My Derangement (Page 2): whit, Why do over 80% of all the scientists that study the climate believe that c*****e c****e is real? If you don't believe them, just ask the folks in...

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

whitnebrat wrote:

I have two major mental defects. One of them is called "rational thinking", and the other is a love of history.
These must be defects, because they go against the 'norm' of political thinking in this day and age.
I know they must be defects in my thinking, because we all know that the whole idea of 'c*****e c****e' is obviously a h**x, perpetrated on the American people in order to get them to buy electric cars, and alter their lifestyles by getting away from f****l f**ls. We all know that civilization is not capable of introducing massive c*****e c****e by our puny little emissions of carbon dioxide. The common consensus is that we have to stick with petroleum products and f****l f**ls because the economic disruptions if we change would be catastrophic. The massive number of tornados in December is just an anomaly, as is the rise in sea level and a few other scientific h**xes that are being perpetrated on the American people.
My mental defect doesn't allow me to see that concept as being real, and that causes me great distress. That same mental defect of "rational thinking" forces me to label all the previous "facts" regarding c*****e c****e as having no rational merit.
There have to be defects in my thinking in the political realm as well. The purported "evidence" of v***r f***d sufficient to alter the last p**********l e******n is there for all to see. The audits and investigations have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The sixty-some-odd lawsuits that were filed were dismissed by a justice system that is covering up the fraud on a massive scale. The peaceful protest at the Capitol on 1*6/21 was just that, and there was no forceful entry, assault on police officers, or loss of life. The videos of that event were doctored to make it look as if supporters of the former president were at the forefront of an A****a/Black L***s M****r provocation.
My mental defect doesn't let me alter what I saw on the videos, which were too numerous to have all been altered. It doesn't let me ignore the fact that those sixty lawsuits over e******n f***d were dismissed for lack of evidence, nor does it let me accept the fact that there was no evidence of any major e******n f***d ever turned up by the numerous (and ongoing) audits and investigations into the e******n process.
My other mental defect (that of studying history) doesn't allow me to ignore the lessons of history. My delusions that this mindset of a portion of the American people is a reality, and that variations on this theme have found their way into the chronicles of history on a repetitive basis from before the Greek republic. The events of the past in this respect have borne repeated similarities … but this can't be true, because in the thinking of that portion of the populace, our current phenomenon is new and has never happened before.
That mental defect of mine (history) leads me to assess that the current state of our democracy is parallel to the French Revolution, the downfall of Athens, and any number of other major political disruptions throughout the ages. It has shown that the wealth gap between the middle-class and the ultra-rich eventually breaks the political system, and chaos follows, usually with a violent aftermath. But this can't be happening, because the common wisdom says so. My historical defect is causing me to make assumptions that can't possibly happen in the United States. History is always written by the victors and thus has no real significance to the present day. Obviously.
The C***D p******c was the result of the government conspiring with the Chinese v***s lab in W***n to inject all of us with a microchip to track our every movement has been proven beyond all doubt, and the v*****es that are coming on line are not proven to protect us from it. It actually isn't a v***s at all, but just a variation of the common flu, and is nothing to be afraid of. The number of deaths is just proportional to a major flu outbreak.
My rational thinking defect causes me to reject these hypotheses, but I must be wrong, given the overwhelming evidence that proves the foregoing conclusions. The common wisdom, of course, is the standard to which all scientific assumptions must be evaluated.
Yes, I'm deranged. Yes, I'm deluded. The lessons of history and the rational conclusions that I find myself believing in are faulty, in the minds of some of the American populace. They hold views that are factually inaccurate, and many times totally false, by any standard of rational thinking and historical precedent. And yet they persist, fed by a power structure that continuously repeats the falsehoods, in order to perpetuate an administration that can't admit that it lost an e******n. But this can't be, because the common wisdom disagrees with me.
I find myself unable to dispute my views with myself, and thus I will hold onto my derangements, and watch the system devolve into violence and anarchy unless other deranged people like myself take it upon themselves to rise up and force the system to correct itself.

I have two major mental defects. One of them is ca... (show quote)

whit, Why do over 80% of all the scientists that study the climate believe that c*****e c****e is real? If you don't believe them, just ask the folks in California how they like the increasing every year of drought, and terrible fires. You can also ask the people on the east coast if they are enjoying the increased hurricanes and rising waters. This is not only a problem in the US, but around the world.
I want my grandchildren to inherit a planet that doesn't have to worry about the continental US turning into a huge desert.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

saltwind 78 wrote:

whit, Why do over 80% of all the scientists that s... (show quote)

Again, you also have mistaken my sarcasm for my viewpoint. Obviously, I didn't make clear that it was such, and doesn't reflect my personal views. I was attempting to satirize the Trump right's tunnel-vision and unbending factual-non-belief ... obviously I was too obtuse for many readers. My fault ...

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

bggamers wrote:

read about an interview with the owner of Amazon who stated that all factories and businesses will soon be in space all workers will live in space and the earth will be a garden which they can VISIT funny notice how only the little worker bees will live in space guess only the elites deserve to live on this planet they do have plans for all us workers

hadn't seen that interview ... could you please forward it to me via PM?

MajG

whitnebrat wrote:

I have two major mental defects. One of them is called "rational thinking", and the other is a love of history.
These must be defects, because they go against the 'norm' of political thinking in this day and age.
I know they must be defects in my thinking, because we all know that the whole idea of 'c*****e c****e' is obviously a h**x, perpetrated on the American people in order to get them to buy electric cars, and alter their lifestyles by getting away from f****l f**ls. We all know that civilization is not capable of introducing massive c*****e c****e by our puny little emissions of carbon dioxide. The common consensus is that we have to stick with petroleum products and f****l f**ls because the economic disruptions if we change would be catastrophic. The massive number of tornados in December is just an anomaly, as is the rise in sea level and a few other scientific h**xes that are being perpetrated on the American people.
My mental defect doesn't allow me to see that concept as being real, and that causes me great distress. That same mental defect of "rational thinking" forces me to label all the previous "facts" regarding c*****e c****e as having no rational merit.
There have to be defects in my thinking in the political realm as well. The purported "evidence" of v***r f***d sufficient to alter the last p**********l e******n is there for all to see. The audits and investigations have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The sixty-some-odd lawsuits that were filed were dismissed by a justice system that is covering up the fraud on a massive scale. The peaceful protest at the Capitol on 1*6/21 was just that, and there was no forceful entry, assault on police officers, or loss of life. The videos of that event were doctored to make it look as if supporters of the former president were at the forefront of an A****a/Black L***s M****r provocation.
My mental defect doesn't let me alter what I saw on the videos, which were too numerous to have all been altered. It doesn't let me ignore the fact that those sixty lawsuits over e******n f***d were dismissed for lack of evidence, nor does it let me accept the fact that there was no evidence of any major e******n f***d ever turned up by the numerous (and ongoing) audits and investigations into the e******n process.
My other mental defect (that of studying history) doesn't allow me to ignore the lessons of history. My delusions that this mindset of a portion of the American people is a reality, and that variations on this theme have found their way into the chronicles of history on a repetitive basis from before the Greek republic. The events of the past in this respect have borne repeated similarities … but this can't be true, because in the thinking of that portion of the populace, our current phenomenon is new and has never happened before.
That mental defect of mine (history) leads me to assess that the current state of our democracy is parallel to the French Revolution, the downfall of Athens, and any number of other major political disruptions throughout the ages. It has shown that the wealth gap between the middle-class and the ultra-rich eventually breaks the political system, and chaos follows, usually with a violent aftermath. But this can't be happening, because the common wisdom says so. My historical defect is causing me to make assumptions that can't possibly happen in the United States. History is always written by the victors and thus has no real significance to the present day. Obviously.
The C***D p******c was the result of the government conspiring with the Chinese v***s lab in W***n to inject all of us with a microchip to track our every movement has been proven beyond all doubt, and the v*****es that are coming on line are not proven to protect us from it. It actually isn't a v***s at all, but just a variation of the common flu, and is nothing to be afraid of. The number of deaths is just proportional to a major flu outbreak.
My rational thinking defect causes me to reject these hypotheses, but I must be wrong, given the overwhelming evidence that proves the foregoing conclusions. The common wisdom, of course, is the standard to which all scientific assumptions must be evaluated.
Yes, I'm deranged. Yes, I'm deluded. The lessons of history and the rational conclusions that I find myself believing in are faulty, in the minds of some of the American populace. They hold views that are factually inaccurate, and many times totally false, by any standard of rational thinking and historical precedent. And yet they persist, fed by a power structure that continuously repeats the falsehoods, in order to perpetuate an administration that can't admit that it lost an e******n. But this can't be, because the common wisdom disagrees with me.
I find myself unable to dispute my views with myself, and thus I will hold onto my derangements, and watch the system devolve into violence and anarchy unless other deranged people like myself take it upon themselves to rise up and force the system to correct itself.

I have two major mental defects. One of them is ca... (show quote)

I investigated the c*****e c****e issue. I found that the climate has been changing since it was invented.

JW

MajG wrote:

I investigated the c*****e c****e issue. I found that the climate has been changing since it was invented.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

whitnebrat wrote:

Since you asked nicely, I apologize for my snarkin... (show quote)

Every e******n has had its share of fraud and illegal v**es. This last e******n had a massive change in the way e******ns are conducted. We need a forensic audit to find weaknesses in the process. This should be done to some extent every e******n and maybe even a total forensic analysis when there have been major changes. This will assure the people that our e******ns are fair and honest. If not we will tear ourselves apart and be no better than a banana republic.

MajG

Kickaha wrote:

Every e******n has had its share of fraud and illegal v**es. This last e******n had a massive change in the way e******ns are conducted. We need a forensic audit to find weaknesses in the process. This should be done to some extent every e******n and maybe even a total forensic analysis when there have been major changes. This will assure the people that our e******ns are fair and honest. If not we will tear ourselves apart and be no better than a banana republic.

The Carter-Baker commission has already done that, 2005. It appears the Dems used it a guide to c***t every way possible

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

When I posted my previous essay, I was asked the following question:
"One further question. Just supposing the Trump wing is in fact, correct, and no corrective action is taken, what would we be left to face down the road?"
My answer was as follows:
"Autocracy ... a loss of our ability to control the direction of the country, and a suppression of dissent, much in the vein of Hong Kong losing their ability to contradict the Chinese government. More of a divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' which will eventually result in a major disruption of the country, probably violent, in the manner of the French Revolution, or our own Civil War (which was fought over economics, not s***ery, which was just a symptom.)"
In thinking about it, I found my answer, although I believe to be true, was quite inadequate.
The historical perspective is that no democracy/republic has existed for more than a century or two without devolving into an autocracy or dictatorship.
It happened to the Greeks five centuries before Christ, when the oligarchs couldn't maintain their class structure, and it eventually devolved into autocracy and chaos.
Rome devolved into tyranny in about two-hundred years for much the same reasons … the wealth gap between the upper class and the rest of the population was getting so bad that the lower classes lost faith in the fact that they could have a decent living. Their democracy was supplanted gradually by three "plebian" (read middle & lower class) strikes against the ruling oligarchs that threw the republic eventually into autocracy.
The French Revolution against the royal class was fomented by a wealth gap about a wide as what we're seeing today.
In all three cases, and innumerable more throughout history, greed at the top was the primary factor. The lower classes ask "How much is enough?", and get no answer except that the upper 1% get even richer.
You'll call me a "c*******t" for this statement, but that's not what history says. That accumulation of wealth (and the power that accompanies it) is endemic to the human race. Everyone plays "king of the mountain" at some point, whether for agates and steelies on the playground to stock trades which seem too good to be true.
It's when we measure our success in how many "things" we can accumulate to impress our neighbors/associates that things go bonkers. Multiply this by magnitudes of 10,000 or more and you have the 1%'ers.
Most people equate money with power. One begets the other. The more you feel you don't have the money, the more you feel the loss of power over your own life. When it gets to the poverty level, you probably feel that you haven't much to lose by demonstrating and becoming violent.
Combine that with racial injustice, perceived racial superiority, a proliferation of firearms, and the wealth divide, and the brew becomes toxic. It just needs one charismatic leader to emerge and stoke these fires of resentment and presto … you have an i**********n/r*******n on your hands.
Welfare has long been vilified as 'sops to those who don't want to work' and 'payments to welfare queens.' To the casual observer this may be what appears to be true, but there is a deeper reason that they are necessary. If these payments weren't made, these people would have nothing to lose for making life miserable for the rest of us in terms of suppressing the violence (remember the Watts R**ts?).
There will always be a permanent underclass that is either physically, mentally, educationally, or emotionally unable to work, but who will take up a rebellious torch at the bidding of a rabble-rouser. When this happens, it costs us both money and lives to suppress it.
Another classic example of underlying turbulence is the w***e s*******y grievances of the southern United States resulting from the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction Era. The emergence of the KKK and white grievance has stayed with us to the present day. It's erupting more these days than in past years, but it's always been there.
The other part of the equation, the wealth gap, is a little harder to solve. If on one hand, we cause a massive redistribution of wealth, we are accused of being socialist or c*******t. If we indulge in unbridled capitalism, we wind up with either an oligarchy (rule by super-rich) or a dictatorship with cronies that accumulate all the wealth of the society. This leaves the rest of the society as virtual serfs of corporate culture, with no real future of accumulating any escalation of our economic status.
The answer here is, of course, controlled capitalism, where there is a chance for the little guy to form their own business and succeed, rather than being swallowed up by a corporate giant. It involves forcing giant corporations to abandon massive expansion and contain themselves to a particular sector of the economy, thus allowing others to participate at a reasonable level. It means limiting the amount of wealth that an individual may attain before imposing a 100% surtax on earnings.
This will not be popular with the upper class, and will be resisted with all the means at their disposal, but it is the only way that a democracy/republic can survive over the long term.
To not contain either extreme will lead, as history predicts, to an upheaval of the social order and the creation of an autocratic state, or a total abandonment of government and thus allowing anarchy to flourish (from which autocracy eventually emerges.
Let's take this middle road.

"He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow, and in much wisdom is much grief." Ecclesiastes, i, 18.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

whitnebrat wrote:

When I posted my previous essay, I was asked the following question:
"One further question. Just supposing the Trump wing is in fact, correct, and no corrective action is taken, what would we be left to face down the road?"
My answer was as follows:
"Autocracy ... a loss of our ability to control the direction of the country, and a suppression of dissent, much in the vein of Hong Kong losing their ability to contradict the Chinese government. More of a divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' which will eventually result in a major disruption of the country, probably violent, in the manner of the French Revolution, or our own Civil War (which was fought over economics, not s***ery, which was just a symptom.)"
In thinking about it, I found my answer, although I believe to be true, was quite inadequate.
The historical perspective is that no democracy/republic has existed for more than a century or two without devolving into an autocracy or dictatorship.
It happened to the Greeks five centuries before Christ, when the oligarchs couldn't maintain their class structure, and it eventually devolved into autocracy and chaos.
Rome devolved into tyranny in about two-hundred years for much the same reasons … the wealth gap between the upper class and the rest of the population was getting so bad that the lower classes lost faith in the fact that they could have a decent living. Their democracy was supplanted gradually by three "plebian" (read middle & lower class) strikes against the ruling oligarchs that threw the republic eventually into autocracy.
The French Revolution against the royal class was fomented by a wealth gap about a wide as what we're seeing today.
In all three cases, and innumerable more throughout history, greed at the top was the primary factor. The lower classes ask "How much is enough?", and get no answer except that the upper 1% get even richer.
You'll call me a "c*******t" for this statement, but that's not what history says. That accumulation of wealth (and the power that accompanies it) is endemic to the human race. Everyone plays "king of the mountain" at some point, whether for agates and steelies on the playground to stock trades which seem too good to be true.
It's when we measure our success in how many "things" we can accumulate to impress our neighbors/associates that things go bonkers. Multiply this by magnitudes of 10,000 or more and you have the 1%'ers.
Most people equate money with power. One begets the other. The more you feel you don't have the money, the more you feel the loss of power over your own life. When it gets to the poverty level, you probably feel that you haven't much to lose by demonstrating and becoming violent.
Combine that with racial injustice, perceived racial superiority, a proliferation of firearms, and the wealth divide, and the brew becomes toxic. It just needs one charismatic leader to emerge and stoke these fires of resentment and presto … you have an i**********n/r*******n on your hands.
Welfare has long been vilified as 'sops to those who don't want to work' and 'payments to welfare queens.' To the casual observer this may be what appears to be true, but there is a deeper reason that they are necessary. If these payments weren't made, these people would have nothing to lose for making life miserable for the rest of us in terms of suppressing the violence (remember the Watts R**ts?).
There will always be a permanent underclass that is either physically, mentally, educationally, or emotionally unable to work, but who will take up a rebellious torch at the bidding of a rabble-rouser. When this happens, it costs us both money and lives to suppress it.
Another classic example of underlying turbulence is the w***e s*******y grievances of the southern United States resulting from the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction Era. The emergence of the KKK and white grievance has stayed with us to the present day. It's erupting more these days than in past years, but it's always been there.
The other part of the equation, the wealth gap, is a little harder to solve. If on one hand, we cause a massive redistribution of wealth, we are accused of being socialist or c*******t. If we indulge in unbridled capitalism, we wind up with either an oligarchy (rule by super-rich) or a dictatorship with cronies that accumulate all the wealth of the society. This leaves the rest of the society as virtual serfs of corporate culture, with no real future of accumulating any escalation of our economic status.
The answer here is, of course, controlled capitalism, where there is a chance for the little guy to form their own business and succeed, rather than being swallowed up by a corporate giant. It involves forcing giant corporations to abandon massive expansion and contain themselves to a particular sector of the economy, thus allowing others to participate at a reasonable level. It means limiting the amount of wealth that an individual may attain before imposing a 100% surtax on earnings.
This will not be popular with the upper class, and will be resisted with all the means at their disposal, but it is the only way that a democracy/republic can survive over the long term.
To not contain either extreme will lead, as history predicts, to an upheaval of the social order and the creation of an autocratic state, or a total abandonment of government and thus allowing anarchy to flourish (from which autocracy eventually emerges.
Let's take this middle road.

"He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow, and in much wisdom is much grief." Ecclesiastes, i, 18.

When I posted my previous essay, I was asked the f... (show quote)

I see the increase in w***e s*********t views as a natural push back to the increase in anti white views...

Couldn't be any other way really...

JW

whitnebrat wrote:

When I posted my previous essay, I was asked the following question:
"One further question. Just supposing the Trump wing is in fact, correct, and no corrective action is taken, what would we be left to face down the road?"
My answer was as follows:
"Autocracy ... a loss of our ability to control the direction of the country, and a suppression of dissent, much in the vein of Hong Kong losing their ability to contradict the Chinese government. More of a divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' which will eventually result in a major disruption of the country, probably violent, in the manner of the French Revolution, or our own Civil War (which was fought over economics, not s***ery, which was just a symptom.)"
In thinking about it, I found my answer, although I believe to be true, was quite inadequate.
The historical perspective is that no democracy/republic has existed for more than a century or two without devolving into an autocracy or dictatorship.
It happened to the Greeks five centuries before Christ, when the oligarchs couldn't maintain their class structure, and it eventually devolved into autocracy and chaos.
Rome devolved into tyranny in about two-hundred years for much the same reasons … the wealth gap between the upper class and the rest of the population was getting so bad that the lower classes lost faith in the fact that they could have a decent living. Their democracy was supplanted gradually by three "plebian" (read middle & lower class) strikes against the ruling oligarchs that threw the republic eventually into autocracy.
The French Revolution against the royal class was fomented by a wealth gap about a wide as what we're seeing today.
In all three cases, and innumerable more throughout history, greed at the top was the primary factor. The lower classes ask "How much is enough?", and get no answer except that the upper 1% get even richer.
You'll call me a "c*******t" for this statement, but that's not what history says. That accumulation of wealth (and the power that accompanies it) is endemic to the human race. Everyone plays "king of the mountain" at some point, whether for agates and steelies on the playground to stock trades which seem too good to be true.
It's when we measure our success in how many "things" we can accumulate to impress our neighbors/associates that things go bonkers. Multiply this by magnitudes of 10,000 or more and you have the 1%'ers.
Most people equate money with power. One begets the other. The more you feel you don't have the money, the more you feel the loss of power over your own life. When it gets to the poverty level, you probably feel that you haven't much to lose by demonstrating and becoming violent.
Combine that with racial injustice, perceived racial superiority, a proliferation of firearms, and the wealth divide, and the brew becomes toxic. It just needs one charismatic leader to emerge and stoke these fires of resentment and presto … you have an i**********n/r*******n on your hands.
Welfare has long been vilified as 'sops to those who don't want to work' and 'payments to welfare queens.' To the casual observer this may be what appears to be true, but there is a deeper reason that they are necessary. If these payments weren't made, these people would have nothing to lose for making life miserable for the rest of us in terms of suppressing the violence (remember the Watts R**ts?).
There will always be a permanent underclass that is either physically, mentally, educationally, or emotionally unable to work, but who will take up a rebellious torch at the bidding of a rabble-rouser. When this happens, it costs us both money and lives to suppress it.
Another classic example of underlying turbulence is the w***e s*******y grievances of the southern United States resulting from the Civil War and the subsequent Reconstruction Era. The emergence of the KKK and white grievance has stayed with us to the present day. It's erupting more these days than in past years, but it's always been there.
The other part of the equation, the wealth gap, is a little harder to solve. If on one hand, we cause a massive redistribution of wealth, we are accused of being socialist or c*******t. If we indulge in unbridled capitalism, we wind up with either an oligarchy (rule by super-rich) or a dictatorship with cronies that accumulate all the wealth of the society. This leaves the rest of the society as virtual serfs of corporate culture, with no real future of accumulating any escalation of our economic status.
The answer here is, of course, controlled capitalism, where there is a chance for the little guy to form their own business and succeed, rather than being swallowed up by a corporate giant. It involves forcing giant corporations to abandon massive expansion and contain themselves to a particular sector of the economy, thus allowing others to participate at a reasonable level. It means limiting the amount of wealth that an individual may attain before imposing a 100% surtax on earnings.
This will not be popular with the upper class, and will be resisted with all the means at their disposal, but it is the only way that a democracy/republic can survive over the long term.
To not contain either extreme will lead, as history predicts, to an upheaval of the social order and the creation of an autocratic state, or a total abandonment of government and thus allowing anarchy to flourish (from which autocracy eventually emerges.
Let's take this middle road.

"He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow, and in much wisdom is much grief." Ecclesiastes, i, 18.

When I posted my previous essay, I was asked the f... (show quote)

Most of what you say here, I agree is factual, including your solution. That is what the anti-trust laws were supposed to have accomplished.

Donald Trump is a charismatic leader but far too frank to be a danger to the country. A far bigger threat is the bureaucratic state we have allowed to grow that operates by memos and regulations that we never see or only see after we are charged with a violation.

I think we need Donald Trump because I see no one else who can rally enough support to take down the permanent employees of the federal government.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

JW wrote:

Most of what you say here, I agree is factual, inc... (show quote)

I wish I could agree with you about Trump. He has ripped the scab off of many of the grievances regarding race and class, which will take years to heal, if ever. Personally, I can't believe anything he says, nor can I accept his past behavior in the business world as a template for what he would do in a second term. He's enervated his supporters to rig the e******n process in the red states so as to make it impossible for any other candidate but a Republican one can ever be elected, and it carries over into the p**********l e******ns as well. This is not a democratic trend ... it reeks of authoritarianism.
I would be interested in knowing just which agencies and regulations you would consider cutting? What services from the national government would you be willing to live without? Which ones would you keep?

JW

whitnebrat wrote:

I wish I could agree with you about Trump. He has ... (show quote)

I think you have Trump badly misjudged. I don't blame you because he has been the victim of a coordinated attempt to destroy him and virtually nothing said about him has been true. He is an extreme danger to the status quo. They are trying their most energetically to invalidate him.

Be that as it may, I would eliminate almost all federal agencies except those dealing with international relations and I would support a coordinating agency to assist in interstate matters. There is no reason everything else can't be handled by the states. I would have to do a complete analysis of each agency to give you specifics but generally. most federal agencies should go away.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

JW wrote:

I think you have Trump badly misjudged. I don't bl... (show quote)

If I'm reading you write, you'd eliminate agencies such as:

The Federal Aviation Administration, causing each state to regulate the airlines individually and set up their own airways and navigational aids;
The Federal Trade Commission and the Commodity Trading Commission, leaving each state to try to regulate corporate stock trading and commodity trading;
The Federal Food and Drug Administration, leaving each state to regulate the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors of its economy;
The National T***sportation Safety Administration, causing each state to investigate accidents and regulate the operations of the t***sportation industry within its borders (rail, truck, aircraft, nautical);
The many federal agencies that operate the hydroelectric dams across the country, many of which are on rivers that border two or more states, leaving the states to try to negotiate shares of power from these facilities;
The Veterans Administration, leaving states to fund and operate facilities for military veterans;
The FBI, causing the loss of interstate apprehension and prosecution of fugitives and the expertise of the forensics division of the FBI;
The Department of Justice, which would require each state to prosecute discrimination against minorities and other civil rights violations (among other things interstate);
The national laboratories, who do basic research into areas that no private company or state could afford to investigate;
The Social Security Administration, requiring states to fund and operate retirement systems for senior citizens.

I could go on, but I think you see my point … each of these entities performs major functions that states cannot afford by themselves, nor can they set up and operate such functions, even if the revenue were there.

Imagine an airline having to negotiate an airway system that required it to comply with twenty different sets of regulations just to make a t***s-continental flight.
Imagine a food industry that had to deal with fifty different sets of quality requirements.
Imagine the pharmaceutical industry having a field day pitting one state against another for the approval of a new drug, or pricing it out of reach in one state and not another.
Imagine having fifty different stock exchanges, each trading stocks under different rules, and being subject to rampant stockholder fraud in states that didn't regulate strictly enough.
Imagine the Interstate Highway system being maintained by fifty different state agencies under fifty different sets of safety and construction regulations.

Again, I could go on, but each of these agencies and bureaus has been established to deal with a specific area of the national fabric that the states are unwilling, or unable to do or would do so haphazardly. While there is some overreach, to eliminate all these entities with a broad brush would be catastrophic to not only the economy, but the nation would be hard-pressed to even operate. If you think that the bureaucracy and regulation is bad today, multiply that by fifty.
I realize that you would evaluate each on its' own merits, but I would bet that the number of agencies or departments that you could eliminate without major problems would be small, and not worth the trouble of getting rid of them.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

JW wrote:

I'm having difficulty determining exactly what you are saying. Does your defect cause you to see what is happening or prevent you from accepting what you see happening? In other words, is there actual proof of v****g fraud or is your delusion making you think there is?

JW, There is no evidence of Trump having the p**********l e******n s****n from him. Thats why his law suites were thrown out of court over sixty times. I think the poster just likes to flatter himself, when actually he is another Trumper that is into self delusion.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

Again, I could go on, but each of these agencies and bureaus has been established to deal with a specific area of the national fabric that the states are unwilling, or unable to do or would do so haphazardly. While there is some overreach, to eliminate all these entities with a broad brush would be catastrophic to not only the economy, but the nation would be hard-pressed to even operate. If you think that the bureaucracy and regulation is bad today, multiply that by fifty.
I realize that you would evaluate each on its' own merits, but I would bet that the number of agencies or departments that you could eliminate without major problems would be small, and not worth the trouble of getting rid of them.[/quote]
I forgot to mention everyone's schmoo (look it up), the OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. If you think that Amazon would make sure that their workers are treated well, or that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee would police the mine safety of their coal operators, you have another think coming.
Also, we might mention the degradation of the Post Office which would result in slower delivery times and higher rates ... oh, wait, that's already happening under Louis DeJoy, a Trump appointee.
By the way, your views are right in line with the "destruction of the administrative state", which Steve Bannon has touted for years.