AB: Let’s be clear. We are dealing with a person who has lost touch with reality. His regard is only for himself. Plain and simple. Kareem looks to all as having made a mistake.

Those who voted, voted for what they thought was a sound selection of who should lead. I would like to think each selection was correct. Except, I do not. There are obvious flaws in Trump’s character which should have never been ignored. And yet, many voters accepted them leaving the real question as to why?

There is another issue to be brought forward. The numbers of people who did not vote. This did not help in the selection of which candidate was the better for the nation overall. Kareem calls it a voting mistake in the White House. I guess you could call it a mistake for those who voted for Trump. Then there are those who just did not vote.

Kareem . . .

~~~~~~~

It is kind of hard not to talk about our voting mistake in the White House. He lunges every which way on the same topics over and over again. One can not be certain whether he is on for it or not. I can not imagine what Denmark or Greenland are thinking. Given his dementia, I can not take him seriously and the targets of his current interests should not either. Sticking to a “no” or “no thank you” may be simple enough to sink into his brain. But it doesn’t. It’s on, its off, and seconds later it is on again.

And they thought claimed Biden would be problematic?

“There is Nothing Permanent Except Change” – by KAJ

That quote by Heraclitus is pertinent right about now

Kareem Takes on the News

Summary:

During a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump renewed his demand for control of Greenland while explicitly stating he “won’t use force” to acquire the Danish territory. Trump argued that “no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland, other than the United States” and called for “immediate negotiations” with European allies. He also criticized Denmark as “ungrateful” and suggested he could “envision paying a sum of money” for Greenland, though Denmark has made clear its territory is not for sale.

Then, the following day, he claimed (without any proof whatsoever) that he had worked out a deal, a great deal, the best deal of all time. A deal that would enable the U.S. to use Greenland in the most efficient way possible. And that he would reveal this greatest of all deals at some future, as yet to be determined, date.

My Take:

Every now and then, politics gives us a moment so strange you have to pause and ask, “Wait… are we really doing this?” That’s how it felt listening to Trump talk about Greenland (apparently, and contrary to all known maps, also known as Iceland) like it was a penthouse suite in Manhattan. Somewhere along the way, the conversation shifted from diplomacy to real‑estate lingo, as if sovereign territory were just another property listing. And when you start talking about a place like it’s a chunk of land with “strategic value,” you’re already signaling that the people who live there don’t matter in the equation.

But the people of Greenland do matter. All 57,000 of them, the vast majority indigenous Inuit. Their top official couldn’t have been clearer, 

“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale.” 

Yet that message somehow gets brushed aside. It’s as if the Greenlandic people are furniture to be rearranged instead of human beings with a home, a culture, and a voice.

The whole thing starts to feel like a scene from The Wizard of Oz. You hear these big declarations about national security and global necessity, but when you pull back the curtain, it’s just a guy with a real‑estate fixation and a very loud microphone. At least the Wizard had the decency to look embarrassed when he was exposed. Meanwhile, the people of Greenland are like Dorothy. They just want to live their lives and some booming voice keeps insisting he knows what’s best for them.

(This, by the way, never works…one country imposing “what’s best” on another. It turns out that almost every human on earth, if given a choice, prefers their chaos to your order.)

And then there’s the “gratitude” angle. Trump brings up the United States defending Denmark eighty years ago, but somehow forgets that Denmark lost more soldiers per capita than any NATO ally defending the U.S. after 9/11. That’s not memory, that’s selective storytelling. It’s a way of creating a sense of debt that conveniently supports whatever point you are trying to make right now. How do you talk about alliance loyalty from eight decades ago while ignoring the sacrifices your allies made for you just two decades ago?

This is where the deeper issue shows up. When you treat allies like tenants who owe you rent or, worse still, inanimate objects to be used as decor, the whole idea of partnership collapses. Instead of cooperation, you get something that looks a lot like a protection racket. Nice trade relationship you’ve got there, shame if something happened to it. It’s the kind of logic you’d expect from a mob show, not international diplomacy. And once that mindset takes hold, it doesn’t just disappear with the next administration, it becomes a precedent.

But maybe the most worrying part isn’t the real‑estate talk or the historical cherry picking. It’s the language. When a president casually says “sometimes you need a dictator” while making territorial demands on allies, that’s not just a throwaway line. That’s conditioning. Every time that kind of rhetoric goes unchallenged, the boundary of what’s “normal” shifts a little. Researchers who study democratic backsliding have been warning about this for years: democracies rarely collapse in one dramatic moment. They erode slowly, through the steady acceptance of things that once would’ve been unthinkable.

Trump may believe he’s negotiating some kind of brilliant deal. But if you look closely, it’s not a negotiation at all, it’s demolition. He’s weakening the very structures he claims to be strengthening. And really, what kind of deal burns down the building you’re trying to buy?