I'm puzzled by that question.  When has it not mattered?

Why are you puzzled? No one cares about the ravenous spending habits of the federal government, except now that we're discussing strategic expansion I guess?

Now why would they care about Government spending habits when they have Trump to raise their skirts about? lolol

---

We have entered The White Trash era again

---

Again, cool story bro. Your position on Panama has no basis in reality.

---

Denmark have made a counterbid!

But the US is $36 Trillion in debt, which should reduce the price that Denmark would have to pay by quite a bit.

So now the national debt matters?

For some of us it always has been.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

So now the national debt matters?

For some of us it always has been.

I agree, it's just interesting in this context that it would preclude the purchase of Greenland should we be able to reach an agreement.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ooh, That's a bingo

Ones has to simply step off the golf course and into the downtown area of damn near any city in America to see this; specifically a homeless shelter, "tent city"or drug rehab center. One way to find the soldiers and the taxes to fight and fund the war is to annex a border territory.

What war?
Usually conscripts from recently annexed territories do not fight very well. You can go back and ask Hitler and Napoleon if you don't believe me.

The war we've been fighting ever since that guy said he wanted a wall; I've already told you the battlefields and where to find the POWs and casualties. We can finish it now or your kids can finish it later. Or it can finish all of us. Time to choose.

---

What war?
Usually conscripts from recently annexed territories do not fight very well. You can go back and ask Hitler and Napoleon if you don't believe me.

The war we've been fighting ever since that guy said he wanted a wall; I've already told you the battlefields and where to find the POWs and casualties. We can finish it now or your kids can finish it later. Or it can finish all of us. Time to choose.

I guess I don't remember you telling me any of that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My guess is the Panama Canal posturing is push back on China's encroachment in the region. 

Greenland is full of rare earth minerals and also presents a strategic location in the arctic region. 

The Canada statement was an obvious slap at Justin Trudeau.

Exactly. It's overly ambitious but ambitious nonetheless. Nothing wild about it at all really. It's not just China in South America trying to expand it's power. You also have Russia working closely in expanding it's power in Africa.

Yep. You start with the most seemingly outrageous position, and then settle for moderately outrageous. Not unlike negotiating to buy a house. You still get way more than expected.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I'm puzzled by that question.  When has it not mattered?

Why are you puzzled? No one cares about the ravenous spending habits of the federal government, except now that we're discussing strategic expansion I guess?

I care about our ravenous spending habits.  I've posted many times that I think the growing federal debt is the greatest threat this country is facing.  So don't say no one cares.  Many people care.   I wonder if Trump cares, though, if he's going to try buying enormous tracts of land from other countries.  I also wonder about his mental stability when he's talking about taking back the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, and buying Greenland, all of which are so far-fetched as to be laughable.  We need to be talking about cutting our spending, not buying more stuff, or starting a war in Central America.

---

For some of us it always has been.

I agree, it's just interesting in this context that it would preclude the purchase of Greenland should we be able to reach an agreement.

Do you actually think it is remotely possible Denmark would sell us Greenland?  What planet are you on?  
Besides, how much do you think it would cost?  How much would this purchase add to our federal debt?  
I can't believe some of you are treating this seriously.  This is laughable.  People around the world are either horrified or laughing their [BLEEP] off that we elected this clown to be President of the United States.

---

Why are you puzzled? No one cares about the ravenous spending habits of the federal government, except now that we're discussing strategic expansion I guess?

I care about our ravenous spending habits.  I've posted many times that I think the growing federal debt is the greatest threat this country is facing.  So don't say no one cares.  Many people care.   I wonder if Trump cares, though, if he's going to try buying enormous tracts of land from other countries.  I also wonder about his mental stability when he's talking about taking back the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, and buying Greenland, all of which are so far-fetched as to be laughable.  We need to be talking about cutting our spending, not buying more stuff, or starting a war in Central America.

---

I agree, it's just interesting in this context that it would preclude the purchase of Greenland should we be able to reach an agreement.

Do you actually think it is remotely possible Denmark would sell us Greenland?  What planet are you on?  
Besides, how much do you think it would cost?  How much would this purchase add to our federal debt?  
I can't believe some of you are treating this seriously.  This is laughable.  People around the world are either horrified or laughing their [BLEEP] off that we elected this clown to be President of the United States.

You are so backwards that you chew with the back of your head.. I think the people in this country, ya know, the one country that actually matters to us, had enough of your hate and discontent for one man/party that the majority of this country handed Trump an overwhelming victory with a mandate..

Maybe you should just move out of the country, dude.. It would be a win/win.. You wouldn't be here anymore and we don't have to listen to your beta male type of squeeling.

Trump is going to clean up the mess that you and the other jackasses on this board voted for in the last cycle..

---

Exactly. It's overly ambitious but ambitious nonetheless. Nothing wild about it at all really. It's not just China in South America trying to expand it's power. You also have Russia working closely in expanding it's power in Africa.

Yep. You start with the most seemingly outrageous position, and then settle for moderately outrageous. Not unlike negotiating to buy a house.  You still get way more than expected.

We already have an Air Force base in Canada and in a Space Force base in Greenland if that's what you're getting at.  Lol. 
They are allies. They want us to succeed. In our lifetimes, they have given us what we need, every time.
Even in the remote possibility that Russia invades Western Europe and conquers mainland Denmark, we obviously wouldn't turn over the rest of Danish territory to the Russians. Would do the same thing we did in World War II, when we prevented the Germans and Vichy France from grabbing Islands in the Caribbean.
This is not about national interest.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why are you puzzled? No one cares about the ravenous spending habits of the federal government, except now that we're discussing strategic expansion I guess?

I care about our ravenous spending habits.  I've posted many times that I think the growing federal debt is the greatest threat this country is facing.  So don't say no one cares.  Many people care.   I wonder if Trump cares, though, if he's going to try buying enormous tracts of land from other countries.  I also wonder about his mental stability when he's talking about taking back the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, and buying Greenland, all of which are so far-fetched as to be laughable.  We need to be talking about cutting our spending, not buying more stuff, or starting a war in Central America.

---

I agree, it's just interesting in this context that it would preclude the purchase of Greenland should we be able to reach an agreement.

Do you actually think it is remotely possible Denmark would sell us Greenland?  What planet are you on?  
Besides, how much do you think it would cost?  How much would this purchase add to our federal debt?  
I can't believe some of you are treating this seriously.  This is laughable.  People around the world are either horrified or laughing their [BLEEP] off that we elected this clown to be President of the United States.

I have no idea, has anyone asked? Made an offer? I'm just pointing out people are so calcified in their current circumstances that they reflexively shout down anything proposed simply because they don't like Trump. The world hasn't always been as it is and will not remain as it now is indefinitely.

---

Yep. You start with the most seemingly outrageous position, and then settle for moderately outrageous. Not unlike negotiating to buy a house.  You still get way more than expected.

We already have an Air Force base in Canada and in a Space Force base in Greenland if that's what you're getting at.  Lol. 
They are allies. They want us to succeed. In our lifetimes, they have given us what we need, every time.
Even in the remote possibility that Russia invades Western Europe and conquers mainland Denmark, we obviously wouldn't turn over the rest of Danish territory to the Russians. Would do the same thing we did in World War II, when we prevented the Germans and Vichy France from grabbing Islands in the Caribbean.
This is not about national interest.

That's great, how much are they paying us to do that?

And why do you assume that allies "want" us to succeed? Complete naivety on your part.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I care about our ravenous spending habits.  I've posted many times that I think the growing federal debt is the greatest threat this country is facing.  So don't say no one cares.  Many people care.   I wonder if Trump cares, though, if he's going to try buying enormous tracts of land from other countries.  I also wonder about his mental stability when he's talking about taking back the Panama Canal, annexing Canada, and buying Greenland, all of which are so far-fetched as to be laughable.  We need to be talking about cutting our spending, not buying more stuff, or starting a war in Central America.

---

Do you actually think it is remotely possible Denmark would sell us Greenland?  What planet are you on?  
Besides, how much do you think it would cost?  How much would this purchase add to our federal debt?  
I can't believe some of you are treating this seriously.  This is laughable.  People around the world are either horrified or laughing their [BLEEP] off that we elected this clown to be President of the United States.

I have no idea, has anyone asked? Made an offer? I'm just pointing out people are so calcified in their current circumstances that they reflexively shout down anything proposed simply because they don't like Trump. The world hasn't always been as it is and will not remain as it now is indefinitely.

---

We already have an Air Force base in Canada and in a Space Force base in Greenland if that's what you're getting at.  Lol. 
They are allies. They want us to succeed. In our lifetimes, they have given us what we need, every time.
Even in the remote possibility that Russia invades Western Europe and conquers mainland Denmark, we obviously wouldn't turn over the rest of Danish territory to the Russians. Would do the same thing we did in World War II, when we prevented the Germans and Vichy France from grabbing Islands in the Caribbean.
This is not about national interest.

That's great, how much are they paying us to do that?

And why do you assume that allies "want" us to succeed? Complete naivety on your part.

Has nothing to do with Trump.
I agree that there are things we need to change, and who changes them is unimportant.
We need to stop making pennies, nickels, and dollar bills. We need to design a dollar coin that is as light as a quarter but feels different in your pocket.
We need to stop changing our clocks twice a year.
We need to implement ranked choice Copeland method voting for Congress.
We need to have strict rules on district maps for Congress and state legislature, so strict that a computer can find the optimal set of district lines and no one can argue with it.
We need to re-write the books on prosecutorial ethics, so that there is a real presumption of innocence, and have judges who will enforce those ethics.
We need to have real tariffs against states that fail to reduce their CO2 output.
We need to eliminate barriers to building more homes in the places people want to live.

So, so many things we need.  So much calcification that needs to be sloughed off.  Don't care who does it.

But owning Greenland or the Panama canal simply isn't on the list.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

On my list.

Withdraw from Who. (World Health Organization)
Put the United Nations on notice. We will fund this organization on a per capita basis going forward. Rent for the building in New York is inclusive of this.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

I have no idea, has anyone asked? Made an offer? I'm just pointing out people are so calcified in their current circumstances that they reflexively shout down anything proposed simply because they don't like Trump. The world hasn't always been as it is and will not remain as it now is indefinitely.

---

That's great, how much are they paying us to do that?

And why do you assume that allies "want" us to succeed? Complete naivety on your part.

Has nothing to do with Trump.
I agree that there are things we need to change, and who changes them is unimportant.
We need to stop making pennies, nickels, and dollar bills. We need to design a dollar coin that is as light as a quarter but feels different in your pocket. - No
We need to stop changing our clocks twice a year. - No
We need to implement ranked choice Copeland method voting for Congress. - No
We need to have strict rules on district maps for Congress and state legislature, so strict that a computer can find the optimal set of district lines and no one can argue with it. - Maybe
We need to re-write the books on prosecutorial ethics, so that there is a real presumption of innocence, and have judges who will enforce those ethics. - Maybe
We need to have real tariffs against states that fail to reduce their CO2 output. - No
We need to eliminate barriers to building more homes in the places people want to live. - Yes.

So, so many things we need.  So much calcification that needs to be sloughed off.  Don't care who does it.

But owning Greenland or the Panama canal simply isn't on the list. - Maybe they are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You need to take away the power of the WEF and redo how lobbyists and politicians interact.

---

You need to take away the power of the WEF and redo how lobbyists and politicians interact.

WEF is a voluntary organization.  Politicians and lobbyists interact on a voluntary basis, although there are a lot of restrictions. 

What would you change about lobbying @and to what end?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have no idea, has anyone asked? Made an offer? I'm just pointing out people are so calcified in their current circumstances that they reflexively shout down anything proposed simply because they don't like Trump. The world hasn't always been as it is and will not remain as it now is indefinitely.

---

That's great, how much are they paying us to do that?

And why do you assume that allies "want" us to succeed? Complete naivety on your part.

Has nothing to do with Trump.
I agree that there are things we need to change, and who changes them is unimportant.  Few of those on the left echo this sentiment. 
We need to stop making pennies, nickels, and dollar bills. We need to design a dollar coin that is as light as a quarter but feels different in your pocket.  So, a three-coin system, dimes, quarters and the new dollar coin?  And you thought people were opposed to a metric conversion.  Besides, Biden has already given us a dollar that only carries the weight of a quarter!  (Sorry, couldn't resist)
We need to stop changing our clocks twice a year.  Why?  P.S. Not even in the top 1,000 priorities.
We need to implement ranked choice Copeland method voting for Congress.  Congress is a problem, but that's not the solution.
We need to have strict rules on district maps for Congress and state legislature, so strict that a computer can find the optimal set of district lines and no one can argue with it.  A computer can only find what it's programmed to find.  There will always be argument over anything and everything that potentially affects a party's power and influence.  Who's going to write the program establishing the search criteria? 
We need to re-write the books on prosecutorial ethics, so that there is a real presumption of innocence, and have judges who will enforce those ethics.  Prosecutors are as much of the problem as judges.  Politics need to be removed from the equation, but good luck with that.  It's a hot mess. 
We need to have real tariffs against states that fail to reduce their CO2 output.  How exactly are these states expected to reduce their respective outputs? 
We need to eliminate barriers to building more homes in the places people want to live.  Agreed, but the solution is in State and municipal zoning regulations, not the Federal government. 

So, so many things we need.  So much calcification that needs to be sloughed off.  Don't care who does it.

But owning Greenland or the Panama canal simply isn't on the list.  Not on your list maybe, but could that be your bias against the originator of the idea?  Greenland is rich in natural resources and could ultimately prove to be highly profitable.  Increased control over the Panama Canal would help stabilize shipping costs that are ultimately paid by American consumers.  Wouldn't lower costs be a good thing? 

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Has nothing to do with Trump.
I agree that there are things we need to change, and who changes them is unimportant.  Few of those on the left echo this sentiment. 
We need to stop making pennies, nickels, and dollar bills. We need to design a dollar coin that is as light as a quarter but feels different in your pocket.  So, a three-coin system, dimes, quarters and the new dollar coin?  And you thought people were opposed to a metric conversion.  Besides, Biden has already given us a dollar that only carries the weight of a quarter!  (Sorry, couldn't resist)
We need to stop changing our clocks twice a year.  Why?  P.S. Not even in the top 1,000 priorities.
We need to implement ranked choice Copeland method voting for Congress.  Congress is a problem, but that's not the solution.
We need to have strict rules on district maps for Congress and state legislature, so strict that a computer can find the optimal set of district lines and no one can argue with it.  A computer can only find what it's programmed to find.  There will always be argument over anything and everything that potentially affects a party's power and influence.  Who's going to write the program establishing the search criteria? 
We need to re-write the books on prosecutorial ethics, so that there is a real presumption of innocence, and have judges who will enforce those ethics.  Prosecutors are as much of the problem as judges.  Politics need to be removed from the equation, but good luck with that.  It's a hot mess. 
We need to have real tariffs against states that fail to reduce their CO2 output.  How exactly are these states expected to reduce their respective outputs? 
We need to eliminate barriers to building more homes in the places people want to live.  Agreed, but the solution is in State and municipal zoning regulations, not the Federal government. 

So, so many things we need.  So much calcification that needs to be sloughed off.  Don't care who does it.

But owning Greenland or the Panama canal simply isn't on the list.  Not on your list maybe, but could that be your bias against the originator of the idea?  Greenland is rich in natural resources and could ultimately prove to be highly profitable.  Increased control over the Panama Canal would help stabilize shipping costs that are ultimately paid by American consumers.  Wouldn't lower costs be a good thing? 

Greenland is not for sale and according to the Danish government, will never be for sale.  Besides, even if it was for sale, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars to buy it, and we can't float that much more debt.  So buying Greenland is impossible to anyone with half a brain.  And by the way, whatever happened to cutting spending?  Now Trump wants to spend 10, 20, 30 Trillion dollars?  

Then there's the idea of taking over the Panama Canal.  All Trump has done by floating that idea is unite all of Central and South America against us.  Trump says we need to keep out of foreign conflicts, but he would create a massive one if he tried to take back the Panama Canal.  So that's another idiotic idea. 

The Canal is off the table: Latin America closes ranks with Panama in face of Trump’s threats | International | EL PAÍS English

The intention of the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, to regain control of the Panama Canal was not only met with immediate rejection by the president of the Central American country, José Raúl Mulino, but also gave rise to a wave of far-reaching solidarity, from Mexico to Chile to Colombia. The response was practically unanimous: “The interoceanic route belongs to the Panamanians.” But the underlying argument was just as clear: the sovereignty of the territories in the region is not to be touched.

“Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent zone belongs to Panama and will continue to do so,” Mulino said

---

Greenland is not for sale and according to the Danish government, will never be for sale.  Besides, even if it was for sale, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars to buy it, and we can't float that much more debt.  So buying Greenland is impossible to anyone with half a brain.  And by the way, whatever happened to cutting spending?  Now Trump wants to spend 10, 20, 30 Trillion dollars?  

Then there's the idea of taking over the Panama Canal.  All Trump has done by floating that idea is unite all of Central and South America against us.  Trump says we need to keep out of foreign conflicts, but he would create a massive one if he tried to take back the Panama Canal.  So that's another idiotic idea. 

The Canal is off the table: Latin America closes ranks with Panama in face of Trump’s threats | International | EL PAÍS English

The intention of the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, to regain control of the Panama Canal was not only met with immediate rejection by the president of the Central American country, José Raúl Mulino, but also gave rise to a wave of far-reaching solidarity, from Mexico to Chile to Colombia. The response was practically unanimous: “The interoceanic route belongs to the Panamanians.” But the underlying argument was just as clear: the sovereignty of the territories in the region is not to be touched.

“Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent zone belongs to Panama and will continue to do so,” Mulino said

Everything is not for sale...until it is. Or as Confucius didn't say, "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Has nothing to do with Trump.
I agree that there are things we need to change, and who changes them is unimportant.  Few of those on the left echo this sentiment. 
We need to stop making pennies, nickels, and dollar bills. We need to design a dollar coin that is as light as a quarter but feels different in your pocket.  So, a three-coin system, dimes, quarters and the new dollar coin?  And you thought people were opposed to a metric conversion.  Besides, Biden has already given us a dollar that only carries the weight of a quarter!  (Sorry, couldn't resist)
We need to stop changing our clocks twice a year.  Why?  P.S. Not even in the top 1,000 priorities.
We need to implement ranked choice Copeland method voting for Congress.  Congress is a problem, but that's not the solution.
We need to have strict rules on district maps for Congress and state legislature, so strict that a computer can find the optimal set of district lines and no one can argue with it.  A computer can only find what it's programmed to find.  There will always be argument over anything and everything that potentially affects a party's power and influence.  Who's going to write the program establishing the search criteria? 
We need to re-write the books on prosecutorial ethics, so that there is a real presumption of innocence, and have judges who will enforce those ethics.  Prosecutors are as much of the problem as judges.  Politics need to be removed from the equation, but good luck with that.  It's a hot mess. 
We need to have real tariffs against states that fail to reduce their CO2 output.  How exactly are these states expected to reduce their respective outputs? 
We need to eliminate barriers to building more homes in the places people want to live.  Agreed, but the solution is in State and municipal zoning regulations, not the Federal government. 

So, so many things we need.  So much calcification that needs to be sloughed off.  Don't care who does it.

But owning Greenland or the Panama canal simply isn't on the list.  Not on your list maybe, but could that be your bias against the originator of the idea?  Greenland is rich in natural resources and could ultimately prove to be highly profitable.  Increased control over the Panama Canal would help stabilize shipping costs that are ultimately paid by American consumers.  Wouldn't lower costs be a good thing? 

Fine, we can keep nickels. And yes, inflation is the reason that we should change the coinage.

Changing clocks has real impacts on people's health and safety.  There are spikes in hospitalizations and auto accidents every time they are changed.

What solution do you propose to the problem of Congress?  The problem is they don't do enough and leave the executive and the judges too free to do whatever they want.  And Congress can't actually get things done without broad cooperation.  Even if only one party is voting yes, both of our parties have so many internal divisions now.  How do we get more members incentivized to cooperate with each other?

Correct, the computer would be programmed with rules similar to the rules that are already in many states constitutions, including ours.  It's just that the people that are supposed to follow the rules pretend not to understand them.  (1) Find any contiguous area where the majority is a minority that has been systematically excluded in the past.  Do not allow lines to cross this area unless the area already has more than enough population to control a district and the new line doesn't reduce the number of districts that this population could control. (2) Draw the remaining lines, following existing county and city boundaries as much as possible, creating districts with nearly equal populations. (3) Count up the lengths of all new lines drawn.  Do not count the lengths of lines following county and city boundaries.  (4) Repeat steps 2 and 3, creating as many new maps as possible.  The map with the shortest total length of new lines wins.

Who elects who and who appoints who is always a mess.  We can make a lot of progress with a simple rule change though.  "When they present their case, prosecutors are not allowed to talk about how badly the victim was hurt or how heinous the crime was, until the jury has ruled that the defendant actually committed the crime".  Call it the "save it for sentencing" rule. The jury needs to be narrowly focused only on the evidence connecting the defendant to the crime for the first stage of any trial.

I meant to say nations, not states.  There should never be tariffs between US states, the constitution forbids it.  I'm talking about how the EU has less CO2 generation per capita than China.  Therefore we should have a tariff that is higher on China and lower on the EU, and so forth.  It ends up punishing a lot of the countries Trump wants to punish anyways.

The federal government has ways to get states to comply.  Like how they made the drinking age 21.  It would be simple.  Don't adopt looser zoning regulations? You don't get access to federally backed mortgages. 

Denmark is in the EU.  Any natural resources they extract goes to the European common market and the tariffs between the US and the EU are low.

The Panama canal treaty requires them to charge every country the same amount per ton.  That amount must be pretty low already, considering how easily Chinese and Japanese and Korean goods end up at East coast ports.  Are we trying to help them make stuff even cheaper?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The cost per tonne for Canal access has increase something like 50% over the last 4 years. It's one of the drivers of inflation within the supply chain and one thing we can pressure to lower costs overall. You have seen enough of Trump that you should understand what all his talk is about by now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato