Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) |
Author: Dope1   😊 😞
Number: of 84349 
Subject: Re: war with Denmark or Panama??
Date: 01/08/25 7:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
Because they disagree that it is in America's interest to promote home grown fossil fuels production. They believe that climate change poses vast threats to U.S. interests, that the only way to arrest climate change is through global coordinated action, and that the only way to accomplish that global coordinated action is by the U.S. taking the lead in reducing fossil fuel production.

That's merely one example. Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration? Or routinely has people with guest credentials and speaker invites to Davos?

We could "afford" to continue our present tariff structure with Canada going forward. We can "afford" to continue to not own Greenland.

Nobody really wants to buy Greenland. On Canada's tariffs, what Trump is talking about is the current trade deficit between us and them.

Simply to recognize that rejecting Trump's vision of foreign policy doesn't mean putting America's interest "second," or whatever the flip side is to "America First."

The other side has yet to articulate a coherent vision/strategy/single goal of what America's national security posture should be other than "The opposite of what the Orange guy wants".

Here's an Outstanding metaphor for what the democrats think along these lines:

democrats.org - National security
Oops! We couldn't find the page you were looking for.
Don't worry, there's still plenty to do!

Donate Volunteer


LOL!

Hardly "all by ourselves."

Yes, mostly by ourselves. The European position on continental security is to defend Europe right down to the last Pole or American. That's why they all shat bricks when Putin invaded the Ukraine.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community