Maybe a "little" more respect... from those who would like to acknowledge the better path. But overall, I gotta say... his chance to truly be respected is long gone.

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.

Yeah, disinformation is the basis of his career, but it always depends on finding the suckers. Con-men call them "marks". I guess we all know who they are.



Honestly Mike, I don't think so. Trump really isn't that bright, the only reason why he survived the con-game industry is because her got so much money to start with. So, it's not Trump that I worry about. It's the people that are taking advantage of his belligerent foolishness. I worry about them and yes, I am thinking about what they up to and you should be too.

I knew he didn't actually mean "absolute" as in absolute tyranny. He's just not very articulate and maybe that bothers him so he tries to hide it and that's why he so often appears lost when he talks. Hell, I don't know. But I knew as soon as I heard him utter those words... I stopped what I was doing and thought... the media is going to have a field day with this.

He walked it back the next day. And this is what I love about those moments when Trump isn't actually screwing anything up. He's just giving the media all kinds of material to feed their Trump-hating subscribers. He came out to the Rose Garden and said... (now get this)...

"The governors are going to be running their individual states."
(Yes, Donny, that's what they do)

"Some of them will say, 'No, I can't open now.'"
(And you wouldn't have the authority to do anything about it.)

"And some may last longer than we even would think."
(Seriously, what does that even mean?)

blah, blah, blah, then he says this...

"I will then be authorizing each individual governor of each individual state to implement a reopening."
(Donny, the Constitution beat you to it. They're already authorized to open AND close the states they govern. Notice how they're closed now? Was that you? No? You see, Donny, the governors closed their states, not you. And by that same authority, granted by the U.S.Constitution no less, they can open them right back up again. But you go right ahead and "con" your people into thinking that you're in charge, just like you've been doing for three years now.)

Actually, it's possible he could exercise executive power as laid out in a series of FEMA-related EOs, to take over industries. But so far he hasn't done that. But if he wants to have that authority over the states, he needs to implement those orders and I'm sure he's being steeply advised against that. Unless he's ready, and capable enough to dismiss the democracy entirely, taking over the industries would destroy his chances at surviving an election.

So... all you racists out there need to find a competent leader if you really want to resurrect fascism. Good luck with that. As for the fools that support him because they're convinced he really is making things better for all of America - just take a look around. Do you really think things are better? Honestly, I don't think the Good Lord can make things any clearer for you.

Oh, it's not *as* outside as I think? So, does that mean it's a *little bit* outside the box? LOL. I'm just having fun with you Rose. Your white-knuckle resistance to anything I might say is too good to pass up.

It's kind of a shame though because it really is an interesting idea, and if you paid attention to what I was actually saying you would know it's not the typical secession-talk either. Even Barracuda had to do a double take to understand what I was actually saying.


Ah... so you really have no education on this at all then. It's always easy to tell, when a person can't tell you what something is, only what it's blamed for. Well, now it's just getting sad.


So, what are you talking about now? Parties? Are we talking about Republicans and Democrats now? Can I ask you what political parties have to do with ANYTHING I've said in this entire topic?

I never said it was a new idea either... I just said it's outside the box. You don't seem to understand what that means.


Why? Why was the American Revolution a completely different situation from the Civil War or any other quest for liberty?


So, the moderates not the extremes? Is that what you are trying to say? You say the best of both liberalism and conservatism made this country great (whatever that means) but it seems to me the most frequently used word to refer to that juxtaposition is progressivism. Teddy Roosevelt and his Republicans institutionalized progressivism as a way to head off the rise in socialist sentiment, by making concessions to the workers during the Industrial Revolution without giving away private ownership of business.

For all accounts and purposes progressivism in America is the synthesis of conservative and liberal values and it's the single-most significant contribution to the rise of the middle-class, so I don't understand the way you categorize it as an extreme movement. Unless you're being influenced by the alt-right, for which the center of politics is too far to the left.

Either way... None of this has anything to do with the "more perfect separation" I have suggested. So I don't even know why you bring it up.

OK, little Miss Negative Nancy... LOL

Just for the record, I never said it was a popular idea, I said it was outside the box.


Is that what the American Revolution was Rose42? Was it when the colonists couldn't make the system work so they threw in the towel? Is that what the Declaration of Independence was? The towel?

It's outside the box.

I've noticed that when I post ideas from outside the box, people don't really know how to react, or it doesn't pull any of their happy-triggers. If I posted something like "Trump is a poophead", there would have been a ton of comments. But thanks for your interest.

Yeah, I do see what you mean about both parties having core elements that *could* work together and I agree that the changes in media (I would just call it democratization) is creating a new resistance to working together.

Not sure about the invasion thing... Maybe this is another out of the box topic but the question I have is how do you invade an invasion?

I think U.S. history, in its entirety, can be characterized as one long invasion, historically divided into waves. It started with the colonization of the North America's east coast and shifted into gear with the westward expansion of territory and industry and eventually to possessions and contracts overseas, including the banana republics...

All one invasion?
Yes.
Who?
The incorporated.

From the moment the Plymouth and Virginia companies were chartered in London almost 500 years ago to the USMCA agreement Trump was pushing 18 months ago.

Every last step of the way, power can be traced to a handful of proprietorships, almost always through the corporate method, sometimes leveraging the republic for muscle. You and I are lucky, we live at the apex of our usefulness as a middle-class. But the problem is that on the decline, the happy conditions we have come to rely on from our proprietors are going to fade as they move onto better returns elsewhere and the republic will be used to beat us away when we start begging.

So there's a genuine fight for the republic at this very moment. With the proprietors using their affluence to grasp for more control of their weapon while the progressives and democratic-socialists latch on to it by it's stated principal's ...and of course the Libertarians look on.. 'mind on other things.

All I hear you saying is that educated Californians piss you off.


1. statistics are starting to show that shutdowns in CA are working to bring the rate of infection down.
2. 3 per million is actually better than any other state except North Dakota which has 2 per million. *
3. They are asking for assistance from the federal government that is designed to provide it. Given that California is THE largest source of federal revenue, I'd say it's not unreasonable to ask for some of that money back in the form of assistance.

* https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/


You act like no one has ever heard of a pandemic before. Fact is, we WERE more prepared before Trump cut funding and shifted priorities away from what preparations we had.


The bureaucrats were never supposed to be researching pathogenic viruses, that's a job for scientists who were indeed researching pathogenic viruses. The bureaucrats were supposed to be managing the operations and the cash flow and yes some of them fell to corruption. Almost every system of that size has some level of corruption and it's good that investigative reporters document what they find. But what you are doing here (and this appears to be common) is you are using the bad apples to to justify an attack on the entire farm.


I don't see anyone doing that. What I see people doing is blaming Trump among other things. Maybe you're being too sensitive about the criticism toward Trump to see that. I've been noticing that among die-hard Trump supporters, this reaction where the slightest criticism of Trump or even just a questioning is automatically catalogued as senseless and vile hatred.


Yes, but part of finding the solution is identifying what DOESN'T work and that's why acknowledging Trump's mistakes is important. If we keep overlooking these mistakes just because we like the guy, we will doomed to repeat the same pattern again.

Which senile old man are you referring too? Biden or Trump? I guess it's more clear with Biden because he has no other excuse... With Trump it's always hard to tell if it's his senality or his stupidity.

I seriously doubt Trump will get another four years. In 2016 he fooled a lot of people... By 2019 he was fooling a lot less and now the pandemic is really exposing him for the moron he is. Even my stout MAGA bandmates are starting to cast doubt. Just last night, they finally admitted that Trump might not be the person they thought he was (talk about diehard). But that's just my friends... There are other signs like that fact that Trump has the lowest average approval rating since 1937 when polls started.

I'm pretty sure that for Trump it's getting down to the oligarchs that use him and his cult following among the people. But I know it's common for people on a sinking ship to insist they are winning, so carry on I guess.

LOL - well, I'm glad we found an example where the word "never" doesn't override the context.

The phrase:
"Never cross the street without looking"
not equal to:
"Never cross the street."
because:
the context is "without looking".

The phrase:
"200+ years later, the American people (who never had to fight for a republic) have come to take it for granted."
not equal to:
"the American people never had to fight for a republic"
because:
The context is "200+ years later" ...which excludes all the Americans that died before America was 200 years old.


I never said anyone did... Although U.S. Immigration does insist on immigrants surrendering their foreign citizenship before they can become a U.S. citizen. (I had to). In any case, I don't think Washington was referring to his "heritage" in the sense you're thinking. He didn't refer to himself as an English-American, he referred to himself specifically as an Englishman. Keep in mind, this was before America actually became a nation.

The notion of "Americans" fighting in the Revolution is retrospective. When it was actually happening, the only Americans were Indians. The Continental Army were English colonists, fighting the expeditionary forces of their motherland. In fact, if the colonists lost, it would not have been called a revolution but rather a revolt, as were the previous attempts to do that same, and the colonists would have continued to be identified as English, just like the Confederates, who lost their fight for independence are still identified as Americans.

In simple terms, this is how many U.S. citizens fought in the American Revolution... 0.


Yeah, see that.

I agree!

Is that to make sure I didn't misconstrue your observation as perverted or to confirm your pretentiousness? ;)

Seriously, observing a bunch of kids in that age group had to be a funny experience. Kids always make me laugh. What was the matter of your thesis?

Try all you want to pass archie's angry moment off as "humor" Pennylynn but I *did* read the thread and it's pretty obvious what happened. And I can't think of ANY context where a statement like this...

"You also deserve to lose your livlihood, your home, and anything else you might own for such a barbaric attack on someone you disagree with!!"

...can be qualified as humor. It's just not a funny thing to say... In ANY context (well, other than sick - keeping in mind that some kids think it's funny to mutilate animals and yeah, I don't "get" that humor)

Why can't you accept that we all have our moments? That's all I was pointing out. I'm not saying that archie is a bad person, l am just saying he had a moment.

Yeah, you don't sound bothered at all

LOL - I bet that was hilarious.