0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A year ago, the Panicans said that Trump was full of shite
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:09 pm to BoomerandSooner
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:09 pm to BoomerandSooner
quote:
You should go to Greenland to investigate.
SFP is currently investigating possible lynchings with his SPLC colleagues
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:09 pm to stuntman
You can’t question anything. If you do, panican.
FakenewsTech is a little bit retarded though, I wouldn’t put much stock in anything he posts.
FakenewsTech is a little bit retarded though, I wouldn’t put much stock in anything he posts.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:14 pm to FLTech
He keeps winning. Amazing
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:15 pm to stuntman
quote:
Legitimately asking this; What qualifies one as a "panican"?
“I voted for Trump three times, but ….”
“I really like his policies, but REEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! MEAN TWEETS!!!!!!”
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:16 pm to rrboy
quote:
He keeps winning
It’s a solid agreement for the US. No argument there.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:20 pm to FLTech
quote:
A year ago, the Panicans said that Trump was full of shite
FLTech
and here we are today.
Another Panican loss.
No idea what you're referencing, what specifically were the Panicans saying one year ago?
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:39 pm to stuntman
quote:
Legitimately asking this; What qualifies one as a "panican"?
Someone who naively expected Trump to keep most of his campaign promises.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:43 pm to FLTech
I don't think anyone was panican about Greenland.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:44 pm to Bass Tiger
Do you really expect your question to be answered?
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:46 pm to Apache
quote:
How about posting some of the statements by these so called "Panicans" 1 year ago? Starting this thread without including their comments is pretty dumb.
No problem, I created a list of them:
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:47 pm to FLTech
Glad to see you guys have come around and invested in NATO's future and our perpetual membership in it...
That's awesome! Really puts the focus on all Trump's done to get all the members to 3%. Long live NATO!! Tell Putin to STNTD!
quote:
The deal, which has no expiration date, also blocks non-NATO countries from establishing bases on the island without agreement from the parties. The agreement persists even if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark. It intensifies screening for foreign investment from non-NATO and non-European Union members,
That's awesome! Really puts the focus on all Trump's done to get all the members to 3%. Long live NATO!! Tell Putin to STNTD!
This post was edited on 9/22/26 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:48 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:I don't remember saying anything about Greenland other than the fact that US had the power by international agreement to place military bases and harvest natural minerals
No idea what you're referencing, what specifically were the Panicans saying one year ago?
This was always going to happen the posturing was just l theater
Like a wrestler Trump was just boasting and posturing about something that was always going to happen , in simple minded people think it's important because he's talking about it and then when it happens they think oh he did such a great thing because they're not very smart
poor little fltik is just making stuff up for the month and a half he has left here
This post was edited on 9/22/26 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 9/22/26 at 4:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What did Trump say a year ago about Greenland where people said he was full of shite?
THAT is the important question.
I'm looking for specifics that mirror this agreement.
Good luck in your search for specifics from the jokers on this site.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:00 pm to FLTech
Have the panicans ever been right about anythibg
Ivorycuckeye was hoping this didnt happen
Ivorycuckeye was hoping this didnt happen
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:09 pm to MSMHater
The NeoCons never went away
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:21 pm to Bieber_Hole69
Only things wrong more than a panican is a broken clock and meteorologist.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:27 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Have the panicans ever been right about anythibg
Ivorycuckeye was hoping this didnt happen
I don't think this gets said enough to you on here:
frick you, SDV.
I never said I didn't want it to go through. I said it sounded like a good deal. I hoped it went through. It still has to be approved by the Danish Parliament.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:38 pm to FLTech
It's the Art of the Deal on display. Start with something grandiose and eventually get what you wanted. This is a big deal. I copied this from Gemini.
Inclusion of Greenland as a Direct Signatory: Unlike the 1951 pact—which was strictly a bilateral agreement between Washington and Copenhagen—this new agreement formally includes the government of Greenland as an equal party, respecting its status and right to self-determination.
?Expansion of U.S. Military Presence: The deal allows for the establishment of new U.S. defense areas and sites (including provisions for new bases and unmanned installations) to counter growing security challenges in the Arctic.
?Veto Power Over Adversaries and Investments: The agreement explicitly prohibits non-NATO countries or U.S. adversaries from building military installations or conducting sensitive infrastructure and strategic investments in Greenland without express U.S. approval.
?Investment Screening & Economic Safeguards: It institutes formalized frameworks regarding foreign direct investment (FDI) screening to block third-party strategic encroachment (such as past Chinese overtures regarding local ports and infrastructure). At the same time, it includes provisions to maximize local economic benefits and contract opportunities for Greenlandic enterprises.
?Formalizing the "Permanent" Scope: The Trump administration heavily emphasized the long-term, enduring nature of the security commitments to ensure the U.S. maintains an active, unbroken security role in the High North.
Inclusion of Greenland as a Direct Signatory: Unlike the 1951 pact—which was strictly a bilateral agreement between Washington and Copenhagen—this new agreement formally includes the government of Greenland as an equal party, respecting its status and right to self-determination.
?Expansion of U.S. Military Presence: The deal allows for the establishment of new U.S. defense areas and sites (including provisions for new bases and unmanned installations) to counter growing security challenges in the Arctic.
?Veto Power Over Adversaries and Investments: The agreement explicitly prohibits non-NATO countries or U.S. adversaries from building military installations or conducting sensitive infrastructure and strategic investments in Greenland without express U.S. approval.
?Investment Screening & Economic Safeguards: It institutes formalized frameworks regarding foreign direct investment (FDI) screening to block third-party strategic encroachment (such as past Chinese overtures regarding local ports and infrastructure). At the same time, it includes provisions to maximize local economic benefits and contract opportunities for Greenlandic enterprises.
?Formalizing the "Permanent" Scope: The Trump administration heavily emphasized the long-term, enduring nature of the security commitments to ensure the U.S. maintains an active, unbroken security role in the High North.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:39 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Have the panicans ever been right about anythibg
Ivorycuckeye was hoping this didnt happen
Just to further amplify how wrong SDV almost always is, here's what I wrote on 9/19/26:
quote:
From our side, if the deal is just considered a modification of the current, permanent 1951 agreement, then the President has the authority to sign on his own.
If the deal fundamentally changes things, it will be considered a treaty. It would have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the US Senate.
So, the President, legally, is going to claim that this is just a modification to the 1951 agreement."
Well, what do you know, look at the formal title of the Agreement (turns out it WAS just a modification of the 1951 Agreement):
quote:
Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Together With the Government of Greenland to Amend and Supplement the Agreement of 27 April 1951 … on the Defense of Greenland.
Posted on 9/22/26 at 5:40 pm to stuntman
anyone that doesn't agree with the local trump cult.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News