Congress Needs To Pass a Law Barring Trump from Attacking Greenland etc. Without an Act of Congress, Anything Is Possible..

Need Congress ,....... To do anything ? What wrong with you? What you must never been paying attention to Congress. Sounds like a elementary school civil kid.
Honestly you only want Congress to pass a law for Congress has agree because you there can't agree to do something foolish like attack Greenland.
But what makes you think there could agree to pass a law fast enough stop the president from attack any one especially that will take 2/3 votes.

Madman vs madam I had to do a double take.

so what would you suggest Ripmany?

Need Congress ,....... To do anything ? What wrong with you? What you must never been paying attention to Congress. Sounds like a elementary school civil kid.
Honestly you only want Congress to pass a law for Congress has agree because you there can't agree to do something foolish like attack Greenland.
But what makes you think there could agree to pass a law fast enough stop the president from attack any one especially that will take 2/3 votes. Originally Posted by Ripmany

Congressional republicans are pushing back against the madman.

https://apple.news/A8RfqOz-LQa-bcuvyyUC_Ng

A delegation will be traveling to Denmark to assure the government that Trumps own party will put a leash and muzzle on that bag of wind.

Congressional republicans are pushing back against the madman.

https://apple.news/A8RfqOz-LQa-bcuvyyUC_Ng

A delegation will be traveling to Denmark to assure the government that Trumps own party will put a leash and muzzle on that bag of wind. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Clean my toilet, Staff Edit - Biomed1

Of Guideline # 2 . . .

#2 - Derogatory racial remarks are simply unacceptable, period. Disrespect another's ethnic background and you will most certainly regret it.

what's the bet again?


oh look! here's that SIGNED Agreement you think doesn't exist!


What was the 1951 agreement between the US and Greenland?


It has had bases there since the Second World War. The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO.


Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951


https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp


now about this part of your statement .. google AI says you are wrong


your false claim ...


"Come back with at least a pithy comment AND fact that can disprove that the USA let Denmark have Greenland in trade for the Virgin Islands. Don't pretend that it was taken from us."


google says ..


The U.S. didn't trade Greenland
to Denmark for the Virgin Islands; rather, the 1917 treaty where the U.S. bought the Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands) included a Danish-requested agreement where the U.S. recognized Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland in exchange for Denmark selling the Caribbean islands, solidifying U.S. security interests in the Caribbean during World War I and preventing German acquisition. While there were earlier discussions about a complex trade involving Greenland and Philippine islands, the actual deal was a direct sale of the West Indies with a Greenland clause, not a direct land swap

we bought the Virgin Islands sport. we call it the US Virgin Islands now. because we bought them.


arguing against facts you don't like isn't a good look young man. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Son, ima walking backwards. Obviously I can post the stuff but I can't stop you from ignoring it. But hey, that is just another maggie TDS symptom: ignore the facts presented and keep rage whining. I understand. The sheeple must bleat.

<Abandon All Hope Those That Click Yon Link> for "soverign" (if I spelled it correctly) and "cold war". Just because the post ain't to your exacting standards does not mean the facts posted on it aren't salient.

Trade and $$$ are synonymous when talking of transaction.

You can do better than say "false claim" when already shown to be true. I know it is hard to break that TDS sheeple mentality. I have faith in you though.

You really need to do better research.

The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp Originally Posted by RX792P

can you point out in the agreement where it states NATO can control the actions and sovereignty of members against their wishes?



pretty sure you can't.

Son, ima walking backwards. Obviously I can post the stuff but I can't stop you from ignoring it. But hey, that is just another maggie TDS symptom: ignore the facts presented and keep rage whining. I understand. The sheeple must bleat.

<Abandon All Hope Those That Click Yon Link> for "soverign" (if I spelled it correctly) and "cold war". Just because the post ain't to your exacting standards does not mean the facts posted on it aren't salient.

Trade and $$$ are synonymous when talking of transaction.

You can do better than say "false claim" when already shown to be true. I know it is hard to break that TDS sheeple mentality. I have faith in you though. Originally Posted by Precious_b

synonymous? word games aren't going to get you out of being wrong. there was no land swap. you chose a poor term to describe the deal. admit it or prove there was a trade.

can you point out in the agreement where it states NATO can control the actions and sovereignty of members against their wishes. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

can you point out where it doesn't say, "an attack against one is an attack on all.."

just like Trump to figure out how to activate Article 5..by NATO members, against their ally...the United States..

that..takes some doing. holy cripes..

can you point out in the agreement where it states NATO can control the actions and sovereignty of members against their wishes?

Look who is talking grammar games. Why don't *you* look where I joined that word and acronym in one sentence.

pretty sure you can't.


Of course I can't. Because you made it up.




synonymous? word games aren't going to get you out of being wrong. there was no land swap. you chose a poor term to describe the deal. admit it or prove there was a trade. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid;

And you don't? You obviously choose to ignore what I referenced. And you even used googly to see the agreement I referenced and willingly overlooked the cold war reference.

You slant views to the point of twisting them past the point of reality and i'll be happy to reply in kind with what you call word games.

Except you understand the latter and use the maggie playbook to misdirect. I ain't gonna write to fit your narrow off kilter pov. I'm not here to change your mind like that charlie guy loved to say. Only to show a fact which you can't prove is a lie. You can only twist words but not the truth of them.

can you point out in the agreement where it states NATO can control the actions and sovereignty of members against their wishes?



pretty sure you can't.







synonymous? word games aren't going to get you out of being wrong. there was no land swap. you chose a poor term to describe the deal. admit it or prove there was a trade. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Already done...in fact IIRC I posted a link to the actual treaty. Why don't you read it.

Already done...in fact IIRC I posted a link to the actual treaty. Why don't you read it. Originally Posted by RX792P

That makes two people who have pointed you to the water of truth.

Choose not to drink. Don't choke on the dust of fallacy.

and now, Trump sets off a new possible trade war with our European allies. yes, Congress, it's time to get off your fat asses and roll up your sleeves. this would actually be funny if it wasn't so effing serious..

https://www.politico.eu/article/hit-...p-up-tensions/

also, hopefully the S.C. will rule that Trump has no authority to levy tariffs to begin with. Congress controls interstate and inter-nation commerce, not the president. and these alleged emergencies necessitating presidential action on trade are entirely fabricated.

Trump and his warmongering dipshits will not have the approval of Congress to move against Greenland, according to a bipartisan Congressional delegation that just met with leaders of Denmark.

Who supports this action besides the cowboy zombies who leech off of Trump’s insanity?

It’s getting so bad that Canada is reaching out to China to enhance trade because nobody wants to do business with the Shithead in Chief.

Enough already. War Powers, chit. How about invoking the 25th Amendment followed by immediate removal of Maybelline Vance?

Time to stand up for America.



https://apple.news/A5Bmo-jIYRimk0PbkayLY5g

U.S. lawmakers offer support in Denmark amid Trump threat to 'own' Greenland
“I think you will find that support in Congress to acquire Greenland in any way is not there,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told NBC News.
Jan. 16, 2026, 10:14 AM EST

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — As a bipartisan congressional delegation began a whirlwind round of meetings with the leaders of Denmark and Greenland, Danish people made it clear they have no interest in a U.S. takeover of the Arctic island and they want their leaders to stand their ground.

“I think it is a really big problem,” Ina Tommerup said as she was leaving the Royal Danish Library in Copenhagen. President Donald Trump “doesn’t really care,” she said. “I think he thinks Denmark is really small, which is true, but we also have a lot of alliances.”

Her comments came as the U.S. lawmakers led by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., touched down in the Danish capital for meetings with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are also among the 11-member group, which is mostly made up of Democrats.

“The signals are clear,” Murkowski said Friday. “I think you will find that support in Congress to acquire Greenland in any way is not there.”

Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland in 2019 during his first term but, in recent weeks, he has vowed to take control of the island “one way or the other,” citing concerns it could be vulnerable to Russia or China. The White House has refused to rule out military action to seize the island from Denmark, alarming allies and rattling the NATO alliance, which has protected the Western world since World War II.

Despite the leaders of Denmark and Greenland rejecting any sort of offer of an American government takeover, Trump has shown no sign of backing down.
“I don’t think you’re going to find anyone here in Parliament who would be willing to sign a sale of Greenland,” said Rasmus Jarlov, member of Denmark’s Folketing or parliament, and the chair of its defense committee. “It’s something we’re just not going to do.”

In the unlikely event of that changing, Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, a senior researcher, at the Danish Institute for International Studies, a Copenhagen-based think tank, said it was “important to emphasize that Denmark does not legally have the option to sell Greenland, because we don’t own Greenland.”
Any financial acquisition of Greenland would need congressional authorization and both Republicans and Democrats have shown little interest in providing the funding for such a purchase.

“What I hear from my constituents in Delaware is, they want us to be working on health care costs, housing costs, grocery costs, not trying to spend money buying a part of the Danish kingdom that we already have the right to work with them closely on security or on economic development,” Coons said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the House have said they would back legislation to rein in Trump’s ability to seize Greenland, as the fight goes on over war powers, which the Constitution grants to Congress. A House bill in support of annexing Greenland has also been introduced by Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida.

The congressional visit follows a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, between Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.

Danish officials said after that meeting they had not managed to change the U.S. administration’s position on acquiring Greenland.
The anxiety in Denmark remains palpable.

Denmark should take Trump's zillion greenback fiat currency offer and invest it in gold and silver.


bahahahaaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I believe the money would go to Greenlanders, not Danes, and agree. Supposedly Trump's advisors believe $500 billion to $700 billion would do the the trick. That's about $10 million for every man, woman and child in Greenland! They'd be crazy not to take it.

Would it be a good deal for the USA? I don't think so. That's a lot of money. Wouldn't it make more sense to get about 20 locations where the USA could have bases, like Guantanamo, that would remain in U.S. hands come what may?

And how about some mining concessions for rare earth materials and other strategic minerals? The biggest reserves of U.S. rare earths are in California, and fat chance of doing something big with them. Mining and processing rare earths are not exactly environmentally friendly. Well, in a territory that's bigger than Mexico with only 57,000 people, that's not a big deal. Greenland could be like the Permian Basin of rare earths!

There's virtually no chance there will be a war over this. Trump's bluffing.

can you point out where it doesn't say, "an attack against one is an attack on all.."

just like Trump to figure out how to activate Article 5..by NATO members, against their ally...the United States..

that..takes some doing. holy cripes.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

Already done...in fact IIRC I posted a link to the actual treaty. Why don't you read it. Originally Posted by RX792P

i did read it. two things are not in it


1) NATO has sovereign control over member states
2) what happens if two members have a dispute?


Trump wants more than expanded military presence. the 1951 agreement provides for that. what if Denmark/Greenland reneges on that? what does NATO do? they don't have the authority to arbitrate that.



Trump wants control of resources to prevent China and Russia access to them. how likely would Greenland welcome in Russia and China? unlikely but NATO couldn't stop that.



just allowing China and Russia access to resources is a security risk. that appears to ne Trump's endgame here. to make sure that never happens.