Greenland USA

[CriticalStinker]

Whether they want it may depend on how much economic support they need. Hypothetically they could lose their country while trying to attract enough investment to move away from a fishing-based economy.
It may also have a little to do with security, even Denmark's top general in the Arctic seems to think something needs to be done. But can it be the natives are so against mining because no one made them a good enough deal? The Alaskan natives accepted oil drilling. Maybe US management could significantly improve the natives' economic situation.
If they were willing to sell, Greenland would likely pay as well as cost. It is also likely to be good for all concerned: the Danish Greenlanders and the natives.
There are two issues, economic investment and security.
Should we have bought Afghanistan to sell the opium? No, not the same.
Did Bush II try to buy Iraq? Was he negotiating with Saddam to buy Iraq?
Would you say giving Venezuela a little help in getting Cuban interference out of their politics is the same as a war?
Can it be closing the border is what the housing market needs?

Russia has struggled with a non peer neighbor who was given hand me downs. They don't have a working aircraft carrier. i don't think they're going to be able to project over here any time soon. As for China, they've projected with belt and road (soft power).

My whole point on the other comparisons was when has the US hostile foreign policy benefited the average American post WWII? And even if we weren't hostile here, we're talking about printing 1 trillion dollars to buy something that would only benefit the corporations who go out there. 

Not to mention, no one gets to vote on this. There was this premise at the beginning of Trump's presidency that he had a mandate because he won popular, electoral, congress and senate. Yet now he's going back on his original platform, and bypassing congress and senate on a lot of the policy even though that's their constitutional powers. 

Congress didn't vote on Iran, and you can say he can strike for 60 days, I don't see a vote while we position for another strike. Or how about Venezuela where we were doing strikes since the summer, and we went into the country without congressional approval. Oil companies were notified before congress.

All of this from a base who said small federal government, pro state rights, no new wars, no regime change. But we see not only a strong federal government, but close to absolute power in the executive branch. And while people may support him, and his ever changing platform, he is going to be gone soon, and there will be someone else. Do we feel comfortable creating such a centralized power for an unknown quantity down the road? Given our track record I sure as hell don't. 

Not to mention, he's losing a lot of independents who helped swing him the election. There is a good chance that the left get's congress in a year, and not because they have anyone compelling or inspiring, but simply because they'll be a protest vote. That's really dangerous, it's someone not earning power, but simply being the only other option. Then they can reverse tariffs without any plan for how to make up for that revenue. That's why it was so messed up he was allowed to do this in the first place without the power of codifying it and making long term goals that had to be followed through with. We massively cut revenue on a bet that tariffs would work. They haven't even fully offset the cuts we made as it is.

But if all of this isn't clear to people, nothing I say will make it more clear. This is just the Right's Obama. They found someone that was a lightning rod, and people could get behind, but ultimately just does the same exact reckless policies of more conflict and bad fiscal policy. But I think a lot of people don't care because they're older, and they won't have to pay the price for it. Young people will get the bill for all the debt.