Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (325356)	3/7/2025 2:53:45 PM
From: Wharf Rat	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway rdkflorida2 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357889

"Protecting the United States, first and foremost, but an alliance that would secure the entire region, would be my guess" Canada and Greenland are in NATO, so they are already secure. Panama is a signatory to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance - Wikipedia, so it is also protected.

To: i-node who wrote (325356)	3/7/2025 3:08:07 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357889

I'm not sure why there is so much trouble grasping the concepts here. Because they are not intuitively obvious and nobody ever explains them. They just paraphrase, if anything at all. >> cannot understand the slightest idea of what Trump is suggesting with all this. So, your alleged explanation is " protecting the United States?" If I ask again will you say "safeguard the US" followed by secure the US? How? An alliance? How does dumping our longstanding allies in favor with an alliance with Russia protect the US? How is that a correction? A correction that protects the US? From what? How? I repeat: it's not intuitively obvious and nobody explains.