smeenz

... followed by a less than subtle reminder that Greenland is protected by NATO.

It has captions, but here you go:

"I have a message for our American friends, and all others who are listening. Much is being said these days. Many accusations and many allegations have been made. And of course, we are open to criticism, but let me be completely honest - we do not appreciate the tone in which it is being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies. And I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies. We respect that the United States needs a greater military presense in Greenland, as Vice President Vance mentioned this evening. We - Denmark and Greenland - are very much open to discussing this with you, with an open mind. We still have the defence agreement from 1951; it offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland, if that is what you wish, then let us discuss it. In 1945, The United States had 17 bases and military installations in Greenland with thousands of soldiers. Today, only one American base is left - the one VP Vance visited a few hours ago, and something like 200 soldiers. We can do more. Much more, within the framework we have today. Let us make use of that, and let's do it together. The VP also stated that Denmark has done too little in the Arctic. The other day, he said the United States has also done too little, and the fact is that we have all been harvesting the peace dividend. We all acted on the assumption that the Arctic was and should be a low tension area. But that time is over. Status quo is not an option, and that is why we have stepped up as well, with a billion dollar investment in Arctic security just a few weeks ago. An investment that will provide more drones, more ships, more personnel, and more will come later this year. And let us not forget - Greenland is part of NATO. Today, NATO's security guarantee also covers Greenland. "

Yes, but that assumes that a military presence for "security reasons" is genuinely what trump/putin wants here, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if what they're really after is access to the minerals underneath the ice sheet (estimated to contain up to 25% of the global reserves of rare earth minerals), just a soon as it melts, and trump is doing everything he can to make it melt more quickly. He's also extremely anxious to get control of Ukraine's minerals, so it would be consistent for him to be after them in Greenland too.

*further

I think you mean Bad putin and Worse putin. Neither of them are good.

It's the MAGA way.. they base their self worth on how much the people they hate are suffering.

The problem with taxing the super rich is that their weath isn't in the form of taxable income, it's mostly in the form of stock, and doesn't become cash until it is sold. Selling stock, especially if the CEO is the selling lots of stock, causes the value of the stock to decrease, so they don't like to sell it at all. What billionaires do to pay for their day to day expenses is to take out loans, using their stock as collateral on that loan. No bank is going to deny a loan backed by Tesla stock, or space-x stock.. that's guaranteed interest for them with basically no risk. The value of the stock them increases over time, more than the interest payments do, and then they pay it back, coming out financially better than they were when they took out the loan. The only way that billionaires could really be taxed is if the government was to tax them on the value of all stock that is held at the start of the tax year, and not just when it is sold. Some countries do this, I don't think (?) the USA does.

It's by design.. the same group of people think that tarriffs are paid by foreign companies. Keeping voters ignorant is a key part of their strategy. Remember that trump once said "I love the poorly educated"

Depends if you're rich and white, or not.