Trump
Comments
-
We had all this when he wanted Canada and nothing came of that, and nothing will come of this either. It takes two with the same key to release any weapons, so I don't think they'll let Donald Duck go alone. Half the Republicans know they have an idiot in charge, if you saw the clown who was on News Night, you'd realise there's a few clones of him who think they know what they're talking about, but repeat the same garbage all the time.
1 -
I agree about Canada - but he could make it extremely hard, financially on Europe with his tariffs unless he gets his way with Greenland.
I just feel so sorry for the Greenland population being involved in such an unfair future.
0 -
Besides - Greenland is worth $2.7 Trillion (including it's oil and mineral deposits) - which is far more than Trump can afford and no Bank / Building Society is going to offer a $2.7 Trillion mortgage/loan to an Orange 79 year old madman…..
1 -
Here’s the current situation with Donald Trump’s “offer” or proposals regarding Greenland — and it’s important to stress: there is no finalized deal or officially accepted purchase price on the table. Greenland is emphatically not for sale according to both Danish and Greenlandic leaders. (Yahoo News UK)
🧊 What Trump has proposed or discussed
1. Cash payments to Greenland residents
Trump’s administration has been internally discussing offering payments directly to Greenlanders — hypothetically to encourage them to support independence from Denmark and possible eventual U.S. integration. These figures being talked about range from:- $10,000 per person up to
- $100,000 per person
for Greenland’s population of ~57,000 — which would imply a rough total cost of roughly $5–6 billion if this approach were pursued. (www.ndtv.com)
This isn’t an official “offer to Denmark” to buy the island; it’s part of a strategy internal to U.S. planning — and it hasn’t been presented formally to either Denmark or Greenland. (www.ndtv.com)
2. No specific purchase price announced
Unlike President Harry S. Truman’s 1946 offer of $100 million in gold (which would be roughly $1.6 billion in today’s money), Trump has not publicly stated a concrete price that he has formally offered or submitted to Denmark. (Newsweek)Various commentators and analysts have speculated about potential values based on strategic or resource worth, suggesting figures from tens of billions up to over $1 trillion — but these are estimates, not actual offers made by Trump. (Business Today)
3. Broader tactics discussed internally
In addition to cash payments, U.S. officials have discussed a range of other ways to try to influence Greenland’s status — including greater investment, trade incentives, or even using tariffs as leverage. None of these have translated into a formal purchase offer. (AP News)🧭 Key takeaway
➡️ There’s no confirmed, formal dollar figure that Trump has officially offered to Denmark to buy Greenland.
What has been discussed internally includes potential cash payments to residents in the tens of billions (e.g., $5–6 bn scale), but those discussions aren’t a formal offer and Greenland is not for sale.If you want, I can break down why Greenland is strategically important (military, resources, geography), which helps explain Trump’s interest — many people aren’t aware of the full context behind this unusual proposal.
He's going to have to offer a lot more than $5-6bn in order to satisfy the population !
Here’s a clear picture of how much property in Greenland typically costs — remembering that Greenland is a sovereign country (part of the Kingdom of Denmark), not to be confused with other places called “Greenland”:
🏠 Typical Property Prices in Greenland
1. Nuuk (capital)
- Mid-range homes (70–100 m²): ~$300,000 – $450,000 USD
- Single-family homes: $500,000 – $800,000+
- Premium or larger homes can exceed $1 million
Prices are high mainly due to limited supply, remote location, and high construction costs. (PRAI NEWS)
2. Other towns (e.g., Sisimiut, Ilulissat)
- Often 30 – 60% cheaper than in Nuuk
- Prices can range roughly $200,000 – $450,000 for typical residential homes in secondary towns. (PRAI NEWS)
3. Broader range by property type (approx.)
Based on broader cost data across Greenland’s property market:- Studio apartments: ~$70,000 – $210,000 USD
- 1-bedroom apartments: ~$82,000 – $520,000 USD
- 2-bedroom apartments: ~$140,000 – $820,000 USD
- Townhouses: ~$590,000 – $5,200,000+ USD
- Large houses/villas: ~$690,000 – $6,900,000+ USD
(These ranges vary a lot by location, condition, and size.) (Copound)
📍 Key Things to Know
- Land itself is publicly owned — what’s bought is the building plus a long-term usage right. (PRAI NEWS)
- Housing supply is limited, so Nunavut and other settlements often have longer waits and higher demand pressures. (Le Monde.fr)
- Foreign buyers might need special permits and face extra rules. (har.com)
💡 Summary
- Average homes in Nuuk: ~$300k – $800k+
- Smaller towns: cheaper, often <$400k
- Luxury or larger homes: can exceed $1 million depending on size and location.
This is a hypothetical scenario, but the consequences are clear and severe.
If the United States attacked Greenland, here is what would realistically happen — politically, militarily, and globally.🚨 First: the core reality
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Denmark is a NATO member.👉 An attack on Greenland = an attack on Denmark = a NATO issue.
🛡️ 1. NATO response (Article 5)
Under NATO Article 5:
An armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all.
If the U.S. attacked Greenland:
- The U.S. would be attacking a NATO ally
- NATO would face an unprecedented crisis
- Other NATO countries would be legally entitled to:
- Sanctions
- Military defense of Denmark
- Suspension or expulsion of the U.S. from NATO (not automatic, but possible)
This would likely collapse NATO as it currently exists.
🇺🇸 2. U.S. internal consequences
Inside the U.S.:
- Massive constitutional crisis
- Congress would likely block funding or declare the action illegal
- Courts could rule the attack unconstitutional
- Widespread protests
- Impeachment proceedings would be very likely
There is no legal justification under U.S. or international law for such an attack.
🌍 3. Global reaction
Immediate consequences:
- Universal condemnation at the UN
- Emergency UN Security Council session
- Severe sanctions from:
- EU
- UK
- Canada
- Japan
- Collapse of U.S. moral authority abroad
Long-term consequences:
- China and Russia would exploit the situation politically
- Other countries would question U.S. security guarantees
- Global instability would rise sharply
This would be considered an act of aggression, similar in legal terms to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
🧊 4. Military reality on the ground
Ironically:
- The U.S. already has full military access to Greenland through agreements
- The U.S. operates Pituffik Space Base there legally
- Denmark cooperates closely with U.S. defense planning
An attack would gain nothing militarily that the U.S. doesn’t already have — and would lose everything diplomatically.
🇬🇱 5. Greenlandic reaction
Greenlanders would:
- Strongly resist
- See the U.S. as a colonial aggressor
- Permanently reject U.S. influence
Any hope of partnership, investment, or cooperation would be destroyed for generations.
🧭 6. Why this will not happen
This scenario is extraordinarily unlikely because:
- It offers no strategic benefit
- It triggers NATO crisis
- It violates international law
- It harms U.S. security interests
- It contradicts U.S. democratic norms
Every U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence institution would oppose it.
✅ What would happen instead (realistic paths)
The U.S. pursues influence via:
- Defense agreements
- Economic investment
- Scientific cooperation
- Diplomatic pressure
- Arctic partnerships
Influence, not invasion, is the only viable strategy.
In one sentence:
A U.S. attack on Greenland would trigger a NATO crisis, destroy U.S. alliances, cause global backlash, and offer zero strategic gain — making it one of the most self-destructive foreign policy moves imaginable.
1 -
Yes of course he should have gone
It looks as if he is scared of trump
0 -
I did see that [Removed by moderator] farage, who ignores his place in parliament and his constituents to lauding it towards his American friends.
0 -
I think he's just been had up before the committee. Not the working men's club one either 😂
1 -
I do not trust who at all
0 -
I hope that you were kidding ?
Reeves - Respected ?
Don't think Trump would respect any woman at all - not in that way anyway
0 -
I'm not the only one then ?
I don't think that Farage knows how to handle a "problematic Trump" - he's fine with a "happy Trump" - but now, he's seen the real Trump and is lost !
0 -
Trump showing off the Axis this morning.
Starmer is the Atlee of this century.
Now, who will lead the Allies I wonder.
0 -
All i can say is he looked half asleep yesterday
Not that important but he did
0 -
after another set of abusive words by Trump, I see no British politician asking for an apology from Trump.
They really are very intimidated by him. With this approach, more abuse from Trump will be on the way.
that’s just the wrong way to go about it when dealing with abusive people, regardless of their status.0 -
This is trumps plan:
He doesn't just want Greenland, hes going to take Mexico, Canada, Columbia and Venezuela. He wants the whole of North America. It'll be known as the Technate of America.
1 -
I had to laugh at his comments he did shot down a few elites so im confused im totally against the world economic forum and world health organisation I would be delighted if we wasn't signed in to me they are all plotting our future not for our best intreast that doesn't mean I support Trump far from it especially what he's dojng with ice but question why did that French guy have glasses on like that
0 -
'That French guy' @Catherine21 is president Macron of France.. maybe he had a problem with his eyes and the light was making it worse, it shouldn't matter why he was wearing sun glasses but it seems its world news!
3 -
think he had a burst blood vessel in his eye that would of been aggravated by bright lights i often have to wear them in bright florescent lite places of course it has been known for people to wear sunglasses even with good eyes
2 -
He may have had cataract surgery.
2 -
Somehow with the subject being Trump, I thought this was about him. Would it help him see (meaning: understand, think about) things more clearly?! LOL. Yup, you were talking about Macron.
0 -
Were all entitled to different options I thought he looked silly and its perfectly fine for me to ask
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 16K Start here and say hello!
- 7.6K Coffee lounge
- 111 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 172 Announcements and information
- 25.5K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 507 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 880 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 589 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 649 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 883 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41.1K Talk about your benefits
- 6.2K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.4K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income






