• SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      It’s telling the only immediate benefits of joining the empire (besides 1 million dollars each that would never happen) that this rabid, pro American dipshit could come up with were better tax rates and ‘corporate benefits’ lmao

      • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        Americans do not see themselves as part of the proletariat, but temporarily embarrassed billionaires. This rube no doubt concerns himself with tax rates and corporate bailouts because someday, he will totally be the CEO of a Fortune 500.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    8 days ago

    There’s no way the US is paying that much when they can just park some aircraft carriers outside it for significantly less and call it theirs while daring the other side to do something about it.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 days ago

        Clearly some faction of the US boug does not agree with our interpretation of the “international community” as the US empire.

        • novibe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          8 days ago

          I have a theory that the people currently in power bought into the propaganda as much as anyone.

          They believe the lies about the “international community”, and the US being a “good guy cop”. And that makes them angry. They want a bad and strong USA, that fully controls the world directly.

          Why would they dismantle USAID otherwise? They actually believed the propaganda that USAID was just helping people around the world.

          They understand the empire less than us? Idk.

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Yeah i think you’re right but it’s so… Stupid. They’re creating a world where they control less rather than more.

            I think perhaps this is motivated by a belief that they need direct control because the indirect control that the liberal order built is not securely in their control in the new emerging world. It has potential to build ties to other powers that undermine US power. Direct control does not have that potential.

            They are future-proofing, consolidating control over whatever they can, while they still can. They have a very real fear that China will act in the future.

            • novibe@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              8 days ago

              That would make more sense to me if the soft power they were destroying was actually expensive, in terms of money/materials or time/people.

              USAID was a pitiful amount. It was barely any effort.

              I think the attack on Venezuela and their new stance to just take over everything around them is more indicative of what you’re saying.

              But dismantling soft power still seems like a shot on the foot. With soft power they would be able to keep more control over Europe, South and Central America, Africa etc. To shore up more support for their more overt actions.

              I think that if they don’t actually believe the crazy world building they are acting on, they put themselves into a corner by running on and amplifying the most illogical, contradictory and self-defeating conspiracies. So they don’t have really any other path than to dismantle “globalist communist trans”, and act like THE BIG DOG.

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                But dismantling soft power still seems like a shot on the foot. With soft power they would be able to keep more control over Europe, South and Central America, Africa etc. To shore up more support for their more overt actions.

                You’re missing my point. They do not believe that they can compete with soft power, they have convinced themselves that China’s soft power will be much greater than America’s soft power in the near future.

                If you convince yourself of this then the only option that exists to compete is hard power and they are exerting that hard power now while they still can before China has fully reached the peak of its growing power.

                The soft power has no value at all in a future where it is smaller than their rival. It is only valuable if you are the one with the most. They are exiting specialisation in soft power and instead specialising in hard power, China will take the US’ role internationally as the soft power projector.

        • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 days ago

          I meant it as in “the US in all practicality already owns Greenland”. They’ve got mineral rights, they’ve got bases and docking rights, they’ve basically got control of all the things that make Greenland an asset

    • Parade du Grotesque
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Who would win? A big fat static target of an aircraft carrier or a small submarine who can go to Greenland, torpedo the big fat target, and go back home?

      Before you say “Murica!!!”, remember that the US Navy has a history of being surprised and kicked in the nuts by other nations submarines.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        The europeans would have to have some backbone to do anything like that though and they do not. The entirety of Europe’s establishment are careerists, none of them are willing to do anything that risks their own lives.

        There isn’t a single spine between them. They are all middle managers in temperament.

      • Krono@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 days ago

        And history shows us what happens after the US Navy gets kicked in the nuts. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes millions.

  • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    8 days ago

    better taxes

    *the US will claim the right to tax you wherever you are in the world. Genuinely blows my mind how insanely punitive the US tax system is. We pay a lot in Europe, and social security taxes are incredibly regressive, but… we do get some modicum of social security out of it at least

  • Evilphd666 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    8 days ago

    Enhance…

    Take $500 billion and make 500,000 people millionaires.

    Enhance…

    Take the annual military budget around $1 Trillion, and make 1 million people millionaires.

    Enhance…

    Take one Nvidia and make 4 million people millionaires. stalin-comical-spoon

  • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    As much as Denmark sucks the inuit get some pretty nice stuff out of it - compared to the American offer at least.
    Independence would be better, as long as they have production and schools and universities, which Denmark hasn’t built, but has gotten better at, but not enough… Look I’m not trying to apologise for Denmark in any way. I just want to make it clear how shitty of an offer that is.

    Denmark transfers 672.3 million dollars to Greenlands home rule every year. This amount is tied to inflation. There’s also an additional 156 million each year to pay for police, law stuff and military. Which is because Greenland is a colony, I am aware, I am not saying “Denmark good” I am trying to illustrate how “offer bad”.

    There’s also a series of specific programmes for citizens of Greenland in need of aid [2] which, looking at us domestic policy, I doubt would be matched. Offer bad.

    Travelling to and from Greenland isn’t something you need to finance with your one-time payment of a million dollars, instead you can apply for a state grant

    Then there’s also the benefits all danish citizens get: Free healthcare (for now, seems like the liberals really want to kill it) free education (for now, too) and a (meagre) pay while you’re studying (partially now. You only get 4 years these days, fucking rats).

    Again not saying “Denmark good” but I am trying to say… They’re delusional? The people speaking about “purchasing” Greenland like it was a plot of land, have done no research, looked into nothing. Their ideas are so detached from reality, it kinda scares me. And they’re very chauvinistic too, like the whole “better taxes, better business, gets to be American” thing.

  • footfaults@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    8 days ago

    2.4T to buy Greenland? Yeah I’m sure the bond market is on board with that. There’s already signs that the bond market is shaky, so I’m sure this will totally make things better.

  • Beaver [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Oh, I totally believe that Greenlanders would be interested in $1 million each. I like imagining what I would do with a million. I like imagine what I would do with a pony. It’s very fun to imagine scenarios that will never happen.