There is a law for almost everything that is controversial about President Donald Trump‘s plans for his second, non-consecutive name. Past leaders led reprisals on immigration, raised tariffs, sacrificed trade warfare, and even threatened civil rights. There is even a law for president who feigned to annex Canada.
Trump’s attention in the Danish place is not unusual; a generation of experts on foreign policy has thought about the proper ramifications of Greenland’s abundance of rare earth minerals and its proximity to important Arctic waterways, with the snowy island now even more important as a result of global warming’s shift in sea routes.
But Trump’s incessant thoughts on acquiring Greenland are unconventional.
It’s still bubbling even though the concept of Manifest Destiny has been stifled in past. It occurs almost 80 years after the end of World War II, when one of the most basic pillars of American foreign policy is to stop international frontiers from changing violently.
Unlike almost any other issue, there is no poll on retaking Greenland. Democratic and Republican workers concur that there are no reliable indicators of how voters ‘ opinions on the subject are being measured by experts, despite the fact that almost everything else has been measured.
There aren’t even any tips; after all, separatist attitudes toward aiding Ukraine aren’t often comparable to isolationist attitudes toward annexing Greenland. Additionally, while there is enough voting about the U. S. government’s perspectives of countries such as China or Russia, there isn’t much to determine the public’s view of Denmark.  ,
As a social issue, elected representatives are at water. Some don’t specifically taking the concept seriously. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) was so gracious to be questioned about it.
” This is an energy to get you men talking about Greenland so that you don’t miss the massive new tax breaks that are on the horizon for businessmen and companies, which have been offset by significant Medicare and Medicaid cuts. It’s brilliant”, Murphy late said when asked by the Washington Examiner. They will try to divert the media, the people, and the data habitat away from the theft that will occur with this significant tax cut.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA ) was more bemused by the Greenland chatter.
Kaine, who recently won election to a new six-year name for a seat he first won in the 2012 elections, described it as “wacky and kind of a distraction from issues we ought to be paying attention to.”
After campaigning in Virginia for two years, I finally quit the path. I know what Virginians are concerned with”, he said. ” They’re not concerned about whether the U. S. may have Greenland or the Panama Canal. No one ever brings up such a problem with me.
Some Republicans weren’t actually ready to take the matter seriously. Rep Kat Cammack (R-FL ) joked when asked about Greenland,” I hear it’s cold this time of year”, and said she was focused on “domestic policy”.
Some of the people were absolutely right.
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO ) told the Washington Examiner,” I think it’s wonderful. I think it’s a great idea. We now have a lot of money invested that thanks to our military base.
He added,” If you were a Greenlander, wouldn’t you want to be an American citizen” ? ,
A potential U.S. acquisition of Greenland is described as” a wonderful opportunity to join the greatest country in the world,” according to Burlison.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN), who introduced a expenses that gave Trump the power to buy Greenland from Denmark, felt it was necessary in response to China.
” We can’t just sit idly by and light up 10 years from now and know that China has essentially commandeered Greenland, which is full of resources, and so it’s absolutely in our garden or front garden”, he said, adding that Greenland may create a “great U. S. territory”.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), who was a co-sponsor of Ogles’s Greenland policy, noted that the U. S. has a record of getting lands ( although no significant order has happened since 1917 when Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the United States ).
” The U. S. purchasing property is nothing new. This isn’t a fresh concept”, Lawler said. But, I don’t know why everyone is so shocked beyond idea that this might be something we might look into or try to talk about.
He added a disclaimer.
” We’re certainly only going to seize the property. But the reality is that there’s a critical regional security interest”, Lawler said. ” We should have a conversation and a conversation, and if there is a way to make progress on it, then we should.”
Perhaps the median reaction came from Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO ), who wasn’t entirely sure what to make of Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland. But, Hickenlooper — a scientist by background — seemed empty, albeit perplexed, by Trump’s immediate interest in the mineral-rich Swedish place.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
He frequently dispenses these items. Often, he’s right. Maybe he makes a real place”, he said. In terms of how much our support would be in fighting off one of our oldest friends, I don’t understand this one.
The Colorado Democrat added of Trump,” He’s the one who won the election, and he’s the one who gets to decide what he wants to talk about. He might have some fresh ideas in mind.
