@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 5yrs agoActive 1 day ago

Should the United States acquire Greenland?

In August 2019, President Trump expressed interest in the U.S. acquiring Greenland. The U.S. government has long considered Greenland to be an important asset to American national security. In 1951 the U.S. and Denmark signed a treaty which established a U.S. air force base in northern Greenland 750 miles from the Arctic Circle. Greenland has a population of 56,000 and is a self-ruling part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland’s government runs its domestic policies and its foreign policy is handled by Denmark. The Danish government gives Greenland $590 million per year in subsidies which make up 60% of its annual budget. After President Trump expressed interest in Greenland’s ministry of foreign affairs said the island “was not for sale.”

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 9.4k America voters.

27%
Yes
73%
No
22%
Yes
62%
No
3%
Yes, Greenland is an important asset for U.S. national security
8%
No, the U.S. does not need to expand its global footprint at this time
3%
Yes, the U.S. should buy Greenland and mine it for natural resources
1%
No, and the U.S. should close its military base there
1%
No, and the U.S. should drastically reduce its global footprint

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 9.4k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 9.4k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B2RDK3R from Massachusetts  answered…1wk1W

No, but the U.S. should expand its military base there

 @B2N3YX8 from North Carolina  answered…2wks2W

No, the U.S. should strengthen partnerships with countries in the Arctic region.

 @B2LWRQN from Wisconsin  answered…2wks2W

No, the U.S shouldn't take land just for the sake of natural resources

  @CubbieBlue1010  from Arizona  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but only if the Greenlandic people consent to it

 @8RBQDDP  from Vermont  answered…3wks3W

No, we should instead bolster our arctic presence and interests, and collaborate with Greenland and Denmark to ensure the land is in good hands

 @B2HZGM6 from Indiana  answered…3wks3W

Focus on america first and not try to imperialise other places

 @B2HW9CS from Ohio  answered…3wks3W

It should be up to the people of Greenland if they want to join the U.S.

 @B2HK4FL from Arizona  answered…3wks3W

Only if the citizens of Greenland approve of becoming US citizens

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Greenland” news articles, updated frequently.

 @HarmoniousPonie from Indiana submitted…3wks3W

Russia, China Warn Trump Against Seizing Panama Canal

Russia warned President Trump on Tuesday against seizing the Panama Canal, after he reiterated his intent to take control of the strategic waterway in his second inaugural address Monday.“We expect that during the expected discussions between the leadership of Panama and US President Donald Trump on issues of control over the Panama Canal, which certainly falls within the sphere of their bilateral relations, the parties will respect the current international legal regime of this key waterway,” said Alexander Shchetinin, director of the Latin American Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, according to Russian state media outlet, TASS.“Russia has been a party to the protocol since 1988 and confirms its obligations to observe the permanent neutrality of the Panama Canal, advocating for keeping this international transit waterway safe and open.”Trump’s pledge to take control of the canal has been a central theme of his recent rhetoric, paired with expansionist designs on Greenland, a Danish overseas territory, and apparent tongue-in-cheek references to making Canada the “51st state.”“American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form, and that includes the United States Navy. And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal,” Trump said Monday.Panama has full control of the canal itself, but Hutchison Ports PPC, a Hong Kong-based company, controls two ports at either end of the canal. While Hutchison and CK Hutchison Holdings, its parent company, are not owned by the Chinese government, they are subject to the national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020.Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded Monday to Trump’s remarks by rejecting Trump’s vow to retake the canal, saying, it “is and will remain Panama’s and its administration will remain under Panamanian control with respect to its permanent neutrality.”

▲  412 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5 days5D

Congress Calls Trump's Gaza Plan "Bizarre And Incoherent"

Trump proposed unprecedented U.S. control of Gaza Strip during a White House press conference with Netanyahu, suggesting "long-term ownership" that could last 10-15 years.The plan calls for nearly two million Palestinian residents to permanently relocate to neighboring countries, marking a dramatic shift from decades of U.S. policy.Congressional leaders from both parties expressed skepticism, with even Trump ally Lindsey Graham calling the proposal "problematic."Middle East experts, including former Palestinian Authority advisor Khaled Elgindy, criticized the plan as "bizarre and incoherent."White House officials argue mass relocation is the only viable option and seek to convince Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Palestinians.The administration estimates Gaza reconstruction would take 10-15 years, far longer than the 3-5 years outlined in cease-fire agreements.The proposal lacks clear details on how to handle Palestinian resistance to relocation or potential U.S. military deployment.Saudi Arabia immediately rejected the plan, stating it wouldn't normalize ties with Israel without a clear path to Palestinian statehood.Trump expressed uncertainty about the current cease-fire's durability while presenting his proposal.The plan faces significant implementation challenges and could complicate other regional objectives, including Israel-Saudi normalization efforts.

▲  2421 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies