It appears to me that Donnie is more than a few bricks shy of a load.View attachment 8920
Like this..?
It appears to me that Donnie is more than a few bricks shy of a load.View attachment 8920
Like this..?
SorryPlease tell me this is not fake.
Wait so is it fake or not fake?Please tell me this is not fake.
Wait so is it fake or not fake?
Maybe he’ll get that long awaited purchase of Greenland done during this term too.![]()
Trump Companies Accused of Tax Evasion in Panama
In the latest chapter in ongoing litigation, the private equity fund that bought what used to be called the Trump Ocean Club claims the Trump entities pocketed money that should have gone to the Panamanian government.www.propublica.org
One explanation for why Trump is suddenly threatening Panama. Wonder if there's something that's happened recently with it.
![]()
Trump threatens to try to take back the Panama Canal. Panama's president balks at the suggestion
Trump didn't explain how such a takeover would be possible, given that the U.S. relinquished control of the canal to Panama in 1999 under a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.apnews.com
Maybe he’ll get that long awaited purchase of Greenland done during this term too.
Well that's kinda the opposite of isolationism.So are we trying to start a new colonial era here?
Well that's kinda the opposite of isolationism.
If you controlled the Faulklands and the Panama canal... that's both main ways to get from Pacific to Atlantic and vice versa. Just sayinSomebody should tell him about the strategic importance of the Faulklands
![]()
Trump Companies Accused of Tax Evasion in Panama
In the latest chapter in ongoing litigation, the private equity fund that bought what used to be called the Trump Ocean Club claims the Trump entities pocketed money that should have gone to the Panamanian government.www.propublica.org
One explanation for why Trump is suddenly threatening Panama. Wonder if there's something that's happened recently with it.
![]()
Trump threatens to try to take back the Panama Canal. Panama's president balks at the suggestion
Trump didn't explain how such a takeover would be possible, given that the U.S. relinquished control of the canal to Panama in 1999 under a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.apnews.com
Word on the street is that we are going to trade California for Greenland. Winning!!Maybe he’ll get that long awaited purchase of Greenland done during this term too.
That's a horrible deal financially. CA would be the 4th largest economy in the world. Greenland does not.Word on the street is that we are going to trade California for Greenland. Winning!!
lol. It was a joke. BTW, Greenland has 8x the land mass of California, about a gazillion $ of untapped mineral deposits that Denmark won't let them develop, and a very important location militarily. Plus almost 100% less idiots. We might have to give them California plus some boot.That's a horrible deal financially. CA would be the 4th largest economy in the world. Greenland does not.
You keep trying to put words in my post that I never placed.You were for a tax cut that increased debt. Claiming you are for something that doesn't exist (tax cut with spending offset) does not make it OK to be in favor of something that directly does what you are calling the biggest harm.
If I tell my college kid that it is OK to have a few beers but she needs to get an Uber home but she drives because she could not afford the Uber after the beers that is simply wrong. Saying you see debt as the major concern but advocating for a debt increasing tax cut because you would not have increased it if you could have is the same thing.
Debt is a concern for me and tax cuts to increase it are harmful. Period.
I am strongly in favor of cuts to federal tax rates. In fact, I would rather see personal tax rates lowered even further.It is your own words. CBO estimated a $10 T cost to the TC&J act. You have said you were in favor of that act. Have you changed your mind?
Hard to debate someone when they keep claiming I am saying/posting something I never have. You keep claiming I favor tax cuts and not government spending.Then have a bit of intellectual honesty and say the truth. Tax cuts are what are important to you. The debt is not as important as tax cuts. Obvously shown by your support of tax cuts that increase debt.
Debt is a bigger issue to me than tax cuts. If they can cut taxes and at a minimum keep it budget neutral, go for it. But, if they cut current taxes while still spending then they are simply delaying taxes to future generations. I vehemently oppose that. You have already stated that you do not oppose that.
That is a LOT of words to admit I was correct. And to back out of giving money to OSU.If I thought that in any way you were an honest poster I would take that bet in a second. But, we both know I'd find the post where you state that you support the tax cuts and jobs act. We both know it was passed WITHOUT any provision to cut spending. THEREFORE, by supporting that act you would by definition be "in favor of tax cuts without government spending" cuts.
But, you would say something false and weasel your way out of it. Given that there is no external mechanism to make you keep your words, why would I trust someone who has shown himself to not be an intellectually honest debater?
The only way I'll do it is if a vote of the board chooses who is right.