RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES> The last time the United States purchased land from Denmark, the sale included Jeffrey Epstein’s future notorious island — which has since been dubbed “Epstein Island” and “Pedophile Island.”
> The 1917 Treaty of the Danish West Indies saw what is now known as the US Virgin Islands bought by the United States for $25 million (roughly $633 million today), in exchange for, in part, accepting Danish sovereignty over Greenland.
OH, THE IMPLICATIONS!
RELEASE THE TRUMPSTEIN FILES TODAY. ALL OF THEM.
[0] https://nypost.com/2026/01/20/us-news/last-time-the-us-bough...
padjo•2w ago
Do ~40% of Americans really want their country to become a rampaging conqueror?
actionfromafar•2w ago
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46691632
ndsipa_pomu•2w ago
We truly are in the stupidest of timelines.
aebtebeten•2w ago
b) Military option at this point only requires multiple C-17s, 6 hours (or less), and (if we're lucky) a resignation or two?
asksomeoneelse•2w ago
Using war to divert unwanted attention away from domestic issues is a proven approach.
vruppert•2w ago
bigbadfeline•2w ago
Not quite, there's a method in the madness. This isn't new in the world of politics - nationalism and expansionist warmongering have always been used in approximately the same way - part distraction and part dog whistling.
Distraction from economic and security policies that aren't in the public interest - the prospect of looting dazzles the mind and makes it easy to utilize the population for concentrating the power in the hands of the looters.
At the same time, it's a dog-whistle to other closeted looters (aka the Putins of the world) signaling that world policing is now passe and pirating has become an honorable profession.
While the newly-hatched pirates salivate over each-other's land, reject all prior agreements as "not something written proving ownership" and proceed to kill each other, they provide more distraction and more justification for war and looting. Mission accomplished.
> Do ~40% of Americans really want their country to become a rampaging conqueror?
That percentage seems a bit low to me. Have you heard any rational arguments against that kind of policy? Something that spells it out, as I did above, together with the risks for the public it entails? Something in mainstream media outside of rare user comments?
Why would people object if no authoritative voice objects on rational grounds?