jerryskids

As I said, all you have is "Trump is a liar liar pants on fire!". Amazingly, you accuse me of backing away because I don't have a good defense, when I provided video which does exactly that. Except you say "no it doesn't," without offering any evidence to the contrary. Carry on.

It's good to know that Rusty, when caught trolling with crap data, dives deeper into his trans fantasy.

I provided a video and even pointed out the exact quote and timestamp of the statement by the Danish Foreign Minister, and you respond by throwing the gun with this diarrhea? I'll take the W I guess, but I had thought better of you and I'm sorry I wasted my time. Noted.

4D chess. Trump is negotiating trading Minnesota to Canada for a signed Rush Moving Pictures album sleeve and a large bag of Tim Horton's coffee beans. He doesn't want the confusion of an election ruining his deal.

Agreed!

Well hey, the POTUS says there was activity, you don't believe him. That's a pretty compelling case you make. I guess you can just say Lies$#@! for everything and we can save all future discussion. Well, except for the other thing I posted about how China has already tried to buy a now-defunct military base in China. Here is the Danish foreign minister, at the 0:25 mark, saying they share to some extent our concerns; "there is definitely a new security situation in the arctic and the high north." Immediately after is footage of Trump saying "If we don't go in, Russia will go in or China will go in, and there is nothing that Denmark could do about it." Let me know if you want to discuss or if you want to pop another TDS pill and pretend Trump wants to acquire Greenland to build Mar-a-Fjord-o

You are from Michigan, you probably eat a retard... Sanders Fudge! Just kidding, I get them from Costco all the time, they are nectar of the gods.

Huh? I've explained it, you just choose to ignore it. China as a global military threat is new. The Islamification of Europe is new. Trump has specifically discussed the China threat with Denmark, there are videos from both sides regarding it.

I wasn't saying Denmark had not provided the US anything, I was merely going by the statement you quoted. I'm confident that they've done things, like provide us land for the Space Force base, which count as reciprocal. You missed the point on China. China owning any land on Greenland is a concern for the US. With Denmark owning Greenland, the US doesn't control that decision. It is a geopolitical strategic reason for the US to own Greenland.

Sniffs bait, swims away...

You posted your treaty definition in response to a post that claimed that Denmark wanted the US to protect them and provide nothing in return. I was merely saying that such a contract would not hold up legally. Anyway, I don't recall your or other Lefties' responses to my earlier post about Denmark entertaining selling parts of Greenland to China a few years ago. Should that be a concern to the US?

AI answer but I don't feel like chasing the links. At most you could try to make a case for Man 2:

I've been saying some variation of this since KBJ couldn't define a woman, a whole video worth of people in the Matt Walsh documentary couldn't, lately the lawyer arguing before SCOTUS, and now this. The question is: why don't they say it? My theory is that any "qualified" answer is antithetical to the Progressive cause. It must be 100%. Recall back to gay marriage: for a while there was general consensus that it was OK, but just call it a "civil union." Nope. It had to be "marriage." No difference whatsoever. Eventually they got their way which is often the case, as conservatives said "fine, whatever, just STFU about it already." It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. We need to differentiate between men and women for medical and legal reasons at least. How will the Progressives reconcile that?

We don't know if there was any contact prior to the videos we see. We can determine that she didn't start to leave when the first officer told her to get out, and her wife yelled to drive only when the officer reached for the door handle. We'll never know if more words would have worked; my guess is not so much, your guess is that she would have agreed to move I guess? My question is more in the hypothetical; let's say beyond all belief she chooses not to move despite a request to move. What do the officers do then? I'm fine with prosecuting her, not because she was Un-American, but because she was violating the law.

is a treaty a contract? AI Overview Yes, a treaty is essentially a formal, legally binding contract or agreement between sovereign nations, must a contract benefit both parties? AI Overview Yes, a legally binding contract generally must have mutual benefit (consideration)