Do to fracking the U.S. Is now almost energy independent and is projected to be in the coming years. What would this mean for world essentially the U.S. Will be left off its leash

It means DEATH TO OPEC, BABY!!! Whooooooooop! Get in lads!

Hopefully an isolationist USA. Screw Europe. Screw the Middle East. Screw Russia and China. Trade with us and that's it.

Longtime, safe energy independence will come with core power, and even for the much longer time, windpower and sunpower.

But if it saves some OPEC countries from being bombed, so be it, I'm for fracking.

America first! #TrumpTrain

What if us just decided to stop protecting world trade

Economic isolationism is the best way to implode your own economy, and the world's as a consequence. There is no more place for mercantilism or barrier creations in the world. The last nation that does these kind of policies is North Korea, go see how well they're doing.

Even though we can say that an isolationist US would be a good thing, we don't need to go that far, we just need a non-screwed up US. Stop invading other countries and putting your noses into others internal affairs, and that's good enough.


That being said, energetic independence is good, but maybe try and be 100 percent clean energies, that'd be even better. No long term dependence and the world as a hole won't be destroyed bc of ppl burning fuel.

Edited 5/25/2016 02:17:43

Cut off foreign trade with the rest of the world? Hah, Hoover and FDR did that, and that aggravated the Great Depression while being a big cause of the Second World War.

fracking is bad

it creates artifical EQs

nuclear energy and solar is wat we should b spending on

Unless you mean not attacking China in the China sea, and not attacking Somali Coast Militias. Then you won't have much of a problem.

Americans aren't poor, only give funding to veterans who were drafted, and damn welfare to h**l.

If you're gonna spend hundreds of billions of dollars in something, it's better to spend it in clean energies/healthcare/education than wasting it in the military. That's a fact.

Americans don't live like folk in Syria or the Congo. They aren't poor.

Military veterans did a disservice to Americans by serving the government.

of course americans who live in poverty aren't "poor" when you compare them to uncivilized third world shitholes...

that doesnt mean that they aren't living shitty lives... they still starve and live in slummy conditions and often get sick

they are poor in relation to other well-off people in first world countries

Edited 5/25/2016 02:36:22

Trade with us and that's it.

Trade with us

Where are people getting the part where I said "economic isolationism?"

Edited 5/25/2016 02:39:24

of course americans who live in poverty aren't "poor" when you compare them to uncivilized third world shitholes...

that doesnt mean that they aren't living shitty lives... they still starve and live in slummy conditions and often get sick

I heard a good phrase to say what happens when Americans say they're poor: it's rich folk who don't have any problems, so they make up their own (f-ing) problems. There will always be someone in Poverty, but in Kinshasa, there are folk starving to death, and in New York, there are not. That's the big difference, right there.

Edited 5/25/2016 02:43:28

To people who say the least us should stop their empire and military spending, the importan parts of the military are the ones that don't fight which literally keep world trade going if the U.S. Went out of its military bases and stopped patrolling the seas there would be a depression

The US doesn't improve trade by having it's empire. It diminishes it. There's no place where America frees up trade.

Without the USA, China and Russia would conquer Asia and the Americas with their pseudocommunism and totalitarianism. Europe could fill in the USA but they'd be in another damn cold war with Unsoviet Russia

WTF are you talking about, the persian gulf runs because of the US what do you think stops russia from invading kiev