President Donald Trump has said the U.S. will revisit its stance on Greenland in the coming weeks.

Asked if he expected to take action on the territory, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday: “Let’s talk about Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine. We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.”

He added: “We need Greenland from a national security situation. It’s so strategic.”

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    🤷

    Even his most coherent quotes contradict themselves, and he talks shit all day long. And the phrasing “Greenland deadline” is a little too evocative for my taste, but clickbait is a must these days.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      yes, it’s not like actually already invaded a country and kidnapped its leader… I mean, stop exaggerating please

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        It sounds like it’s a deadline for Greenland, which sounds ominous, but really he just said “we’ll talk about it”. Damn I hate how the media sanewash Trump all the time. He’s babbling! Don’t report on it as if he said something of consequence.

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Plus, it sound slike some decision will be made then, when all he said was “let’s talk about Greenland then”.

        At best, it’s a deadline for him and his advisors, not for Greenland. Which is ludicrous anyhow.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          From what he actually said, it sounds like talks about a potential decision will begin then. That’s not at all what a deadline is.

          The way it was reported made it sound like a decision was already made, and actions would be taken by then. That’s not at all what he said though.

          There’s already plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize him, so I can’t stand when journalists distort things to make them seem even worse. It gives too much credence to the people defending him by framing all criticism as media spin.

          Things are already bad enough without reactionary sensationalism, so just focus on the facts without compromising journalistic integrity. Otherwise it’s just disinformation, which doesn’t help anyone. We’re supposed to be better than this.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Exactly, and that’s what the journalism should focus on. It detracts from the message when they give it a misleading spin. It’s already bad enough without the distortion of facts. That’s the point I’m trying to make.