Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What Trump is really doing to protect all the Americas financially and militarily. The dims don’t want you to understand. They support commie China

The current strategy is to show with facts why once Greenland is free of toothless Denmark and becomes deeply enmeshed with the US however that goal looks when it happens. It’s in Greenland’s best interest. We aren’t invading Panama, Mexica much less Canada Greenland. It’s all about common sense. Not being screwed financially and militarily re the canal we built and paid for and protected for decades. Undoing NAFTA and make safety work best for all the Americas staring with evicting China.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Evicting China? It's a big country with a lot of people. Where would it, and they, go? :-)
danielsnyder · 36-40, M
Evicting China from the Americas (western hemisphere) if that wasn’t clear. @ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@danielsnyder That's even less clear!

The government of the People's Republic of China used to accuse the US especially, of "imperialism" and "hegemony".

Pot calling kettle black, yes, as those adjectives fit the modern China very well indeed, but it had a point.
danielsnyder · 36-40, M
Your defense of Chinese commies tells thereaders the type of person you are. @ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@danielsnyder Your sneer might carry more weight ifg you read my message properly, for nowhere have I stated any support whatsover for the Communist Party and its government of China.

Far from it: I regard it as an evil, totally ruthless regime whose primary aims are to maintain its own power domestically, and turn their country from the second to the most powerful around the world.

Indeed, I even accused it thus:

... "imperialism" and "hegemony" .... fit the modern China very well indeed....
danielsnyder · 36-40, M
That’s better. If you hadn’t been so snarky from the get go you’d have looked better. @ArishMell
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@danielsnyder I was not trying to be "snarky" whatever that means. I did word it tongue-in-cheek but was trying to ask what "evicting China" (rather than "Chinese interests" perhaps) meant!

Though that still raises the question, how could the USA possibly evict Chinese interests from another country? Especially interests there legally and not harming the US. It can't, of course.
danielsnyder · 36-40, M
The. To harming the US part is where you’re off. China is in charge of ripping off the US for canal tolls. @ArishMell