RandomName

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@TomBombad1lCS @0x_PT0 @visegrad24 1. since the new treaty explicitly bans non-nato and non-partners from having bases in greenland.

2. Partners can also have bases.

3. This was already an effective veto the us had.

4. They could do that before.

5. 1951 and its ad-ons allowed this already.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@CCIE_24825 @HillCountryHero @0x_PT0 @visegrad24 1. The US had that ability before.

2. The US still has to ask, denmark and greenland just does not get a direct veto. If either of them disagree it goes to minister talks. The US cannot just plop down bases willy nilly.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@KevinBDD @HillCountryHero @0x_PT0 @visegrad24 1. The us already had broad veto power in effect. They used it to shut down 2 chinese investments.

2. It is basically the same agreement. All thats added is the unwritten rules that everyone played by anyways.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@JamesGardnerSay @jezscacuzz And that's exactly why they are joining the EU ;)

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@nicksortor Why lie? It is the exact same expiration date as the last treaty, just in new language. Is it permanent? Yes, but it also explicitly bans non-NATO states from having ANY military presence on the island... so... if NATO ceases to exist (end of the old treaty) it will ban the US.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@TomBombad1lCS @0x_PT0 @visegrad24 Or has actually read the old and new treaties. This is basically the same treaty, all it does is remove the formalities.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@HillCountryHero @0x_PT0 @visegrad24 1. It is perpetual, but it also bans non nato states from having a military presence, which means it is effectivly the same.

2. The US basically had a veto over investments anyways, and russia and china would have never gotten a bade either way.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@WhtTheActualFuk @Angry_Staffer It very much is bot outside nato. It explicitly stated that No non-NATO member can have any military bases, which effectivly means it is the same ad the last deal... this deal locks the US into NATO and automatically makes US bases illegal if they leave NATO

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@NLindhardt @CasparStefani @mrconfino At være imod folkemord, forbrydelser mod menneskeheden og krig er ikke en Dansk værdi?

Og hvor skal jeg flytte hen? Jeg er Dansk.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@Birdsong2424 @bokoen1 Ah yes, the famously socialist NATO...

Or perhabs you are reffering to the molotov-ribbentrop pact, which wasn't an alliance in any sense of the word.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@bokoen1 @SocDane (Med få undtagelser) har forførdeligheder på samvittigheden.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@bokoen1 @SocDane Pointen er, at hvis vi ikke kan adskille forfærdeligheder begået a en stat eller et regime (USSR, CCP, Britiske imperium, Belgien, Frankrig, USA) og så en ideologi hvor folkemord er en integral del a ideologien, så kan vi bare ikke snakke politik, eftersom alle ideologier-

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@oresundsbaron Ja. Jeg ville også fortrække at dk fik milliarder af dollars of handelsgoder fra usa, men heldigvis kysser vores ledere ikke nok røv på trump

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@TomTomKrus @tv2danmark @AlexVanopslagh Fordi de valgte de 3 personer rmed en reel chance for at blive statsminister.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@rpc_scandinavia @jakobjunker1 @jacob_feldborg "De eR Da MoDerAtE"

Come on, der er ringen verden hvor du reelt tror på det pladder.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@Cyrexis162174 @jakobjunker1 @jacob_feldborg Enhedlisten er også almindelige borgere. DF'ere køber in på nynazistiske konspirationsteorier og har tydelige forbindelser til pro-russiske partier rundt om i EU.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@oresundsbaron Så... når USA åbent siger at de vil støtte højrefløjspartier og hjælpe dem på alle mulige måder, wå er det fint. Men hvis Ukraine støøter kandidater der ikke holder med Rusland, så er de korrupte?

Make it make sense.

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@All_Right_Now2 @ksorbs The x-axis is economic or "social" politics.

The Y axis is the size of government

[RandomName @RandomName353]

@trumpvictory24 @ksorbs Not even close.

These are their results from previous elections
2011: 12.3%
2015: 21.1%
2019: 8.7%
2022: 2.6%
2026: 9.1%

This election is only a return to norm after their internal meltdown in 2022.