TBayXXXVII

Don't care.

So fraud, as in financial?? Thanks for proving my point.

Trump has never had a history, ever, as being physically aggressive. It's always financial and business to him. If someone was thinking he'd use military force, then they're as brainwashed as morons like you, who think he'd take that route. When talking about clowns, you only have yourself to look at as the media and party you listen to, has turned you into one. Everyone knew he was joking about Canada, stop getting your panties in a bunch... even Canadians (normal ones), knew he was kidding. All of this, is a YOU problem, not a Trump problem.

Good, let's do it!! Seriously though, this is why I have an issue with liberals/leftists (whatever you want to call them)... you claim you're not, though I've seen only the slightest evidence of it. The article is clearly written by a liberal and most likely is a shared by the majority of the people who voted for Obama, Hillary, Biden, and Harris. It points to the crap that the core of the left is all about. Meaning, I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you and your leaders are horrible people if you disagree. The author of the article is clearly offended by these people wanting reparations. Here's the thing, some of them are vastly more entitled to it than any black person in this country. You will never meet a black person who was a slave (in the U.S.), or who's parent was a slave, or who's grandparent was a slave. There's even a very unlikely chance their great grandparent was a slave. To give them reparations is an absurd idea. The most far leftist states still float this idea either regularly or in stages. Even Presidential candidates bring it up. Biden even wanted Congress to look into it back in 2021 after he took office. It's purely meant to pander to the white guilters (keeping them guilty), and the naive black folks who think there's still a chance they can see a regular paycheck and at the very least, prevent them from voting for a Republican. To specifically this issue, as @RaiderHaters Revenge points out, the author of the article is making sure the word "reparations" is being put out there because he wants it out there, but what these people are calling for is something that to this very day, happens regularly... wrongful imprisonment settlements. No, I don't think all of them are entitled to it. I think there are some that belong in jail and serving the sentence they got. There are others though that got sentences that were too long and or sentences they should never have gotten. Those people are entitled to compensation for having their rights violated. To that point, the author of the article will get all the right people, including you, as your post proves it, all riled up and try to paint Republican's, Trump, and his supporters, in a bad light. You say you don't believe in reparations... good for you, but you're a sucker of the left, made by this author, for trying to make this an anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, anti-Republican agenda.

Why would Denmark lose? If we strike an agreement with them, then the outcome would be win-win. The only way Denmark would lose, is if we took it by force. Trump had 4 years to do that from 2016-2020. He's never had any inclination of looking to non-monetary means in his past. Outside of believing in conspiracy theories, there's no reason to think Trump would look to forcefully taking over another country. Also, what @Hardcore troubadour said. If the people of Greenland would prefer to be a US nation, they should have a say. If they had vote and they went 85% in favor of being a US territory, wouldn't that make Denmark slave owners by not willing to concede ownership? It shouldn't be up to Denmark, but Greenland. If they want to stay with Denmark, then so be it. I don't fault Trump for asking.

If they don't have a car then I obviously wouldn't care about them driving around in an $80k Escalade, would I? They wouldn't need to have one, just one (or more), needs to be registered to their address. Let's say there's two people "dating". We know they're married, just not going through the formal process in order to make it easier to qualify for government assistance (another thing that should be removed, as it incentivizes single motherhood). The person receiving benefits has no car registered... fine, no issue. But the other person who lives there, has a luxury vehicle has said vehicle registered to that very address. Well, that implies that the household income is a lot higher than what they're claiming. When you fill out the forms for government assistance, "household income" is on there... not just personal income. This is a red flag that the computer kicks out. These instances can be investigated when they pop up. No one needs to go to every household receiving benefits to do an arbitrary audit.

Ok, but you still ignored the economical aspect of that question thought, right? Even though Trump is all about economics.

If that's the case, then military action wouldn't even be necessary.

So like I said, you're suckers. I already knew that.

Trump said in the past that Greenland would be advantageous because of resources and defensive strategies. Panama as well, is an economical strategy. These two things are nothing new. Trump was joking about Canada, we all know that... liberturds are just showing that they missed the joke and just want to use Canada as a way to pile on more hysteria. The original question posed to Trump combined military AND economic means, as to how he plans to go about possible acquisitions. Based on Trump's history, and even going back to the 80's and 90's, which of those two do you think is the most likely approach Trump would take? If you think using military force is possible, then you're just a sucker like Tim, Rusty, Squistion, Gutterboy, etc. He's all about the financial approach.

Libby's all up in a tizzy I see. LOL

You focused on the military aspect but ignored the economical? Why's that? Just curious.

It's actually not that hard and would end up saving money... or at worst, break even to where money isn't being flushed down the drain. The net result would be the ability to get people who actually NEED the help will get it easier and faster, plus maybe even more. The solution is actually pretty simple, for NJ anyway as I don't know how other states handle welfare. Do you know that vehicle registration isn't a part of the process to qualify for welfare? Neither is car insurance. In NJ, when you buy a vehicle (or change insurance carrier), everyone in their household who is a licensed driver needs to be on your insurance. No, you don't have to pay for them, but your insurance carrier needs to know who those people's insurance carrier is. So when my son was living with me and he got his own car insurance, I needed to tell my insurance company who he was insured by. If people filing for welfare needed to put their vehicle information forms to qualify for welfare, it opens up the avenue to the DMV, the county (where you file for welfare), the state, and the insurance companies to make sure all of the information checks out. So, when your information is being processed, a part of that would be a vehicle check. When these people by an $80k Escalade and register it, it should get flagged by the computer at the county's Human Services department that a welfare recipient just registered an $80k vehicle. In your estimation, how much effort was spent by the government on that process?

Is that why blue cities are loaded with people like this where only Democrats are elected? Kinda weird. So many people voting Republican, yet Democrats keep winning and those people never get caught.

As long as they're paying for it out of their own pocket, I'm ok with it.

I think she's exaggerating. Not sure if she's lying, but there's a 0% chance she says no to $1.5M (unless she was married).

My only issue with welfare is the abuse and lack of verification. As an example, there's a Section-8 housing complex about a mile and a half from my house. I'll drive by and see $60k+ SUV's and other luxury vehicles parked there all the time. Then you see the occasional 65"+ 4K TV being brought into one of those houses.

Most metrics, including GDP, comparing these two states would be flawed. Florida doesn't operate the way NY does, because it doesn't have to. For example, taxes make up a part of a states GDP. You also have to keep in mind that NYC is the biggest driving force of NY's GDP and not only does the state have income tax, so does NYC where as Florida has no state income tax. On top of that, so is sales tax. Florida's state sales tax is 7%, NY's is 4%, but as previously mentioned, I think we all know that NYC is the driving force of NY's GDP, NYC's own sales tax is around 5%, so you're going to pay 9% in NYC.

I think the first round goes to the Chargers and all the rest of the home teams.

It was just never done the right way.

I don't understand what all the ire is about concerning the mostly peaceful protest.

FIFY

None of the above. The answer is "Liberals".

Exactly. Georgia was never really a threat to score in that game.

Of course, but I think the game plays out completely different if Beck plays.