whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism. The only colonies we had we got in a war Spain started that hand nothing to do with territorial footprint. And 50 years later, we were out of the colony business. We either make 'em a state or cut 'em loose.

---

Puerto Rico....Guam....Northern mariana islands

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism.

---

Ridiculous



Panama, Cuba , Columbia , Philippines, Iceland, Laos, China, Nicaragua , Dominican Republic, Haiti, Hawaii, and other countries been impacted at one time or another by US imperialism.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism. The only colonies we had we got in a war Spain started that hand nothing to do with territorial footprint.

---

Immerwahr at Northwestern claims we do….its just hidden


[Since the mid-twentieth century, the name of the game has been "domination without annexation." America has aspired toward a global hegemony built on technological prowess, linguistic supremacy, and increased military presence. In Immerwahr's telling, the military has been particularly crucial to the enterprise. The US strategy of establishing foreign military bases (at least eight hundred by 2019) has replaced the necessity and expense of building actual colonies.]

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

Malbec said:

---

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

---

Much of academia is paid for by the government

And I don't just mean by Federal backed student loans

Literally dig through the Federal Funding each year and there are grants to study "racism" and the like

The people who benefit the most from the current American system are the ones who most want to tear it down

I have no explanation for the phenomena

Since we are talking canals....

Redbrickbear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

---

Much of academia is paid for by the government

And I don't just mean by Federal backed student loans

Literally dig through the Federal Funding each year and there are grants to study "racism" and the like

The people who benefit the most from the current American system are the ones who most want to tear it down

I have no explanation for the phenomena

---

We've had this bi-weekly coffee group of 6 BU guys for more than 7 years now. Three of the group are professors; two at public universities and one at a private institution. The guys at the state university system schools have spoken repeatedly about the startling number of professors on staff earning near mid-six figure salaries who don't teach a single class, and the equal number who teach two or less classes per term. They refer to them as "deadbeat fellows" and "professorial pilferers."

I'm amused at the usual suspects that get their panties in a wad every time trump says something.

We have been down this road before.

Everything for him in foreign policy is a negotiation. His starting point is usually something outrageous that he trumpets loudly and is amplified by an unhinged media.

In the end he winds up with a better deal for the country.

He is not going to invade Panama or Greenland.

When did the idea of Canada becoming a state become part of the agenda?

They’re literally a sovereign nation.

— Reef Insights (@ReefInsights) December 26, 2024

He's trolling Trudeau.

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.
We did in WWII = basing rights from a Danish govt. in exile. (to prevent the Nazis from doing so).

You are, not atypically, poorly informed on current events. Greenland is an semi-autonomous region of Denmark, with an independence movement which has (depending on dates & wording of the questions) plus/minus 2/3rd support. If public statements are any indication, Denmark appears to have an agnostic position on the matter. They'd prefer to keep Greenland but are not going to fight the Greenlanders over the question. Public discourse on the topic includes proposed timelines & target dates for independence.

An independent Greenland would do what any state would do - seek to "secure a better peace," which for Greenland would mean a better subsidy from a mother country, or better overall prospects for development from one or more countries. Who might provide that? We know YOU will throw the proverbial hissy fit if we extend a single stinkin' dollar of aid to them, while China and Russia will not hesitate to spend bigly.

So, what will you do when Russia signs a military basing agreement with a fledgling Greenland government? Greenland is a dagger pointed at the lines of commo/supply between North America and Europe, WITHIN Nato.
What's it worth to you to own Greenland rather than have to go to war over it, or let Russia dictate terms to us and/or our trading partners.? (the analogue here would be Nato carving out an alliance with Kazakhstan, putting military bases on the lines of commo between Russia's key allies - China & Iran.) Do you think those states would take preventative action to forestall future crises? Wouldn't buying Greenland put an end to the question of whether or not we have to spend billions a year just to keep the Russians & Chinese out?

There is a reason Trump has spoken out on this........

Is this playing in your head as you read this thread?

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism. The only colonies we had we got in a war Spain started that hand nothing to do with territorial footprint. And 50 years later, we were out of the colony business. We either make 'em a state or cut 'em loose. If we were in the empire business, everyone in Mexico would be speaking English and Trudeau would be the 23rd Governor of Canada instead of his current job.

The Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly worked out OK. Cash payments. No wars started or anything.
Why would purchasing Greenland and/or Panama be any different?
Wouldn't it be more moral to buy them than have to send our armies in to take them away from an adversary?

Have you noticed that since this issue stirred up, Denmark has announced plans to increase defense spending on Greenland? (.....do you think that might have been the goal all along....?)

---

A brief history lesson:
The Spanish-American War was most definitely was imperialism. The U.S. gained the Philippines, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, Gitmo, etc. Spain did not start the war, the U.S. declared war after the USS Maine exploded and sank in Havana Harbor, killing Americans. At the time it was blamed on a mine, but there never was any clear evil egg nice. It was most likely from an accident in the powder magazine.

We also gained numerous islands in the Pacific after defeating Japan in WWII. Note that we still possess all of those territories except the Philippines which was granted independence in the late 1940s.

As for Canada, the US foolishly tried to take the land in hit the Revolutionary War & the War of 1812, failing both times. It turns out we could not successfully seize it and the locals were not interested anyway. (The burning of Washington in 1814 was partly in response for our burning of Toronto earlier.)

Most of American territory was purchased: Louisiana (1803), Florida (1819), the Mexican Cession after the Mexican-American War (1848), Alaska (1867).

I think you're completely correct on the last point: Trump probably is not as interested in taking over Greenland or Canada as he is interested in forcing our allies to live up to their obligations. He used similar tactics before with success and they appear to be working now. With Canada, it helps that Trudeau will soon be out. Good riddance!

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Neither is the US. See my post above.

KaiBear said:

---

Liteitup said:

---

So what you guys are saying is that any treaty the US signed in the past is worthless if DJT disapproves?

---

Suspect not one American in a thousand currently understands why President elect Trump is so pissed off about the China-Panama Canal situation.

So maybe everyone should just relax until he actually gets inaugurated next month.

In the meantime our noble and completely unbiased legacy media will provide clear and concise explanations of the situation.

---

Nah. We gots all the experts right here. They can also explain the virtues of mRNA technology coursing their veins as well as how man made cooling i mean warming is happening and how to fix it with your $

Just listen and learn.

Also don't forget how they knew Putin elected trump and Orange man got peed on by obamas hookers (male or female is still debated to this day)

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

I thought Globalism was a NeoCon trait?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

I thought Globalism was a NeoCon trait?

Guess it is ok to be take other Nations if Trump wants it... Really, it is not Globalism, more like Imperialism. Colonies? There's a concept...

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When did the idea of Canada becoming a state become part of the agenda?

They’re literally a sovereign nation.

— Reef Insights (@ReefInsights) December 26, 2024

---

Texas was also a sovereign nation that realized the benefits of joining the Union far outweighed its "Independence".

Redbrickbear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

---

Much of academia is paid for by the government

And I don't just mean by Federal backed student loans

Literally dig through the Federal Funding each year and there are grants to study "racism" and the like

The people who benefit the most from the current American system are the ones who most want to tear it down

I have no explanation for the phenomena

---

No one benefitted more from the transatlantic slave trade that 21st bleks in the U.S ... and know one acts more entitled because of it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

---

I didn't say it wasn't a MAGA issue. I was actually agreeing with you. I know you are conditioned to think I am not agreeing with a MAGA idea, but I am lock step on this one. Not all MAGA ideas are bad, right now just the cronyism is irking me.

As for territory, we better do a better job of managing it than we have in Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Guam is pretty good, I did some work there once. They are close enough to Asia to value the US...

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

---

I didn't say it wasn't a MAGA issue. I was actually agreeing with you. I know you are conditioned to think I am not agreeing with a MAGA idea, but I am lock step on this one. Not all MAGA ideas are bad, right now just the cronyism is irking me.

As for territory, we better do a better job of managing it than we have in Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Guam is pretty good, I did some work there once. They are close enough to Asia to value the US...

---

the cronyism argument is very, very flimsy. Musk and Trump are the furthest thing from cronies. Never done business together. Barely knew one another until Trump got shot. Musk actually supported mostly Democrats and all of Trump's opponents until this election. What part of a guy crossing the aisle (for the right reasons) makes him a crony?

You just don't like the idea of a businessman having a say in oversight of bureaucrats. Reagan did exactly what Trump has done - appointed a well-respected entrepreneur to a commission to streamline a bloated bureaucracy.

---

Who? Who did Reagan appoint that came out in the newspaper and threatened Congressmen who didn't vote his way? Who did Reagan appoint that was getting billions of dollars in Federal Grants and then given the authority to determine what went forward and what didn't?

If you want to look at a President that commented on this type of thing, Eisenhower. Beware the military industrial complex, just replace military with tech...

whiterock said:

---

politics is fun again

We are so back!!! pic.twitter.com/PvybVULeAz

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) December 24, 2024

---

Take Mexico too. It would shrink our border and make it easier to control.

Van Halen - Panama (Official Music Video)



I can't get these video links to work but you get the idea...

ScottS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

politics is fun again

We are so back!!! pic.twitter.com/PvybVULeAz

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) December 24, 2024

---

Take Mexico too. It would shrink our border and make it easier to control.

---

President Polk is smiling down from Heaven

Polk is the most underrated president in US history.

Probably accomplished more than any one term president.

( He insisted on serving only one term )

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

---

I didn't say it wasn't a MAGA issue. I was actually agreeing with you. I know you are conditioned to think I am not agreeing with a MAGA idea, but I am lock step on this one. Not all MAGA ideas are bad, right now just the cronyism is irking me.

As for territory, we better do a better job of managing it than we have in Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Guam is pretty good, I did some work there once. They are close enough to Asia to value the US...

---

the cronyism argument is very, very flimsy. Musk and Trump are the furthest thing from cronies. Never done business together. Barely knew one another until Trump got shot. Musk actually supported mostly Democrats and all of Trump's opponents until this election. What part of a guy crossing the aisle (for the right reasons) makes him a crony?

You just don't like the idea of a businessman having a say in oversight of bureaucrats. Reagan did exactly what Trump has done - appointed a well-respected entrepreneur to a commission to streamline a bloated bureaucracy.

---

Who? Who did Reagan appoint that came out in the newspaper and threatened Congressmen who didn't vote his way? Who did Reagan appoint that was getting billions of dollars in Federal Grants and then given the authority to determine what went forward and what didn't?

If you want to look at a President that commented on this type of thing, Eisenhower. Beware the military industrial complex, just replace military with tech...

---

Reagan appointed the Grace Commission to look for ways to cut regulations and by extension the size of government. They did eliminate a lot of regulations. Size of government not so much.. J. Peter Grace was a Republican donor.

Nothing remotely inappropriate about having one of the most famous entrepreneurs in history study and make recommendations about regulations. Also, nothing remotely remarkable about donors threatening candidates with primary challenges. I happens at every level of government. I can think of several examples right here in Waco Tx for federal, state, local govt.

We know you like bureaucrats more than businessmen, but please stop shouting at the sky. You'll get a crick in your neck.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

---

I didn't say it wasn't a MAGA issue. I was actually agreeing with you. I know you are conditioned to think I am not agreeing with a MAGA idea, but I am lock step on this one. Not all MAGA ideas are bad, right now just the cronyism is irking me.

As for territory, we better do a better job of managing it than we have in Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Guam is pretty good, I did some work there once. They are close enough to Asia to value the US...

---

the cronyism argument is very, very flimsy. Musk and Trump are the furthest thing from cronies. Never done business together. Barely knew one another until Trump got shot. Musk actually supported mostly Democrats and all of Trump's opponents until this election. What part of a guy crossing the aisle (for the right reasons) makes him a crony?

You just don't like the idea of a businessman having a say in oversight of bureaucrats. Reagan did exactly what Trump has done - appointed a well-respected entrepreneur to a commission to streamline a bloated bureaucracy.

---

Who? Who did Reagan appoint that came out in the newspaper and threatened Congressmen who didn't vote his way? Who did Reagan appoint that was getting billions of dollars in Federal Grants and then given the authority to determine what went forward and what didn't?

If you want to look at a President that commented on this type of thing, Eisenhower. Beware the military industrial complex, just replace military with tech...

---

Reagan appointed the Grace Commission to look for ways to cut regulations and by extension the size of government. They did eliminate a lot of regulations. Size of government not so much.. J. Peter Grace was a Republican donor.

Nothing remotely inappropriate about having one of the most famous entrepreneurs in history study and make recommendations about regulations. Also, nothing remotely remarkable about donors threatening candidates with primary challenges. I happens at every level of government. I can think of several examples right here in Waco Tx for federal, state, local govt.

We know you like bureaucrats more than businessmen, but please stop shouting at the sky. You'll get a crick in your neck.

---

you keep missing the point, this is not the Grace Commission, which created a report submitted to GAO. Grace Commission was to find waste to support a reduced income tax rate. This is not, that. In addition, they ended up double counting. But, that is not what is at issue here, just another misdirection.

I have no problem with DOGE submitting findings, I have said from the beginning it has to be vetted and it cannot just be based on Elon's wants and Vivek's perceptions. But auditing and forcing justifications is not a bad thing based on facts, all facts not just what you want. You seem good with just doing what Elon says.

Peter Grace did not openly threaten Congress in the media to get his way. THAT is the biggest problem I see. This is not about businessmen giving advice to the Executive Branch when asked, that has been part of Governing since Washington. It is the public threatening of elected officials, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. Trump now has several occasions under his belt showing he does not respect the other Branches of Government, Jan 6th speech (said speech, not riot) and Musk threatening Congress before a vote. You really want to bring the whole thing down, play into China's hand and become a Banana Republic keep going with Musk pullng a public Soros.

I am either shocked I have to explain this to you a CIA vet or you know and are good blowing the whole thing up. This is how PsyOps start deteriorating other Governments using the media, publicly (not privately) threatening officals on votes, and brow beating those that disagree. Keep in mind, it is not the ones that totally disagree that are targeted, it is the ones that in the same camp but are calling things out when they push or cross the lines. Those are the real threats. Tell me I am wrong...

Yelling at the sky??? What the hell else is a political message board at your alma matta for? Of course we are discussing things we disagree with at length. If you want a circle jerk go to the pay Football Board.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be

---

So shallow on so many levels.

1) Whether they can or not is irrelevant. If THEY think they can, they will try. When they do try, someone has to stop them. Stopping them is invariably more expensive (and risky) than deterring them.
(see Ukraine).

2) Russia thinks they should own/control everything east of Stettin. Always have. Always try. Today is just the most recent incarnation. They will keep pushing until they are knocked flat on their ass. History is very, very clear on that.

3) Whether or not a hostile power is motivated or able to take something of importance to you TODAY or not is not terribly material. At some point, if it's important to you, it will be important to someone else, too. And that someone else will, at some point in time, make a move on it (even if only for the purpose of getting one-up on you, to degrade your position by denying it to you.) Better to get there first, plant the flag, and remove the issue from contention.

4) I don't think the prospect of Russia making a move on a Danish-controlled Greenland is what's driving this issue. The larger problem is the prospect of an independent Greenland. It would be a terribly poor and weak country which would have no alternative but to look to foreign powers for investment and security arrangements. Russia and China would swoop in in a nanosecond, at the invitation of the govt of Greenland, backed by treaty and trade deals, putting us and Nato is a very uncomfortable position. Lest you think this isn't an active issue, look at what China is doing thousands of miles from their shores in the Pacific islands.

Owning Greenland is such a no-brainer. It would strengthen our national security. It's a great resource, an under-developed resource. We definitely should gain control over it if possible, because it makes so much sense. Cheaper, wiser step would be to poke Denmark in the ribs to get more serious about taking better care of its possessions, which is exactly what's happening here. Trump is signaling to them to crap or get off the pot = Denmark flirting with the idea of letting Greenland go, which would be an alarming development for the USA.

Think, man....THINK!

---

So, does Greenland get Territory status or State? Statehood would not be inconceivable, as it is about the same size of Alaska. In order to get Greenland, I think it would have to get State-status. Or it has the same issues we see in PR and American Samoa.

I am all for it. As I have said on other posts, the next step for the US is expansion. With this debt-load, it is the only logical move to increase revenue. Greenland's mineral rights would be worth the investment, not to mention strategically.

On this, and most non-MAGA issues, I agree with you 100%.

---

lol hate to tell you this, but the Greenland kerfuffle is very much a MAGA issue. Straight from the Twitter feed of the big orange guy hisself.....

Greenland has about 1/15th the population of Alaska. Territory status for sure.
Now, Alberta and Saskatchewan might each come in as states. (wink).

Nothing would make me happier than to not have to clear customs to enter Saskatchewan = best Hungarian Partridge cover in the world.

---

I didn't say it wasn't a MAGA issue. I was actually agreeing with you. I know you are conditioned to think I am not agreeing with a MAGA idea, but I am lock step on this one. Not all MAGA ideas are bad, right now just the cronyism is irking me.

As for territory, we better do a better job of managing it than we have in Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Guam is pretty good, I did some work there once. They are close enough to Asia to value the US...

---

the cronyism argument is very, very flimsy. Musk and Trump are the furthest thing from cronies. Never done business together. Barely knew one another until Trump got shot. Musk actually supported mostly Democrats and all of Trump's opponents until this election. What part of a guy crossing the aisle (for the right reasons) makes him a crony?

You just don't like the idea of a businessman having a say in oversight of bureaucrats. Reagan did exactly what Trump has done - appointed a well-respected entrepreneur to a commission to streamline a bloated bureaucracy.

---

Who? Who did Reagan appoint that came out in the newspaper and threatened Congressmen who didn't vote his way? Who did Reagan appoint that was getting billions of dollars in Federal Grants and then given the authority to determine what went forward and what didn't?

If you want to look at a President that commented on this type of thing, Eisenhower. Beware the military industrial complex, just replace military with tech...

---

Reagan appointed the Grace Commission to look for ways to cut regulations and by extension the size of government. They did eliminate a lot of regulations. Size of government not so much.. J. Peter Grace was a Republican donor.

Nothing remotely inappropriate about having one of the most famous entrepreneurs in history study and make recommendations about regulations. Also, nothing remotely remarkable about donors threatening candidates with primary challenges. I happens at every level of government. I can think of several examples right here in Waco Tx for federal, state, local govt.

We know you like bureaucrats more than businessmen, but please stop shouting at the sky. You'll get a crick in your neck.

---

you keep missing the point, this is not the Grace Commission, which created a report submitted to GAO. Grace Commission was to find waste to support a reduced income tax rate. This is not, that. In addition, they ended up double counting. But, that is not what is at issue here, just another misdirection.
Dude. It's exactly the same thing.....a presidential commission to study ways to reduce government spending.

I have no problem with DOGE submitting findings, I have said from the beginning it has to be vetted and it cannot just be based on Elon's wants and Vivek's perceptions. But auditing and forcing justifications is not a bad thing based on facts, all facts not just what you want. You seem good with just doing what Elon says.
Who said it was solely Elon & Vivek's wants & perceptions?
It's a presidential commission, a great big committee, of which Elon will be the titular chairman .

Peter Grace did not openly threaten Congress in the media to get his way. THAT is the biggest problem I see. This is not about businessmen giving advice to the Executive Branch when asked, that has been part of Governing since Washington. It is the public threatening of elected officials, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN.
He did it privately. All donors do. Particularly Democrat donors. It's why they have such superior party discipline.
But since you are so destabilized by Elon's threat to support primary challengers, why would you want donor threats to support primary challengers to remain private? Wouldn't it be better to all be out in the open?

Trump now has several occasions under his belt showing he does not respect the other Branches of Government, Jan 6th speech (said speech, not riot) and Musk threatening Congress before a vote. You really want to bring the whole thing down, play into China's hand and become a Banana Republic keep going with Musk pullng a public Soros.
You are getting histrionic, inventing stuff out of whole cloth.
Beware the TDS.

I am either shocked I have to explain this to you a CIA vet or you know and are good blowing the whole thing up. This is how PsyOps start deteriorating other Governments using the media, publicly (not privately) threatening officals on votes, and brow beating those that disagree. Keep in mind, it is not the ones that totally disagree that are targeted, it is the ones that in the same camp but are calling things out when they push or cross the lines. Those are the real threats. Tell me I am wrong...
You are not just wrong, you're being childish.

Yelling at the sky??? What the hell else is a political message board at your alma matta for? Of course we are discussing things we disagree with at length. If you want a circle jerk go to the pay Football Board.
Yes, you are yelling at the sky.

---

If we can't cut regulations and we can't cut staffing, how exactly do you propose to balance the budget?
If we can't have input from one of the greatest entrepreneurs in history, who would you propose to lead such an effort?

ScottS said:

---

whiterock said:

---

politics is fun again

We are so back!!! pic.twitter.com/PvybVULeAz

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) December 24, 2024

---

Take Mexico too. It would shrink our border and make it easier to control.

---

I hope that's tongue in cheek. We don't want Mexico because it would add a huge number of new problems for the US that we cannot afford to fix even if we knew how or had the political will. We don't have the funds, the know-how, or the political will.

The budget can be balanced. It definitely is possible. So is the prospect of paying down the national debt. But it would require political will & discipline ver rare among our politicians for all of our almost 260 year history.

Fact: the US has been debt free only once in our history: briefly during the Jackson years almost 200 years ago.