Most of the time, I'm responding to other posts, one point at a time. The problem is - a lot of people here rant and ranting often involves multiple fallacies. It's amazing how much BS people can put into a single post. So I break it down. If it bothers you then don't read it.


And yet here you are responding. And you've BEEN responding. Don't you think it's a little idiotic to be responding to my posts and then claim that I'm just talking to myself?

With senior White House officials anonymously writing op-eds to assure the people that "grown ups" are on staff to undercut the presidents insanity and now former Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran, it seems that Trump is loosing control (if he ever had any). It's one thing to be so disrespected, but these new developments show a whole level of dysfunction that we've not seen before in the White House. And now Trump's approval rating is dropping in ALL the polls.

So, obviously, an upset can occur within the space of a single election cycle but to turn that anomaly into a sustained shift in power would take a far more that a tweetstorm of BS. In the past, people like Hitler and Mussolini moved quickly to secure the power shift after the first election slip mostly through techniques that have eventually become associated with fascism. For a while, it was looking like Trump was going to do the same thing, but Trump is no Hitler. Trump is no Mussolini... Trump is a ridiculous fool who spends way too much time on vanities. So if the White-Nationalists and various other deplorables want to Make America White Again, they're going to need to find a new guy.

In the meantime, it's reassuring to know that even while Trump sits on his throne, his power is being compromised from within. He is depending more and more on a shrinking base of ineffective morons to support him while the "grownups" continue to ignore his orders and preserve the things of value that Trump is trying to destroy.

But don't loose hope, deplorables... Pence is right there, waiting in the wings. And this is why I advocate letting Trump stay on his throne until 2020. Kerry should be telling Iran to hang tight until then as I am sure he is. I'm sure all the great democracies around the world are doing the same. It's only two more years, after all. In that time, Trump's reckless policies, such as the 2017 Tax cut will have their effect and he won't be able to blame the consequences on his impeachment. Meanwhile, Trumps inability to legislate through Congress (he has sponsored only two LAWS in two years), his inability to enforce his own executive orders in sanctuary states like California (who is basically flipping Trump the bird) and his inability to gain any real consensus in the international community makes him to a large degree, ineffective.

I'm not saying we don't have anything to worry about... Any issue where Trump is really just doing what the Republicans want, such as the tax cuts and judicial nominees is an issue of concern, but the idea that Trump is going to buck the system is about as realistic as Pee Wee Herman destroying ISIS. Most of the powers that decide the world are just going to ignore his demands until he is voted off the island in 2020 and the parts of Obama's legacy, that are still relevant will be reinstated.

translation: solid arguments that you have no intelligent response to so you get frustrated and resort to insults.


LOL, You people can't help but exaggerate. I'm "concerned" not petrified. As a healthy, straight, white male with money in the bank and marketable skills, I have less reason to be petrified than other's might have. But unlike the typical self-centered deplorable, I actually care about others.


It takes a certain ignorance to think that democracy equates to mob rule. There are different kinds of democracy. Mob rule is what educated people call "direct democracy" What we have in America is "representative democracy". If you go back through my "blathering" far enough you will find that I've had entire arguments about this. Yes, we are a constitutional republic AND as such, we are a representative democracy. Just like a person can be a human and an American at the same time, so too can political structures be multiple things at once. If we were not a representative democracy, our representatives wouldn't have to worry about our votes. 'Ever think about that?


Well, I think the political tables are going to turn soon, but for the time being, the American people are loosing. The difference between us is that I am among those fighting back to defend the American people, while in your ignorance you kiss up to the people who are screwing us. The irony in all this is that it's the people who are getting screwed the most that are doing almost all the boot licking.


You mean my craw? LOL...'not as much as me and the liberals are getting under yours. It's easy to tell just by the nature of these conversations. The liberals here are mostly laughing, while the conservatives here are mostly fuming.

Wow... that sounds terrible... Did aliens from Mars help them steal it? LOL

Sorry man, I don't mean to laugh but like I said before, if your going to tell me something I don't already know, you're going to need a solid argument, not just arbitrary and baseless accusations. I mean, I can do the exact same thing... I could say Trump steals the children from immigrants to use as sex slaves in underground sex dungeons at all his major resorts. There, now I've provided as much proof for a ridiculous story as you have.

It doesn't help that you start off by calling Obama a Muslim and a socialist, because people like me know better. So your claim starts off sounding more like a spoiled child resorting to name calling.


I KNOW that's a lie.


Missing from what? Look, I don't have time for silly BS, if you're going to whine and cry about things that didn't even happen then at least provide me with a link so I can find out where these idiot stories are coming from. Otherwise I'll just assume you're parroting insults like children in a playground do.

BTW... this came across my feed this morning...
Texas State Board of Education votes to erase Hillary Clinton from history curriculum
...It seems relevant to our discussion about history books. This is proof that the history books used in grade school are indeed selective when it comes to history.

Eight years of a socialist Muslim traitor? That sounds horrible. When did that happen?

California has more Republicans than any other state; the schools here certainly don't teach you to hate them. As for history, I already explained the difference between grade-school history and college-grade history. It sounds like your experience is limited to the former.


Yes, you told me... I do remember. And I commend you for it. The only fault I see in this statement is the assumption that Democrats are socialists. That's like saying Republicans are black. Yes, there are some black Republicans but they are relatively few. Same for socialists... relatively few Democrats are socialist. The other point to mention is that there isn't anything inherently wrong with socialism anyway. In fact, the military branches that you feel so compelled to defend are technically socialist systems because they are managed and funded by the state. So, we can talk about socialism if you are ready to step up to the grownup discussion, but if socialism is just a derogatory term for you, then I'd rather not bother.


This is what I was asking you to clear up... The fact that a President has to ask Congress to declare war, is what makes any resulting war, a democratic war, because Congress represents our democracy. But I was suspecting your reference was more along the line of that old, partisan BS where Republicans like to say that all our wars were started by Democrats. (I can remember hearing that in the 5th grade, 48 years ago). Well, first of all, it's not even true... Clearly, Republican Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Spanish-American War AND the 13-year war against the Philippines that grade-school history books skip entirely were started by Republican Theodore Roosevelt. So, I just did a little research and here's what I found... Since 1900, 35 conflicts have been launched by Republican administrations compared to 23 by Democrats, with 10 (out of 12) GOP presidents launching one or more conflicts, compared to 8 (out of 8) Democrats.

Sorry man... Those shallow, partisan wives-tales just don't work on me. If you're going to tell me something I don't already know, you're going to need a solid argument. And BTW, for someone who claims not to be associated with a political party you sure sound like a defensive Republican.


Well, yes - you got that part right. War is a thriving business. One of the better Republican presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower mentioned that in his farewell address when he warned Americans about the military-industrial complex.

History books don't all say the same thing.. In fact they often have different stories to tell depending on the intended readers. For very young children who haven't developed the capacity to understand the forces that shape history the intention is often to simply to introduce basic concepts like freedom while instilling a healthy respect for the services. This is considered by many to be a prerequisite for good citizenship. On the other hand, some accounts of history are aimed at college-level readers that are more interested in what actually happened.These books tend to be less apologetic and none of the ones I've read make the same connections between the U.S. Military and American freedom that you are making.

Can you explain what you mean by democratic war?

Well, everyone has an opinion.


Perhaps you need to hit the history books again... The Germans and Russians were allies at the start of the war, not enemies. When France fell and Britain stood alone they weren't kidding. The German-Russian alliance didn't fail until after the British served Hitler his first defeat in the Battle of Britain during the summer of 1940.


The bitter winter helped, but it was mostly the massive Red Army that stopped Germany and the American supplies didn't arrive until it was almost over.


Yes, there was a lot of contention between FDR and Congress. Like I said, many in Congress were pro-Nazi and didn't agree with Roosevelt's desire to help Britain.


Oh don't be so dramatic - it's an insult to the American people and our republic to portray America as something so delicate that loosing WW2 would have taken our identity and our freedoms away. Besides, (for us) it was a foreign war not a defensive one. Hitler had no interest in "taking over" or destroying America. He was interested in a specific region to the east of Germany, based on old Germanic claims. (He was trying to Make Germany Great Again). The allies entered the war in Europe as interventionists.

I don't know enough about that to comment, except that FDR was trying to get Congress to declare war on Hitler and he was getting resistance because so many influential Americans were pro-Nazi. That's why America didn't join the war until the Japanese attacked Perl Harbor and by that time, WW2 was already half over. BTW, Communist Russia was on our side during that war which is a good thing because without the Russians, Germany probably would have won.


Yes, they fought bravely in those wars but those wars had nothing to do with our freedom. All those wars were fought over resources in other places that our plutocracy wanted to control. Fighting the spread of communism during the Cold War was just an excuse that sounded more justified to the American people than world domination.

Think about it... We never won in Korea - did we loose our freedom? We capitulated in Vietnam - did we loose our freedom? Iraq wasn't a threat to our freedom either and nor was Afghanistan. Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone... I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room.

All branches? The Air Force wasn't established until AFTER WW2... I'm pretty sure there was an America before that and I'm pretty sure freedom existed before then too. In fact America was established as a free nation before ANY of the military branches were established. The American Revolution was fought by the Continental Army, not the U.S. Army. The Continental Army was a temporary army organize out of state militias and it was disbanded after the war. The top general, George Washington did not believe there should be a standing army at all and the founders created the 2nd Amendment so that militias could be organized quickly when the need arises, so that we would not NEED a standing army.

The military branches were only established when we started pushing our frontiers westward and we wanted the capacity to invade neighbors.

I'm not drinking Kool-Aid my friend, I'm just paying attention to details that get smeared by patriotic circle-jerking.


That sounds more like angry insults than fact.

That's why I say I have a problem with the way property tax is leveraged. It would be better if all property tax allocated to education was pooled at the state level and distributed evenly. If that's to tall an order, then I guess income tax would be better, simply because it's already pooled at the state (and federal) level.


I guess I don't always think about that... I've been a property owner since I was 24, but you're probably right.


I disagree with that qualification. I think schools should be funded by everyone whether they have kids in school or not. The reason I say this is because education is an investment into a better functioning and more capable society. Even people who have never had kids still depend on younger generations for critical services, especially when they get older.


What about the millions of parents that don't smoke and don't drink?


Well... those that drink and smoke, I suppose.

I agree with luxury tax in general because these items are not critical for survival like food and water and medical care. So, I have no problem taxing tobacco products and booze, but there's something "off" about making schools dependent on alcoholism and addiction.

I'll have to look into the American Patriot Party. I don't know THAT much about it yet.

Yes, it is.


That's a matter of perspective. Civil disobedience always looks unruly to those who stand on the side of established power. I'm sure the businessmen and investors of the British East India Company thought the Son's of Liberty were being spoiled brats when they dumped private property they didn't own into the Boston Harbor. Not only was that disobedient (there were laws against destroying other people's property) it was a case of vandalism that goes beyond civil disobedience. And yet, as Americans we celebrate that event and the Son's of Liberty as heroes.


MLK also advocated civil disobedience which led to many arrests during his marches. Civil disobedience *is* non-violent. Once you commit to violence or the destruction of property, you are no longer practicing civil disobedience or anything Alinsky recommends.


Some of the activists involved with the Weather Underground were vandals, yes. But the people you are calling spoiled brats today are not committing any acts of violence or vandalism.


Alinsky was doing a his doctoral dissertation in the 1930s on the Al Capone mob, and decided to do it as “an inside job.” In any case, as I said before I am driven by ideas not associations; there is no reason why a man can't study the power structure of a mob from the inside AND have good ideas about political techniques. As for Hillary, there's nothing more "criminal" about her than any other politician. You're just a sucker for BS.


Yeah, I'm not going to sit here and argue with your bounty of baseless conspiracy theories.

Not if the person is using multiple e-mail addresses.


That depends on how deep the chase goes. It's not that hard to hide things from website masters because it's typically not worth it for them to spend the effort to reveal a hidden identity. It's a different story for government agencies like the FBI and the NSA. A person would have to go much deeper into the technical options to remain elusive but it *IS* possible. The hackers are always one step ahead.