What are you getting at there? Is there something that wasn't covered in the trial?

I thought I overheard a comment on the news to the effect of "why are you (whoever was bringing up the proposal) proposing new departments or functions when existing ones can't perform the tasks as it is".  I took the question as essentially why are you proposing adding new departments to further complication, dilute, etc responsibility and accountability.

You are responding to my post with an argument but asking me why I am arguing?  I said he was a dirtbag, you asked me why and I responded. Do you want me to answer your question or not?

"lead to no charge or arrest" is an irrelevant argument since it neither means what you think it means nor does it have any bearing on whether we can judge Gaetz is a good pick. Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies so does that mean you will say he shouldn't be president now or are you just using the "not charged or convicted" as a matter of convenience? People can commit terrible crimes and not be charged or convicted but that doesn't mean they are suddenly good people who have never done anything wrong. You also suggested "lack of credible evidence" but I would not agree with that opinion.

Interestingly I just came across an old news article covering the fact that in 2015 Gaetz opposed a Florida law making revenge porn illegal and he had killed the same bill the year before when he was chair of the committee... Coincidence? When it is one allegation or behavior I can give someone the benefit of the doubt but when you start to see a pattern then I think the allegations have more credibility.

I know this has been an issue with flood insurance for quite some time due to the high risk and cost of houses along the ocean. I guess it is coming up for fires as well now.

If insurance companies decide not to cover a specific area due to very high risks then that is their right I suppose, I just hope they aren't screwing their customers.

All depends what is happening at the time? That is a bit of a copout. Of course circumstances could change, if Panama invaded Florida I would have no problem with us attacking them and taking the canal. The point of the question is as things are now. We have a president who has prided himself on not starting wars now saying he would consider using the military to take the Panama Canal and Greenland (aka war).

If Trump said he would like to purchase the Panama Canal or Greenland I am hesitant to spending that much taxpayer money but I would be open to considering arguments for why it is worth it. But Trump using "national security interests" as a justification to use military force on two non-hostile nations to take territory, and likely human lives, is something I could never get behind. Trump would risk starting a huge war invading a Nato country. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a patriot or a conservative could support Trump's use of the military to achieve these goals.

there is a state fire insurance that you can get if you get dropped, but it is very $$$

So you try to change the subject and when I point out your comment is irrelevant, you accuse me of changing the subject... gotcha. I think it is clear who is the one who cannot admit they were wrong.