Subject: Re: war with Denmark or Panama??
Which political party supports mass, unchecked immigration? Or routinely has people with guest credentials and speaker invites to Davos?

Which political party has undermined the collective global response to Russian aggression in Europe? Or wants to reduce American dominance in the military theatre there?

Just because a political party holds a position that you believe is bad doesn't mean they don't believe in advancing American interests. They just might have a different theory on how best to advance those interests.

Nobody really wants to buy Greenland.

Trump does. He explored doing it in his first term. For the same reason that Harry Truman explored buying it back in the day, actually - like Alaska, it would be a significant resource for the country if we could get it done. The idea that it would be beneficial to the U.S. if Denmark ceded Greenland is a pretty smart one. Trump is just being an idiot and undermining U.S. interests in how he is approaching it.

Since it's not consistent with many folks' worldview to think that Trump could do something idiotic or that undermines U.S. interests, they imagine that there has to be some other reason - some other thing that's going on where Trump might actually be doing something clever. But Denmark is a very tiny country with almost no material security or economic impacts on the United States except for its control of Greenland. So there isn't anything there.

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.

Again, just not true. European defense spending in 2015 (before Trump) was $328 billion, compared to U.S. $596 expenditures globally. So it's dead certain that Europe was spending more to defend Europe than the U.S. was spending to defend Europe. The UK and France alone spent more than Russia's entire military expenditure (and above the 2% of their GDP, if you're wondering).