Interesting. It'd be stronger if you didn't make claims that just aren't true. For example:
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But you just started 3 weeks ago. So what you really meant is:
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I will have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But all in all inspiring. I am going to take a swing at my own executive assistant using opencode (with Claude under the hood).
"Why should the U.S. continue to have access to these bases, or receive support from allies’ naval assets, air forces, or even intelligence services, if it tries to take sovereign territory from a NATO member like Denmark? "
It doesn't seem to discuss Trump's "offer". Voting independence from Denmark is different from being given the option to join the United States.
As Chomsky would say "whenever there are multiple pictures, the darkest one tends to be closer to the truth". What if natural resources would be more expensive (for both US and EU) to buy if Greenland were independent, than if it were still half-colony of Denmark. Then EU and US would have a common interest in manipulating in the same direction the referendum you referenced (for independence). Both US and EU might have cheaper access to natural resources if the population votes no for independence. Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, to scare the population to stay subjugated (and enjoy imaginary protection from EU against imaginary threat from US).
his comment was not specific to Western nations, it would apply equally well to asian, african, south american, russian,northern, southern, ... nations, but you are right, he wouldn't treat Western nations with an exception, and that always makes the relevant population feel addressed, and this subjectively feels different, or being picked on with precision, but its just when a population feels addressed.
Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.
Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. To establish one, you first have to win a protracted civil war, likely between loyalist paramilitary groups like ICE, the standing US Army and regional defense paramilitaries that would spring up. The likely result of this is a stalemate that leads to secession into separate countries.
Why? Russia didn't have a protracted civil war between 2000-ish and now?
Isn't Trump busy replacing US Army leadership with those loyal to him? Why would Army and ICE be on opposite sides?
Seems MAGA just have to continue the present course and apply just enough pressure to the election system to keep "winning" half-credibly and autocracy is there in not too many years.
I mean they are already past pardoning those attacking congress for not accepting the election result.
It is just a gradual process which is well underway, at what point would California and Washington suddenly prop up a militia?
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But you just started 3 weeks ago. So what you really meant is:
> Three months later when someone asks "why did we switch from X to Y?", I will have the full rationale documented. Not just the decision, but the alternatives considered and why we rejected them.
But all in all inspiring. I am going to take a swing at my own executive assistant using opencode (with Claude under the hood).
reply