When Canada goes bankrupt and the welfare dries up, how many of those pajeets will actually stick around (or survive)?
Donald Trump and US expansionism in North America
- Thread starter LaAguilaNegra
- Start date
When Canada goes bankrupt and the welfare dries up, how many of those pajeets will actually stick around (or survive)?
I’m in the same boat. Canada has been going downhill for decades, even before the Indian invasion. I even remember 15 or so years ago, the most liberal people I’d encounter in the US would always praise how much better Canada is.
If libs are praising a place, you can be assured that it will turn into a shithole within a decade, sometimes sooner.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are strategic NORAD facilities in Greenald. If the worst case scenario was to ever happen, Greenland will be a target.
Panama Canal is the top priority.
Greenland would be nice to have, but we can "make do" even if it remains under Denmark, as long as we can get a good deal out of them.
Canada. I think all the talk about the 51st State is just a smokescreen to cover our real priorities.
Look on the bright side: America annexing Greenland would mean more opportunities for more people like you to work their balls off while posting helpful messages on forums and make lots of money to prepare for whatever you think comes next. How could this prospect not excite you?
How will this help the average person? It will just be more exploitation of natural resources by the satanic elites so they can have more power and control over the globe. Just like how the wars in the Middle East would "lower gas prices" or how adding Alaska and Hawaii have helped the average person drown in COL v. Income over the last 70 years.
The average person doesn't exist, so I wouldn't worry about him or her. The supposed "exploitation of natural resources by the satanic elites" means more resources available to the general market. That we have parasites should not stop us from expanding our opportunities. Adding Alaska to the Union led to Americans, people with whom you and I can communicate and to whom we can appeal, moving into and running that land. I count that as a win. Similarly, I would count America acquiring Greenland as a win. I'd call Hawaii an abortive experiment and we should let them go. Wars in the Middle East amount to a different issue entirely, especially because they didn't lead to Americans colonizing those lands, not to mention the foul motivations behind them.
We are not expanding "our" opportunities, we are expanding the opportunities of the satanic elites. We both will see no benefit from this and it allows the satanic west to continue to grow and spread.
America acquiring Greenland is a win for the satanic elite who run the USA, not for us average people in the USA or elsewhere in the west.
Not that is matters, what we do, say or think isn't going to change it at all. I just want people to realize "based" Trump is just spreading Israel-first/satanic govt. further across the globe with these moves. Sure, it would be great if we first cleaned up our country and got rid of the satanic elites and then expanded the reach of a new good Christian west.
Alberta is the only province worth absorbing into the US. Oil and Gas are abundant. As well as a conservative population. We have libs in the two major cities, like most states, but we are pretty much the Texas of the north. We can eliminate the red tape as far as pipelines.
Greater Montana?
I'll take this as your exit from this thread.
If you admit that Trump doing this, without first taking down the satanic elite, isn't a good thing for us at all, sure.
It would probably go most smoothly to annex Canada one province at a time, as each proves itself ready for absorption.
Quebec would never agree to joining to the USA, and I doubt most Americans would want them to join. One side of my family tree goes back 400 years in Quebec, so personally I wouldn't mind having a little plot of land and a house up there though.
Why would any attestation of mine make a difference to your participation in this thread?
You said,
Therefore, we can take anything further you say in this thread as insane babbling.
Okay then, cheer on the satanic elite expanding to further take in more land and more resources because "based" Trump is doing it. This isn't a good thing for anyone on this board, and that should be the discussion. It isn't going to improve our standard of living one bit, it will likely decrease our standard of living, but it will make people like George Soros, Larry Fink, and Elon Musk much wealthier/powerful at everyone's expense.
Before you draw back your outer lines of defense, you beef up and integrate your inner lines.
The Red Sea situation is proving that the US can no longer secure the world's traffic lanes. BRICS momentum and reality of regional powers like Russia, China, and Iran are challenging US power and dollar dominance. I think Trump wants to abandon or de-emphasize NATO. It's a net liability to the US and the western vassals are likely to crack up (at least their "garden" mentality will crack, as their quality of life drops). They can go fight russia on their own, tough guys that always under-funded NATO anyway.
On all of these territorial ideas, I'm very prejudiced against use of force to accomplish their annexation. We have a bad enough reputation. I don't know much about procedure for this stuff, but how we do it is important.
On Greenland, I'm all for it, given their people welcome it and are not forced in. The trade routes and the resources are self-evident. Russia opening up more traffic across the arctic ice cap, combined with China's maritime commercial power, make the issue more urgent. I don't know the effect this will have on Congress, other than to say that it will become a hyper-Wyoming (small-population state with 2 senators and 1 rep, hence heavy Senatorial importance). Maybe keep as a province, until they prove they aren't lefites.
On Panama, sure, though I see it as more likely to lead to open conflict. If the Panamanian population isn't for it, we'll forever be seen as the invading occupier.
On Canada, maybe only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NW Territory, and Nunavut. The rest/Leftie Canada will flip the Congress as blue as California. I've heard enough snooty Canadians run down Alberta. I know I like those people.
On Mexico, just build the wall, maybe some more moats, some interlocking fire fans, and finally exert control. Cross border punitive raids against cartels are a mess we make for ourselves.
Done well, America is fair and working in her regional interest. Done wrong, ROW will hate us. We need the newly annexed populations to be proud, loyal Americans and to welcome it. That won't happen by force.
I suspect a heavy round of foreign base closures. The Russia/China/Iran axis is shoring up their regional power and we are over-exposed to other people's inability to make nice with their neighbors. I wonder if this is a muscle-flex before Trump drops the embarrassing news that the US is closing XX bases worldwide. Reality eventually hits everyone - even the mighty. Some dreaming by me on that.
The Red Sea situation is proving that the US can no longer secure the world's traffic lanes. BRICS momentum and reality of regional powers like Russia, China, and Iran are challenging US power and dollar dominance. I think Trump wants to abandon or de-emphasize NATO. It's a net liability to the US and the western vassals are likely to crack up (at least their "garden" mentality will crack, as their quality of life drops). They can go fight russia on their own, tough guys that always under-funded NATO anyway.
On all of these territorial ideas, I'm very prejudiced against use of force to accomplish their annexation. We have a bad enough reputation. I don't know much about procedure for this stuff, but how we do it is important.
On Greenland, I'm all for it, given their people welcome it and are not forced in. The trade routes and the resources are self-evident. Russia opening up more traffic across the arctic ice cap, combined with China's maritime commercial power, make the issue more urgent. I don't know the effect this will have on Congress, other than to say that it will become a hyper-Wyoming (small-population state with 2 senators and 1 rep, hence heavy Senatorial importance). Maybe keep as a province, until they prove they aren't lefites.
On Panama, sure, though I see it as more likely to lead to open conflict. If the Panamanian population isn't for it, we'll forever be seen as the invading occupier.
On Canada, maybe only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, NW Territory, and Nunavut. The rest/Leftie Canada will flip the Congress as blue as California. I've heard enough snooty Canadians run down Alberta. I know I like those people.
On Mexico, just build the wall, maybe some more moats, some interlocking fire fans, and finally exert control. Cross border punitive raids against cartels are a mess we make for ourselves.
Done well, America is fair and working in her regional interest. Done wrong, ROW will hate us. We need the newly annexed populations to be proud, loyal Americans and to welcome it. That won't happen by force.
I suspect a heavy round of foreign base closures. The Russia/China/Iran axis is shoring up their regional power and we are over-exposed to other people's inability to make nice with their neighbors. I wonder if this is a muscle-flex before Trump drops the embarrassing news that the US is closing XX bases worldwide. Reality eventually hits everyone - even the mighty. Some dreaming by me on that.
Yeah there are only a few Canadian provinces or terrorities that would benefit the US, with Alberta being the big one. Most of Canada is even more woke and gay than the US, and will drag us down.
Certain regions would be ok too. Like Eastern British Columbia, Western Ontario, etc.
Certain regions would be ok too. Like Eastern British Columbia, Western Ontario, etc.
The is probably one of most absurd things that Trump has said in a while. This brings me back to when all the boomers were getting all hyped for a border wall that never came. I’m more surprised by the sheer about people on this forum agreeing that this is a good idea.
Let’s just talk about how many treaties the forced annexation of Iceland, Canada, Mexico and the Panama Canal would break and how it would completely cripple the United States diplomatically.
Denmark is part of NATO, Canada and Mexico are both part of NAFTA and are both fairly anti-American in their current governing policies. These countries and their populations are not gonna freely rollover their Nation to the US, just because they want it.
The only one that makes any semblance of sense would be the Panama Canal, since the US built it and owned it.
Let’s just talk about how many treaties the forced annexation of Iceland, Canada, Mexico and the Panama Canal would break and how it would completely cripple the United States diplomatically.
Denmark is part of NATO, Canada and Mexico are both part of NAFTA and are both fairly anti-American in their current governing policies. These countries and their populations are not gonna freely rollover their Nation to the US, just because they want it.
The only one that makes any semblance of sense would be the Panama Canal, since the US built it and owned it.
Is Iceland in the crosshairs now too? I hadn't heard that yet, but I was thinking recently about how the idea of siezing Greenland kind of has a precedent in what the UK and US did with Iceland in WW2. First asked Iceland nicely to join the Allies, and then when Iceland refused said terribly sorry, but we're annexing you. Your country is, unfortuantely, strategically vital to us . Again, we're terribly sorry.
I also read the idea somewhere that the most practical thing to do would be to just bribe the Greenlanders. With a population of just over 50k, kicking each voter in Greenland a few million USD to decide that becoming a US territory doesn't sound so bad after all does sound simpler, cheaper, and much less ugly than an actual invasion.