How do you view the Trump admin’s approach to securing this week’s Greenland agreement?

Necessary pressure for a good deal (16%) – "I don’t agree with most if the things this administration does, but I see the value in how it was approached. Just don’t ask me to admit it."

• "This is the way Trump handles every deal. But, it's why you hear so many people state that, after meeting him, they feel totally different about him, typically indicating a more positive experience than expected. My view is that Trump talks a lot of noise when speaking to the public, mostly in attempt to bring pressure, but when it's time to make a deal one on one, he's a very like-able, fair person. I love that the DONUT shows us thoughts from both sides of the aisle on these issues, but this poll just seems a bit forced. Like, "how can we put a negative spin, on this positive story/deal?" The deals done. It went well for all parties involved. That's it."

Too aggressive for a close ally (72%) – "Far too aggressive for any ally. The rhetoric seriously damaged the US's image in the world and broke international trust that's been developed over more than a century. Allies should not be wary of us as a potential threat."

• "I believe that Trump's consistent threats to "annex" or "acquire" Greenland leading up to this agreement are at the very least unprofessional and at most inexcusable. He did not have to make these threats to get his way, especially because of the United States' already existing allyship and military reach in Greenland."

"The people of Greenland have always been our friends and allies. There has never been a reason for the United States government to doubt that. The only thing that has changed is that Trump's threats have now caused resentment in the people of Greenland, Denmark and our NATO allies. No one trusts us anymore, and for good reason. We are seen as bullies, because we are bullies."

• "Threatening to annex Greenland, by military force was not "great Diplomacy": it was the actions of the schoolyard bully. And by his threats the US President the US directly threatened a NATO ally. And for what?"

"The agreement adds nothing really new and along the way showed that America will not honor past agreements."

• "Because we don’t need more aggression; we need men who will demonstrate restraint in the wielding of power, decency, and honorable behavior."

Mixed feelings (12%) – "This agreement could have occurred sooner with quiet diplomacy, instead of the bullying and threats Trump has babbled about for years. I have to think Denmark and Greenland took the position of worn-out parents of a child who won't stop whining to get what he wants, so it's easier to just give in. The US presence in Greenland will strengthen NATO somewhat, though I doubt if Trump gave that idea much thought. I do think he handed future presidents an Ace card to play with our position closer to the Arctic circle. Then again, he doesn't play the long game, he plays for the current news cycle."