Trump* pulls Brady from Super Bowl

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Oh yeah that’s exactly where I was going Jim, line up all the rich and shoot them, this is why I don’t even attempt a debate on this forum, it goes to stupid too fast, carry on.

that’s not where you were going? you asked if something was wrong with the system. if that’s not where you were going, kindly tell us where you were going? what would
you do to fix it?

let’s all listen to bernie, the diehard socialist who truly walks the walk, who owns three homes and flies private jets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well the counter question would be is the system wrong, when the rich continue to get richer and those in the middle or the pour bastards changing the sheets in their hotels, cutting their grass and watching their kids barely make a living wage?

Well, actually, not all the rich get richer. Many go bankrupt or lose wealth. Maybe the rich who don't keep up with the other rich should complain that the system is not fair. Many are satisfied with "barely" making a living wage. It keeps them living and able to have sex, watch TV, enjoy meals, get a good nights sleep . . . and, if they catch a spark of an idea, do better.

I understand that there is this ideal that everybody should have an abundance of all that is life giving and joy making. But if the reality is that that is not realistic, how does one calculate on how much and in what way all the goods will be distributed.

What "system" makes it possible for everybody in it to be satisfied?There are some, like the Amish. And there are religious communities who find equal satisfaction in the promises of their faith. I may be wrong, but I doubt those kind of systems would satisfy everyone. Maybe there is not one "ideal" system. Maybe we should be free to join or create one that satisfies us. Or maybe the closest to the ideal would be one in which everyone can find their own personal happiness which would depend on many different things, not just the differences in paychecks.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, actually, not all the rich get richer. Many go bankrupt or lose wealth. Maybe the rich who don't keep up with the other rich should complain that the system is not fair. Many are satisfied with "barely" making a living wage. It keeps them living and able to have sex, watch TV, enjoy meals, get a good nights sleep . . . and, if they catch a spark of an idea, do better.

I understand that there is this ideal that everybody should have an abundance of all that is life giving and joy making. But if the reality is that that is not realistic, how does one calculate on how much and in what way all the goods will be distributed.

What "system" makes it possible for everybody in it to be satisfied?There are some, like the Amish. And there are religious communities who find equal satisfaction in the promises of their faith. I may be wrong, but I doubt those kind of systems would satisfy everyone. Maybe there is not one "ideal" system. Maybe we should be free to join or create one that satisfies us. Or maybe the closest to the ideal would be one in which everyone can find their own personal happiness which would depend on many different things, not just the differences in paychecks.

The only ones happy in the Amish society are the males who rape their sisters, their daughters and control the minds of those living in fear, better find a better role model.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The only ones happy in the Amish society are the males who rape their sisters, their daughters and control the minds of those living in fear, better find a better role model.

and is it Trumps fault?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The only ones happy in the Amish society are the males who rape their sisters, their daughters and control the minds of those living in fear, better find a better role model.

Yeah, but that's not supposed to be part of the "system." Don't think you can find or create a "system" which won't have miscreants. On the other hand, Huxley's Brave New World comes close. Don't think you'd like that system though.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, but that's not supposed to be part of the "system." Don't think you can find or create a "system" which won't have miscreants. On the other hand, Huxley's Brave New World comes close. Don't think you'd like that system though.

And if the Amish rapists were democrats running for presidemt, no one would care.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The only ones happy in the Amish society are the males who rape their sisters, their daughters and control the minds of those living in fear, better find a better role model.

that's a nice thing to say...

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's a nice thing to say...

Been well documented, which is why I found that an odd “happy” low income family not needing their part of the pie.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Been well documented, which is why I found that an odd “happy” low income family not needing their part of the pie.

You're usually a lot more lucid than this. This is wdmso territory in lacking clarity. Are you saying that I claimed that the Amish were a happy low income family not needing their part of the pie. Did I mention any families not needing their part of the pie? Did I specify any part of any pie? Are you referring to my "Many are satisfied with "barely" making a living wage. It keeps them living and able to have sex, watch TV, enjoy meals, get a good nights sleep . . . and, if they catch a spark of an idea, do better"? Are you referring to the rich who don't keep up with the richer rich?

Or something or someone entirely different?

[Got Stripers]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1191864]You're usually a lot more lucid than this. This is wdmso territory in lacking clarity. Are you saying that I claimed that the Amish were a happy low income family not needing their part of the pie. Did I mention any families not needing their part of the pie? Did I specify any part of any pie? Are you referring to my "Many are satisfied with "barely" making a living wage. It keeps them living and able to have sex, watch TV, enjoy meals, get a good nights sleep . . . and, if they catch a spark of an idea, do better"? Are you referring to the rich who don't keep up with the richer rich?

Or something or someone entirely different?

[/What "system" makes it possible for everybody in it to be satisfied?There are some, like the Amish.

My response was to the rubbish you posted, where everyone in an Amish society is happy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the men rule, they rape their sisters, their wives and probably anything with a hole that fits their “manhood”.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're usually a lot more lucid than this.

ehhhhh......not so sure....he does whine about civil debate then launch this kind of nonsense...which....well....I guess bigotry and blanket insulting hundreds of thousands of people is ok if you are a leftist

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

ehhhhh......not so sure....he does whine about civil debate then launch this kind of nonsense...which....well....I guess bigotry and blanket insulting hundreds of thousands of people is ok if you are a leftist

it’s woke if you’re a leftist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Got Stripers;1191865]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're usually a lot more lucid than this. This is wdmso territory in lacking clarity. Are you saying that I claimed that the Amish were a happy low income family not needing their part of the pie. Did I mention any families not needing their part of the pie? Did I specify any part of any pie? Are you referring to my "Many are satisfied with "barely" making a living wage. It keeps them living and able to have sex, watch TV, enjoy meals, get a good nights sleep . . . and, if they catch a spark of an idea, do better"? Are you referring to the rich who don't keep up with the richer rich?

Or something or someone entirely different?

[/What "system" makes it possible for everybody in it to be satisfied?There are some, like the Amish.

My response was to the rubbish you posted, where everyone in an Amish society is happy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the men rule, they rape their sisters, their wives and probably anything with a hole that fits their “manhood”.

Yes, well my lack of clarity may have given you the impression that I thought all Amish were "happy." I did not refer to individual Amish, nor to happiness (though being satisfied is a step in that direction). I was referring to the Amish prescribed societal "system" since you were interested in the "system" being responsible for some sort of equitable happiness or satisfaction. Not that, I admit, I am an expert on the Amish system, or even adequately informed about it. My uneducated assumption is that Amish society is a communitarian one in which everyone contributes to the wealth of the community and all receive in some equity the bounties of that wealth. I mentioned the Amish not as a specific model, but a generic type of communitarian society.

And, of course, I did mention that there is probably no system that will be devoid of "miscreants," those who don't perfectly follow the precepts of their system, but who use it for "unfair" advantage in gaining personal pleasure or wealth. If you're correct, Amish society is a total fraud in which all or most of the women are raped, incest is the pre-eminent norm and men are predominantly rapists and stealers of the supposedly common wealth. If that is true, I withdraw the Amish as any sort of model, although I believe that the prescribed system is not practiced by those you describe.

But, again, that will apply to any "system." It can only function as prescribed if its citizens are faithful to it. And if you're searching for or desiring a system without miscreants, I think you're looking for something impossible. Except, as I mentioned, something like that described in Huxley's Brave New World in which fetuses are injected with a chemical which physically implants the proper disposition to be a worker, or manager, or whatever.

There is no "system" created by humans, populated and run by humans which will give you your desired equitable distribution of wealth. Simply put, humans are not insects. Nor birds of any sort. Nor mammalian animals imprinted with irrevocable patterns of herd behavior. We have an endless potential for diversity in the human genome, the best we can do is probably teach each other to respect humanity as something more than living meat and the advantage of caring for each other rather than killing or oppressing each other. But removing the competitive, inquisitive, drive to personally improve commensurate to ones ability to do so is a form of killing and oppressing that which makes us human.

[Pete F.]

54,000 dead Americans and the president is spending the day publicly feeling sorry for himself. What the hell happened to this country?

The people that know me and know the history of our Country say that I am the hardest working President in history. I don’t know about that, but I am a hard worker and have probably gotten more done in the first 3 1/2 years than any President in history. The Fake News hates it!

I work from early in the morning until late at night, haven’t left the White House in many months (except to launch Hospital Ship Comfort) in order to take care of Trade Deals, Military Rebuilding etc., and then I read a phony story in the failing @nytimes about my work....
...schedule and eating habits, written by a third rate reporter who knows nothing about me. I will often be in the Oval Office late into the night & read & see that I am angrily eating a hamburger & Diet Coke in my bedroom. People with me are always stunned. Anything to demean!

.@FoxNews just doesn’t get what’s happening! They are being fed Democrat talking points, and they play them without hesitation or research. They forgot that Fake News @CNN & MSDNC wouldn’t let @FoxNews participate, even a little bit, in the poor ratings Democrat Debates.....
....Even the Radical Left Do Nothing Democrats laughed at the Fox suggestion. No respect for the people running @FoxNews. But Fox keeps on plugging to try and become politically correct. They put RINO Paul Ryan on their Board. They hire “debate questions to Crooked Hillary”....
...fraud @donnabrazile (and others who are even worse). Chris Wallace is nastier to Republicans than even Deface the Nation or Sleepy Eyes. The people who are watching @FoxNews, in record numbers (thank you President Trump), are angry. They want an alternative now. So do I!

Reports that H.H.S. Secretary @AlexAzar is going to be “fired” by me are Fake News. The Lamestream Media knows this, but they are desperate to create the perception of chaos & havoc in the minds of the public. They never even called to ask. Alex is doing an excellent job!

Does anybody get the meaning of what a so-called Noble (not Nobel) Prize is, especially as it pertains to Reporters and Journalists? Noble is defined as, “having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.” Does sarcasm ever work?

Sorry Citrus Caligula you’ll never comprehend sarcasm.
We’re in a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Great job being done here. Don’t get distracted by Bitchslappedboy. 99% wow!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

MR1
You’re so sweet

The “hardest working President in history” sent 36 tweets yesterday, none of which were about how we’re going to recover from this pandemic or memorialize the more than 55,000 Americans who‘ve died.


He is a disgrace—to the office he holds and the country he purportedly represents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MR1
You’re so sweet

The “hardest working President in history” sent 36 tweets yesterday, none of which were about how we’re going to recover from this pandemic or memorialize the more than 55,000 Americans who‘ve died.


He is a disgrace—to the office he holds and the country he purportedly represents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bitchslappedboy, you have a great idea. 💡
We should memorialize each death suffered in our country. Sickness,suicide,abortion...let’s recognize these folks.🤦🏽#^&♂️

Because when things go too right,you change the narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

MR1
You’re so sweet

The “hardest working President in history” sent 36 tweets yesterday, none of which were about how we’re going to recover from this pandemic or memorialize the more than 55,000 Americans who‘ve died.


He is a disgrace—to the office he holds and the country he purportedly represents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Memorialize? I'm sorry, when was the last time we memorialized people who died of the flu, or cancer, or any other natural cause?

[Pete F.]

Morons, now it's just the flu? Gonna have a pox party?
Social distancing works, earlier social distancing is hundreds of times better.

70 days of delay cost us thousands of lives, millions of jobs and trillions of dollars.

That's billions and billions for Trumplicans.

Death, disease and economic pain are real. They can't be spun.

No, social distancing didn't start in January but it certainly could have started weeks earlier and been supported rather than downplayed.

What did the Stable Genius do in the time between late January and early March. Besides Rallies, Golf and repeating Chinese propaganda?

January 20, 2020: The United States and South Korea each announce their first case of COVID-19 on the same day.

The CDC confirms the first case of COVID-19 in the United States in Washington State.

South Korea’s National IHR Focal Point (NFP) reports its country’s first case of novel coronavirus on the same day. South Korea quickly proceeds to mobilize vast resources for diagnostic testing, enlisting the private sector for test development, including drive-through screening centers, and quarantines.

The same day: President Xi Jinping publicly announces for the first time that the coronavirus outbreak “must be taken seriously” and that the country must impose all possible measures to contain the virus. Chinese officials also confirm for the first time that the new coronavirus is transmissible via human-to-human contact.
Maybe he told his good friend Donald not to worry about it.

Reports later emerge that by this date nearly 3000 Chinese citizens were already infected by the coronavirus.

March 13, 2020: President Trump declares a national emergency and promises a new website to link Americans to testing sites.

President Trump* declares that the coronavirus pandemic is a national emergency. He also states: “I don’t take responsibility at all,” in response to a question about the lack of available tests.

Because in Trump*s empty mind, the states are responsible but absolute power lies with him.

Stop telling me what the Stable Genius really meant to say or how to interpret him. If he can’t speak for himself then he shouldn’t speak for a nation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Bitchslappedboy, you have a great idea. ��
We should memorialize each death suffered in our country. Sickness,suicide,abortion...let’s recognize these folks.����#^&♂️

Because when things go too right,you change the narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Best way to memorialize the victims is to teach China a lesson that they won't forget, one severe enough to make sure they know not to do this again (if they were as negligent as it appears).

[Pete F.]

The only way we will have any effect on China's power is a strong international alliance organized and led by the United States, or it will not be controlled at all.
This fool has no idea how to lead an administration without getting rid of everyone who could or would disagree with him, never mind a group of sovereign nations.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The only way we will have any effect on China's power is a strong international alliance organized and led by the United States, or it will not be controlled at all.
This fool has no idea how to lead an administration without getting rid of everyone who could or would disagree with him, never mind a group of sovereign nations.

So which "strong international alliance organized and led by the United States" was having an effect on China's power before Trump was President? Who had an idea on how to lead an administration and a group of sovereign nations against China's power before Trump?

Which alliance or American President was curtailing China's power before Trump?

China was progressively getting stronger before Trump.

[Pete F.]

Just how much money does Trump* owe the Chinese?

[detbuch]

How much does the United States owe the Chinese?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just how much money does Trump* owe the Chinese?

Originally Posted by detbuch

How much does the United States owe the Chinese?

I insist that the guy negotiating for me not be beholden to the organization I'm negotiating with.

Nothing strange about that, just a little due diligence, that's always avoided by a con artist.

[Sea Dangles]

If Bitchslappedboy insists then we can be sure it must be so.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I insist that the guy negotiating for me not be beholden to the organization I'm negotiating with.

Nothing strange about that, just a little due diligence, that's always avoided by a con artist.

Insist all you want, but if the organization as a whole owes over a trillion dollars to the organization it is bargaining with, the debtor nation is in a whole lot of hurt, regardless of who its leader is and how much that leader owes. China can call in payment for the debt in either case. Trump has way more in assets than it owes China. He can sell enough to pay his debt which is due in a couple of years, still have enough left to be super wealthy and continue to make profits from the businesses his family owns, as well as having a very lucrative pension from the US government. The US has to borrow to pay debt, unless its willing to sell the federal land that it owns--which probably would not happen. It would have to "print" that money causing it to be worth less as well as how much less it's value is already losing due to the trillions borrowed to float us through the pandemic.

What the leader can do in a case where the debtor country has been far more economically damaged by its creditor than the amount it owes to it, is relinquish its debt to that creditor as partial payment for the damage that creditor has caused. And, it can feasibly relinquish the debt that its citizens owe to that creditor to make up for the balance owed to itself.

China is in a bad way regarding the damage it's caused by carelessly or deliberately letting the virus spread outside its borders. I would applaud Trump if he demanded reparations from China.

[Pete F.]

Trump* will just file bankruptcy like he has previously, though he is very adept at printing money and has now gained control of the Fed.
You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?
You really should look at Trump*s business history.
Better than even odds he’s upside down now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump* will just file bankruptcy like he has previously, though he is very adept at printing money and has now gained control of the Fed.
You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?
You really should look at Trump*s business history.
Better than even odds he’s upside down now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you insist,Bitchslappedboy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You are a debt don’t matter guy, right? Pretty hard to support this administration and play the debt card. Or is all the debt the fault of Democrats and those immigrants?

No, I am not a debt don't matter guy. Not sure how you can know what I am if you don't read my posts or watch my videos. I am a Congress-is-responsible-for-the-debt guy. But more so, I'm a Federal-Government-is-constitutionally-limited guy.

There is no possibility that Congress will eliminate the national debt, nor keep it within reason, so long as Progressive policies, regulations, and programs remain in place, and are continuously added to. And I don't attach Progressivism only to Democrats. Republicans have created their own share of Progressive policy. The first Progressive President was a Republican. And there have followed others who were mostly or partially (enough to do the damage) Progressive. And just as bad, if not worse, SCOTUS has "interpreted" the Constitution out of its limited Federal Government shell and not held in check, as is its duty, the unconstitutional Progressivism which has been the driving force behind unhampered government spending.

I don't think you want to discuss any of that. From a lot of your writing, it is apparent that you favor a barely limited, if at all, central government to control much of the core civil functions including health care, welfare, the economy, and control most of all the essential individual responsibilities which can affect those broader issues, which ultimately can be Progressively interpreted to encompass every aspect of our lives.

At any rate, the steadily and constantly expanding needs of the people that progressives manufacture every election cycle, and which they claim the Federal Government must provide, regulate, and pay for, as well as the miraculous expansion of the current ones which never, somehow, actually ever get fixed but constantly, somehow, get worse, all require more programs, regulations, and to be paid for.

Now, a careful reading of the Constitution would reveal that it does not delegate any actual power to the Federal Government to create these programs. And if the Constitution were followed, they wouldn't do so and would not have done so. Which would mean that the major part of the Federal government spending would be, and would have been, eliminated. Which would mean that the debt would be minimal, if at all.

I think that it's the Progressive, socialistic, Marxist, Communist (they are varying degrees of the same thing) approach to governing that is the type which is not concerned with the notion of government debt. That approach does not limit how much money the government owns. It creates as much as it needs. It believes that, in reality, it controls (or should) pretty much everything and that it owns the money it prints and much (if not ultimately most) of what individuals think is theirs, ergo all transactions are under its sanctions, so the money it borrows is its own and the debt is to itself--the central banks being part of the scheme and profiting mightily. And if borrowed from another country, it can pay it back in the same way it pays itself ("borrow it" from itself). It never really even pays itself since, in our case, it never pays down the principle, just pays what interest is owed per month. And who gets to keep those interest payments, why the central banks, the Federal Reserve, who are part of the scheme.

We are assured, by the currently still expanding Progressive governance, that, no, the government truly is limited, is within constitutional bounds. And most want to believe that and are willingly persuaded by "reports" of Court opinions and decisions that they are come by proper constitutional "interpretation." Honest study and honest scholars know that is not true. But better, given where we have come (and where they want to take us), to let the fiction be "true."

The actual, true, trajectory is fully unlimited government power. And we're going to get there either by the ultimate financial crisis in which the government will have to grab total power in order to prevent catastrophe, or by the actual catastrophe which will have, per force, the same resolution. Creeping unsustainable debt may be the ultimate, peaceful, way to unlimited government.

That is, so long as there is not a revolution. Successful gun control can help prevent that. And an ever evolving socialization process in which each new generation accepts the government it has as how it should be will make the transition easier. And that evolution has already developed to the point where the existing younger generations no longer even have an attachment to the founding constitutional system of government. And they are losing any faith or belief in free market capitalism. Socialism has lost its stigma for them. It is even preferred by more and more of them. And, after all, if the Federal government didn't create and pay for all those presumably necessary programs, what would happen to the people. The states surely could not provide them. (Yeah they and their people, if free to do so, could provide better for themselves what is suited to their needs and in differing ways which create workable models or models to avoid.)

What does that all portend for the notion of an unsustainable national debt? I don't think the new generations, if this continues, will care about such a thing. They didn't create it. They won't want to squander what ever resources they have left to pay them off. They will be perfectly satisfied that the debt will simply be erased, and that the musty old institutions that are owed the money can just fold up shop and join them in the new world of benevolent government which will provide the structure for what society needs to be done and employ everyone, all paid relatively equally by government fiat money if money will still be used, in that endeavor.