmark's efforts to subjugate all of Greenland, which had been going on since the 1880s, from suddenly being seen as a breach of the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine had been announced in a declaration by President James Monroe (1758-1831) during a meeting in 1823. It stated that the United States would not accept new European advances in America. Greenland was also covered by the Monroe Doctrine. On the other hand, the American declaration paved the way for other states to accept the Danish claims. As the United States emerged as a major political player in the last decades of the 19th century, it was very prescient to secure American support for Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland. The only state power that openly protested the Danish claims was the Norwegian government. At that time, Norway wanted to expand its activities in the Arctic for the benefit of the Norwegian fishing industry. In this context, Danish claims to all of Greenland got in the way. On May 21, 1921, Denmark declared that all of Greenland was subject to Danish suzerainty.

 

Below, the statement is reproduced first in the original version in English and then in a version in Danish translated by PhD fellow Simon Mølholm Olesen. 

 

 

Screen shot :

 

[Xerxes]

4 hours ago, Sweet said:

Stopping Russia shipping in the Baltics was one of the tactics the allies used to win The Crimean War.  They allies blockaded Russian ports to squeeze and weaken the Russian economy. 

Now define what was “win” when the Crimean War started, and what was considered “win” when the war ended.

 

Crimean War was yet another war where Great Britain got itself involved for the sake of needling Russia, an historical urge, and upset the balance of power by helping the failing Turks, ….. and anyways most restrictions that were imposed on Russia (in terms of bottling up the Black Sea) were reversed shortly after 

 

so pointless in most ways 

[Spooky]

Another Odd Lots podcast on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jim-millstein-on-the-massive-risks-of-any-mar-a-lago-accord/id1056200096?i=1000700564948

[73 Reds]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@73 Reds,

 

Especially for you [H/T to @Sweet ] :

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Furthermore :

 

In Danish :

 

Aarhus University - Danmarkshistorien.dk : Erklæring fra USA om Danmarks højhedsret til Grønland, 4. august 1916

 

Text : 

 

 

 

In English :

 

Aarhus University - Danmarkshistorien.dk : Declaration from the United States on Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland, August 4, 1916

 

 

 

Screen shot :

 

John, interesting historical document - thanks for sharing.  I do think it can be interpreted in a number of different ways, as can the VP's comments about "more territorial interest" by the US in Greenland.  

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

Now define what was “win” when the Crimean War started, and what was considered “win” when the war ended.

 

Crimean War was yet another war where Great Britain got itself involved for the sake of needling Russia, an historical urge, and upset the balance of power by helping the failing Turks, ….. and anyways most restrictions that were imposed on Russia (in terms of bottling up the Black Sea) were reversed shortly after 

 

so pointless in most ways 

It wasn’t just Britain, and I could care less about the reasons for the war, only pointing out a parallel between the past and present in reference to the Baltic Sea.

[Spekulatius]

The Crimean war was a loss for Britain and it was an inconsequential war anyways . It’s has little to do with what is happening in Ukraine other than the theater location to some extent.

Bottling up the Black see and the Baltics would be relatively easy to do for Europe without US involvement. It reduce Russias ability to export crude which is the main way they finance the war.

 

Most wars are lost economically first, leading to material shortages next, reducing the ability to perform on the battlefield last.

Edited March 24, 2025 by Spekulatius

[lnofeisone]

26 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

John, interesting historical document - thanks for sharing.  I do think it can be interpreted in a number of different ways, as can the VP's comments about "more territorial interest" by the US in Greenland.  

Can you elaborate on the number of ways you can interpret this document? Especially in the context of Greenland being what Greenland is today for the last 100 years. 

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

Can you elaborate on the number of ways you can interpret this document? Especially in the context of Greenland being what Greenland is today for the last 100 years. 

Sure; the words "will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" can have various meanings.  In no way do those words invalidate any concurrent interests by the US which are not in conflict with stated Danish interests .  Such interests can be strategic, military, involve resources and use of Greenland's vast unused lands for nearly any beneficial purpose.

[Pelagic]

38 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

The Crimean war was a loss for Britain and it was an inconsequential war anyways . It’s has little to do with what is happening in Ukraine other than the theater location to some extent.

Bottling up the Black see and the Baltics would be relatively easy to do for Europe without US involvement. It reduce Russias ability to export crude which is the main way they finance the war.

 

Most wars are lost economically first, leading to material shortages next, reducing the ability to perform on the battlefield last.

 

As much as I'd like to see this happen, I just don't think the end result of taking 6% or so of global crude off the market is palatable to European leaders. It would also likely lead to a situation where the US is lobbying heavily to lift the blockade to bring down gas prices since the US consumer and economic sentiment in general is married to them. Big picture, paying $6 a gallon for a few months to a year is a better option than sustaining a war for a decade and potentially involving western troops, but trying to sell that argument to voters would be difficult.

 

It's also worth looking at this strategy from Ukraine's perspective. If their goal is simply autonomy from Russia, then yes sinking ships in the Black Sea or taking other means that they can to curtail Russian exports makes sense. But generally their goal is inclusion in the European order so a lot of the economic warfare options that are available to them they look at through that lens, choosing options that harm Russia but are also mostly contained within Russia. Which is why Ukraine striking Russian refineries works so well. It imposes real economic costs on Russia, as well as direct logistics issues for their military, while doing little to upset global markets.

 

[lnofeisone]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Sure; the words "will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland" can have various meanings.  In no way do those words invalidate any concurrent interests by the US which are not in conflict with stated Danish interests .  Such interests can be strategic, military, involve resources and use of Greenland's vast unused lands for nearly any beneficial purpose.

I just need some coffee because it's serious mental gymnastics to say, "Oh, we had this agreement, but it doesn't conflict with us taking it back today." Let me remind you that Denmark sold the US Virgin Islands as part of that deal. Let's be honest here. Greenland is estimated to have rare earth minerals. That's the impetus.

 

Just to be clear here is where my logic doesn't bend this morning.

 

1) Denmark was staking out a position in Greenland which was going counter to US Monro doctrine

2) Denmark was making every effort to bring Greenland under its control economically and politically. That would imply resources, lands, military, etc.

3) US, the only power that would have any issues, then says, "It's fine. We want US Virgin Island, and we don't object to you having all of Greenland," and this is the world order for 100+ years.

Something happens.

4) It's now fine for US to go and take Greenland back?

 

That's like me selling my house and then coming back sometime later and telling the new owner, "Never mind, I'm going to take the basement back." 

 

 

 

 

[John Hjorth]

12 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

I just need some coffee because it's serious mental gymnastics to say, "Oh, we had this agreement, but it doesn't conflict with us taking it back today." Let me remind you that Denmark sold the US Virgin Islands as part of that deal. Let's be honest here. Greenland is estimated to have rare earth minerals. That's the impetus.

 

Just to be clear here is where my logic doesn't bend this morning.

 

1) Denmark was staking out a position in Greenland which was going counter to US Monro doctrine

2) Denmark was making every effort to bring Greenland under its control economically and politically. That would imply resources, lands, military, etc.

3) US, the only power that would have any issues, then says, "It's fine. We want US Virgin Island, and we don't object to you having all of Greenland," and this is the world order for 100+ years.

Something happens.

4) It's now fine for US to go and take Greenland back?

 

That's like me selling my house and then coming back sometime later and telling the new owner, "Never mind, I'm going to take the basement back." 

 

@lnofeisone,

 

Great post.

 

I think it's the inner meaning af 'the art of the deal'.

 

I'm personally 95 per cent sure, that POTUS hasen't asked his own administration, what really exists of agreements among Greenland, Denmark and the United States of America, that regulate the matter he is contemplating, simply because he doesen't care about it. The rest, the 5 percent in the outcome space, I personally allocate to that POTUS did know of it, but did choose to disregard the facts, because the facts did bot fit his agenda, and me might eventually get away with it without any protests, like with his big lies, ref. POTUS' public, on video, comment about the matter : 'I don't know why, but likely some hundreds years ago a Danish ship shored somewhere on Greenland ...' [, likely centuries before USA even existed].

[Xerxes]

How did other U.S. territories during good old imperial expansion era fared ?

 

Was Philippine better or worse off, swapping its Spanish masters for Americans. How about Puerto Rico and others. 
 

In Greenland case, it is being “marketed” as buying. What does that mean exactly for the locals. Will it be a territory or a state. Or a defacto territory with upgraded privileges of a state ? 

Is it concerning or re-assuring (if you are Russian) that Americans much like Russians (and others) have their own “imperial dreams”. 

 

 

I think I need to read up:

 

 

Edited March 24, 2025 by Xerxes