Big Government and The Public Safety Reasoning

[Kathianne]

Since Saturday I've been reading and listening and thinking. It seems to me that as the 'crisis' inches towards the leveling off and hopefully the downside of the curve, suddenly government-especially executives-the President, governors, mayors are all trying to pull out powers they don't have. They weren't so quick to try this when the virus appeared to be 'winning.' Which is kinda weird.

Mayors ordering police to ticket attendees of a church service, in their cars with windows rolled up on Easter. MI removing a man for not having a face mask. The state of Vermont forcing 'big stores' that sell groceries not to sell 'non-essentials,' where do they draw those powers from?

The one 'panic' move we saw was when states started road blocking folks from NY from coming into their states. That didn't play well.

I've thought from the beginning, that chastising and shunning were the best response to those not doing what they should. A case in point were some of those incredibly selfish college kids on Spring Break, later posting apologies. Personally I liked that dad that wouldn't let his some come home and expose those in the house to anything he may have been exposed to. Now that's shunning!

I didn't like Trump's claim that the president has basically unlimited power in a crisis. He doesn't and it won't fly. There were reasons-like the Constitution-that he didn't blanket close down the country-just some flights in. The governors had to do the states, as he said himself repeatedly. Same with opening up.

Likewise, the mayors and governors should not be running their mouths off or abusing their powers. I don't think any of these political moves are going to be appreciated by the folks voting next November.

[FakeNewsSux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IfhIMzu3xs

[Kathianne]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/93235819_3339330066095100_3557520058362101760_n.jp g?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=GqlTMLF-j8kAX-raQPR&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=cfb2c73cdafa7c060e3afcef6795044d&oe=5EBC0E80

[Kathianne]

I'm certainly in favor of group protection, I was probably the first one to say we needed to shut down and seriously was concerned that the numbers of sick and dead would be much higher.

They would have been without the social distancing and hygiene measures taken.

However, they were measures suggested, which one could heed or not. Not to do so put yourself and others at risk, not a very good fellow citizen thing to do.

One thing many of us learned, some later than sooner from 9/11, it's nearly impossible to get power back from government once given. The government can help educate and persuade, there's a big pulpit on each level, for each audience-Federal, state, county, local. What they should not be permitted to do is take our rights, void any sections of the Constitution. Remember FISAs? Patriot Act?

[Drummond]

H'm.

Well, I approach this as someone not living in a society governed according to a Constitution, at least, not one as you possess one.

It's true that the US Constitution is a restraint on Governmental powers, and a major one. You must be seeing examples from across the world of Governments, even proudly democratic ones, all too willing to enact draconian powers of restriction of movement if they choose to.

One European power (not sure if it's Italy, or France ?) has gone to the extreme of preparing an official form which people are meant to download. The citizen prints it off ... fills it out by hand ... then leaves home with it fully completed. Any policeman can demand to see the completed form and has powers to act against said citizen if its contents aren't approved of. The form details WHY the citizen feels s/he has a good reason to leave home.

We in the UK haven't gone nearly as far as that. Leaving home is permitted, no form necessary, so long as you're leaving on the one occasion per day when you exercise by walking or jogging. You can leave home to shop for food, medicines, strictly essential provisions. You can leave home to go to work if you're an 'essential worker' All other 'reasons' for setting out are considered illegal, and subject to a fine.

Governments, in time of emergency, adopt emergency powers ! It sort of scans !! The citizen benefits from them. The alternative is a society where the individual is far more easily empowered to do harm to others, and unnecessarily and avoidably. Recourse to such emergency powers, I suggest, is a GOOD thing.

My one big 'gripe' against your Constitution would be, and is, that it restricts adaptability to changing circumstances. Did those who drafted your Constitution think that you might need to guard against a global pandemic, I wonder ?

I'm not 'anti' your Constitution. But I do think it forbids the fullest adaptability possible to emergencies such as the current one.

I'd say this: a reputable Government will not abuse its power. Mine qualifies as a reputable Government, partly because it only exercises the power necessary to achieve the desired effect, and doesn't go further. If The People decided it HAD gone too far .... they can be voted out of power at the next election.

So for a democratic power, its freedoms to act are ultimately limited. For non democratic powers, it was never an issue in the first place !

My Government has passed laws which empower them, BUT, has written into law that they have a shelf life of two years. I call that reputable !

[Kathianne]

H'm.

Well, I approach this as someone not living in a society governed according to a Constitution, at least, not one as you possess one.

It's true that the US Constitution is a restraint on Governmental powers, and a major one. You must be seeing examples from across the world of Governments, even proudly democratic ones, all too willing to enact draconian powers of restriction of movement if they choose to.

One European power (not sure if it's Italy, or France ?) has gone to the extreme of preparing an official form which people are meant to download. The citizen prints it off ... fills it out by hand ... then leaves home with it fully completed. Any policeman can demand to see the completed form and has powers to act against said citizen if its contents aren't approved of. The form details WHY the citizen feels s/he has a good reason to leave home.

We in the UK haven't gone nearly as far as that. Leaving home is permitted, no form necessary, so long as you're leaving on the one occasion per day when you exercise by walking or jogging. You can leave home to shop for food, medicines, strictly essential provisions. You can leave home to go to work if you're an 'essential worker' All other 'reasons' for setting out are considered illegal, and subject to a fine.

Governments, in time of emergency, adopt emergency powers ! It sort of scans !! The citizen benefits from them. The alternative is a society where the individual is far more easily empowered to do harm to others, and unnecessarily and avoidably. Recourse to such emergency powers, I suggest, is a GOOD thing.

My one big 'gripe' against your Constitution would be, and is, that it restricts adaptability to changing circumstances. Did those who drafted your Constitution think that you might need to guard against a global pandemic, I wonder ?

I'm not 'anti' your Constitution. But I do think it forbids the fullest adaptability possible to emergencies such as the current one.

I'd say this: a reputable Government will not abuse its power. Mine qualifies as a reputable Government, partly because it only exercises the power necessary to achieve the desired effect, and doesn't go further. If The People decided it HAD gone too far .... they can be voted out of power at the next election.

So for a democratic power, its freedoms to act are ultimately limited. For non democratic powers, it was never an issue in the first place !

My Government has passed laws which empower them, BUT, has written into law that they have a shelf life of two years. I call that reputable !

Yep, I get that. Your country and for that matter your family stayed comfortable under the old order. For most
Americans, whether here for one generation or from the inception, were not comfortable with a monarch or even the Parliamentary system. For them, that was the status quo. Neither our Constitution, nor traditionally the people, are quick to Make major changes willy nilly. Indeed, the closer we've moved towards European models, the more problems we have within and between the citizens and government.

That's been our experience, but not yours. Millions remained happy in the "Old World," while millions thrived here.

[jimnyc]

I should have kept a literal running list of all the things I wanted to remember for "after". I was trying to refrain from any blaming and concentrating on the positive. I saw it adding up and adding up out there. From massive exaggerations then instantly condemning, some abusing their powers down to cops abusing powers.

I think a lot of it starts with the China lying, to Who to the CDC to all of our leaders eating up the numbers and running with the fear - and then the politicians and hospitals going cuckoo.

Hospitals around the nation were screaming about being out of ventilators and beds, but none were really out, they were basing their info on these models. But Cuomo shouldn't have screamed they were literally out of these 2 when they weren't, and reported falsely on what was in stock about the ventilators. But he wasn't the only one, just the one I know best being in NY. We saw this all over the place.

Then governors all giving out different orders but mainly all locking down. Everyone collectively killing our economy based on incorrect models. And then come tickets and jail and more.

$500 tickets to an entire congregation in their cars for a service. State trooper arrested in front of his 6 year old over social distancing. 22 people get tickets in San Diego in their cars watching the sunset. A young gal gets a ticket for going for a ride in PA. And those stories are endless.

So it starts with lies and incorrect models and other information from leading doctors, then our political leaders rush to close areas of the country down to protect people, then basically the entire nation, but then comes into question enforcement of these orders and abuse.

But yeah, if these models are so so wrong, then it is time to start opening in "some areas" and not others. And yep, it very well may be a rolling thing as some say. But definitely a scattered opening. Trump should give the OK before long, IMO, and lift the national emergency and let the governors all decide from there.

Of course then you will inevitably have places that open, then numbers will rise, and then the areas will be blamed and then ultimately Trump... :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

I should have kept a literal running list of all the things I wanted to remember for "after". I was trying to refrain from any blaming and concentrating on the positive. I saw it adding up and adding up out there. From massive exaggerations then instantly condemning, some abusing their powers down to cops abusing powers.

I think a lot of it starts with the China lying, to Who to the CDC to all of our leaders eating up the numbers and running with the fear - and then the politicians and hospitals going cuckoo.

Hospitals around the nation were screaming about being out of ventilators and beds, but none were really out, they were basing their info on these models. But Cuomo shouldn't have screamed they were literally out of these 2 when they weren't, and reported falsely on what was in stock about the ventilators. But he wasn't the only one, just the one I know best being in NY. We saw this all over the place.

Then governors all giving out different orders but mainly all locking down. Everyone collectively killing our economy based on incorrect models. And then come tickets and jail and more.

$500 tickets to an entire congregation in their cars for a service. State trooper arrested in front of his 6 year old over social distancing. 22 people get tickets in San Diego in their cars watching the sunset. A young gal gets a ticket for going for a ride in PA. And those stories are endless.

So it starts with lies and incorrect models and other information from leading doctors, then our political leaders rush to close areas of the country down to protect people, then basically the entire nation, but then comes into question enforcement of these orders and abuse.

But yeah, if these models are so so wrong, then it is time to start opening in "some areas" and not others. And yep, it very well may be a rolling thing as some say. But definitely a scattered opening. Trump should give the OK before long, IMO, and lift the national emergency and let the governors all decide from there.

Of course then you will inevitably have places that open, then numbers will rise, and then the areas will be blamed and then ultimately Trump... :rolleyes:

I don't know if I'm the only person in the US or here that had a few issues with his tweets yesterday, not too mention his actually saying that 'the president has absolute powers in times like this.' Uhhh, nope.

I'm not Pete. That pretty much came damn close to the horror of Pelosi at the SOTU. He needs to walk these items back.

[jimnyc]

I don't know if I'm the only person in the US or here that had a few issues with his tweets yesterday, not too mention his actually saying that 'the president has absolute powers in times like this.' Uhhh, nope.

I'm not Pete. That pretty much came damn close to the horror of Pelosi at the SOTU. He needs to walk these items back.

He was wrong, no doubt, he doesn't have such powers. Nor do the governors putting out some unconstitutional orders out there. Lots of rights being abused in the name of our safety. And I agree or agreed with much of it, but then instantly noticed abuses not long after. Trump talks shit, especially when not filtered by anyone. His actions speak louder to me.

I think he was wrong about much out there, but I also believe it's based on what he is learning from other medical leaders and such around him. And of course I laid out how I think the bogus info ran down the chain.

I think the largest abuse was the lying from China and what did WHO know. And then just incorrect info by many here in the USA. I don't blame any of them, they were just wrong. But then the governors on down started laying out the temporary orders, and that's changed over time, and then how did the police handle much of this?

Too much all the way around for my liking. But do I think it's anywhere near the "Schiff" we need to investigate and finalize by the election? Absolutely not, not if blaming the president, nor anyone who tried to help. I don't think it'll be hard afterwards to separate the malicious folks from those who were helping.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know if I'm the only person in the US or here that had a few issues with his tweets yesterday, not too mention his actually saying that 'the president has absolute powers in times like this.' Uhhh, nope.

I'm not Pete. That pretty much came damn close to the horror of Pelosi at the SOTU. He needs to walk these items back.

I'm sure he knows he can't open the country back up. Otherwise he would have tried to put a nationwide quarantine in place instead of having to rely on idiots like Whitmer of Michigan and DeSantis of FL.
I have been wondering about presidential powers during a crisis for weeks.

[Kathianne]

He was wrong, no doubt, he doesn't have such powers. Nor do the governors putting out some unconstitutional orders out there. Lots of rights being abused in the name of our safety. And I agree or agreed with much of it, but then instantly noticed abuses not long after. Trump talks shit, especially when not filtered by anyone. His actions speak louder to me.

I think he was wrong about much out there, but I also believe it's based on what he is learning from other medical leaders and such around him. And of course I laid out how I think the bogus info ran down the chain.

I think the largest abuse was the lying from China and what did WHO know. And then just incorrect info by many here in the USA. I don't blame any of them, they were just wrong. But then the governors on down started laying out the temporary orders, and that's changed over time, and then how did the police handle much of this?

Too much all the way around for my liking. But do I think it's anywhere near the "Schiff" we need to investigate and finalize by the election? Absolutely not, not if blaming the president, nor anyone who tried to help. I don't think it'll be hard afterwards to separate the malicious folks from those who were helping.

I know he's not a doctor. I understand his concern on economics. All that I can waive away. I even understand his passing interest in the Constitution, there's plenty of experts to explain all that. What I don't understand, coupled with his long term admiration for 'strong men,' whether real or not, is the claim that the president has 'absolute' power. I do believe he must have been asleep during the Nixon era? Even the president's minions can't make an end play for that.

If he doesn't walk these comments back in some fashion, it could be a huge problem. Just today for instance, do you really think it a coincidence that Obama came out for Biden? Nope, that has to do with the timing.

[Black Diamond]

I know he's not a doctor. I understand his concern on economics. All that I can waive away. I even understand his passing interest in the Constitution, there's plenty of experts to explain all that. What I don't understand, coupled with his long term admiration for 'strong men,' whether real or not, is the claim that the president has 'absolute' power. I do believe he must have been asleep during the Nixon era? Even the president's minions can't make an end play for that.

If he doesn't walk these comments back in some fashion, it could be a huge problem. Just today for instance, do you really think it a coincidence that Obama came out for Biden? Nope, that has to do with the timing.

He was chasing women and learning real estate during Nixon Era

[Kathianne]

He was chasing women and learning real estate during Nixon Era
Probably. Since he seems able to sustain interest in politics through all those crisis until this point, one would hope that he'd follow up his successes with some commonsense to get him through to a conclusion.

Here's the thing, he has folks like most here, that none of what he does wrong matter, no matter the cost to the country. He has many others that no matter what he's done right, will be out to undermine him, whatever the cost to the country.

Then there are some, that just want the country to do well, not giving a fig about those running for office in a personal way and this president, like the one before, scare the bejeebers out of them. They don't need him to write tweets and say aloud their deepest fears about him. He's just been lucky thus far, like Obama before him, that the alternative villains come off as bad.

[Drummond]

I don't know if I'm the only person in the US or here that had a few issues with his tweets yesterday, not too mention his actually saying that 'the president has absolute powers in times like this.' Uhhh, nope.

I'm not Pete. That pretty much came damn close to the horror of Pelosi at the SOTU. He needs to walk these items back.

You would have enjoyed our media today, then (one largely hostile to Trump at the best of times). I heard an LBC commentator claim that Trump's pronouncement on how much power he had, was 'absolutely astonishing'.

Without saying it in so many words, the inference from that commentator was that Trump had become totally power-drunk and very possibly unhinged.

But then, he was a Left wing commentator.

No doubt James O'Brien will pick up on this in a forthcoming show. His vitriol against both Trump and Boris sometimes has to be heard to be believed. Trouble is, our people are somewhat separate from American politics because it's 'foreign'. They WILL believe our biased commentators.

So can I just point out that our political adversaries, namely, THE LEFT, will applaud you for your lack of solidarity behind your President. Any such sentiments they will consider eminently exploitable, and they should, because they are the masters of hate-politics.

Far better to not do the Left's work for them, I say.

[Kathianne]

You would have enjoyed our media today, then (one largely hostile to Trump at the best of times). I heard an LBC commentator claim that Trump's pronouncement on how much power he had, was 'absolutely astonishing'.

Without saying it in so many words, the inference from that commentator was that Trump had become totally power-drunk and very possibly unhinged.

But then, he was a Left wing commentator.

No doubt James O'Brien will pick up on this in a forthcoming show. His vitriol against both Trump and Boris sometimes has to be heard to be believed. Trouble is, our people are somewhat separate from American politics because it's 'foreign'. They WILL believe our biased commentators.

So can I just point out that our political adversaries, namely, THE LEFT, will applaud you for your lack of solidarity behind your President. Any such sentiments they will consider eminently exploitable, and they should, because they are the masters of hate-politics.

Far better to not do the Left's work for them, I say.

You may have missed the fact that my even considering voting for him in November is a result of Pelosi's and Schiff's behaviors since the last election, along with many of their supporters. If Pelosi hadn't done what she did at the SOTU, I don't know that I'd even consider doing so. I forgive mistakes, not a problem. I don't find inexcusable behaviors excusable. There must be recognition and contrition. I know others disagree, for their guys.

This isn't a case of the presidents words or actions being misinterpreted, it's WHAT HE WROTE AND SAID, HIMSELF.

[Black Diamond]

Probably. Since he seems able to sustain interest in politics through all those crisis until this point, one would hope that he'd follow up his successes with some commonsense to get him through to a conclusion.

Here's the thing, he has folks like most here, that none of what he does wrong matter, no matter the cost to the country. He has many others that no matter what he's done right, will be out to undermine him, whatever the cost to the country.

Then there are some, that just want the country to do well, not giving a fig about those running for office in a personal way and this president, like the one before, scare the bejeebers out of them. They don't need him to write tweets and say aloud their deepest fears about him. He's just been lucky thus far, like Obama before him, that the alternative villains come off as bad.

I understand the bewilderment and "smh" about his tweets and his comments.

[Drummond]

You may have missed the fact that my even considering voting for him in November is a result of Pelosi's and Schiff's behaviors since the last election, along with many of their supporters. If Pelosi hadn't done what she did at the SOTU, I don't know that I'd even consider doing so. I forgive mistakes, not a problem. I don't find inexcusable behaviors excusable. There must be recognition and contrition. I know others disagree, for their guys.

This isn't a case of the presidents words or actions being misinterpreted, it's WHAT HE WROTE AND SAID, HIMSELF.

Understood. I'm not saying otherwise.

I'm simply saying that the Left sees such thinking as exploitable. The more they see Conservatives show less-than-total-loyalty, the more they'll be encouraged to propagandise in the hope and expectation of seeing it fracture entirely, with them as the winners.

The Left isn't bound by decency, just wedded to 'means to an end' thinking. As limited and unevolved as their attitudes are, they press ahead with their hatreds. They will learn nothing about themselves, but absolutely expect others to bend to them.

You continue to see an equivalence between Left and Right, I think. I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. The Left's politics is hatred-driven. It only ceases to be when they win.

[Kathianne]

Understood. I'm not saying otherwise.

I'm simply saying that the Left sees such thinking as exploitable. The more they see Conservatives show less-than-total-loyalty, the more they'll be encouraged to propagandise in the hope and expectation of seeing it fracture entirely, with them as the winners.

The Left isn't bound by decency, just wedded to 'means to an end' thinking. As limited and unevolved as their attitudes are, they press ahead with their hatreds. They will learn nothing about themselves, but absolutely expect others to bend to them.

You continue to see an equivalence between Left and Right, I think. I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. The Left's politics is hatred-driven. It only ceases to be when they win.
Equivalency has nothing to do with it. I do think there's right and wrong, along with shades of grey. I was willing to judge the left had gone way too far, both Constitutionally and morally. Then all Trump has to do is stay better of them. Not too much to ask. So far, not looking good.

As Jim said earlier, I will look at his future actions, though the words have to stop about 'absolute power.'

[Black Diamond]

Equivalency has nothing to do with it. I do think there's right and wrong, along with shades of grey. I was willing to judge the left had gone way too far, both Constitutionally and morally. Then all Trump has to do is stay better of them. Not too much to ask. So far, not looking good.

As Jim said earlier, I will look at his future actions, though the words have to stop about 'absolute power.'
I think he walks the comments back in his own way.

[Kathianne]

I think he walks the comments back in his own way.
We'll see. He has a strong tendency towards doubling down.

[SassyLady]

We'll see. He has a strong tendency towards doubling down.

I found his comments about absolute power jarring. However, I think he meant in reference to national emergency.


This theory holds that the president has inherent, implicit authority under Article II of the Constitution that cannot be constrained by Congress—including exclusive power to control all subordinates. In the words of the law professor John Yoo, the author of the infamous Department of Justice memos rationalizing torture under the presidency of George W. Bush, presidents need unitary executive power “to defend the country in times of crisis and emergency (https://www.npr.org/2019/05/08/721552525/former-assistant-ag-offers-perspective-on-unitary-executive-theory).””

This might be what the president is referring to. But, who knows what he was thinking and who planted that seed of absolute power.

[Drummond]

Equivalency has nothing to do with it. I do think there's right and wrong, along with shades of grey. I was willing to judge the left had gone way too far, both Constitutionally and morally. Then all Trump has to do is stay better of them. Not too much to ask. So far, not looking good.

As Jim said earlier, I will look at his future actions, though the words have to stop about 'absolute power.'

I rest my case.

Trust me. The Left sees such thinking as a Godsend. What they'd see is less than solid loyalty, which they'll think is exploitable. Your 'shades of grey' are just what they're looking for.

It's not that they have motives of decency driving them. It IS that they want to win power, and crush opposition.

It comes down to a choice between Trump and his people, versus all the Lefties who want to see him brought down, in the furtherance of their agenda. Who should win, Kathianne ?

[Kathianne]

I found his comments about absolute power jarring. However, I think he meant in reference to national emergency.

This might be what the president is referring to. But, who knows what he was thinking and who planted that seed of absolute power.
Maybe I missed that in the Constitution? When it came to shutting down, when the threat was growing, he mentioned he didn't have the power, that the Constitution gave that tooo the state governments, they had to make the determination of how far to go.

Now claiming that when the threat is lessening, he needs 'absolute power?' Am I missing something?

[Kathianne]

I rest my case.

Trust me. The Left sees such thinking as a Godsend. What they'd see is less than solid loyalty, which they'll think is exploitable. Your 'shades of grey' are just what they're looking for.

It's not that they have motives of decency driving them. It IS that they want to win power, and crush opposition.

It comes down to a choice between Trump and his people, versus all the Lefties who want to see him brought down, in the furtherance of their agenda. Who should win, Kathianne ?

I don't know who to pick, Mao or Genghis Khan?

Seriously, the 'grey' was in Trump's favor and for someone who's not of this country, you sure try to influence the directions you'd like to see. I was glad when Johnson won, for the simple reason that I like UK and though Brexit was the way to go. I however would not presume to pressure anyone in that country, nor do I think our Presidents, either Obama or Trump with implied threats.

[SassyLady]

Maybe I missed that in the Constitution? When it came to shutting down, when the threat was growing, he mentioned he didn't have the power, that the Constitution gave that tooo the state governments, they had to make the determination of how far to go.

Now claiming that when the threat is lessening, he needs 'absolute power?' Am I missing something?

He said something during press conference about producing paperwork to support his statement. Looking forward to what basis they use.

I'm also wondering when MSM or Congress files paperwork about him using press briefings as free campaign ads. CNN was pretty pissed yesterday about the brief "propaganda" presentation yesterday. I thought it was great that he is trying to correct fake news but knew it would backfire.

[Black Diamond]

Maybe I missed that in the Constitution? When it came to shutting down, when the threat was growing, he mentioned he didn't have the power, that the Constitution gave that tooo the state governments, they had to make the determination of how far to go.

Now claiming that when the threat is lessening, he needs 'absolute power?' Am I missing something?

He doesn't have the power to open it back up. That's for sure. I doubt he tries it.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know who to pick, Mao or Genghis Khan?

Seriously, the 'grey' was in Trump's favor and for someone who's not of this country, you sure try to influence the directions you'd like to see. I was glad when Johnson won, for the simple reason that I like UK and though Brexit was the way to go. I however would not presume to pressure anyone in that country, nor do I think our Presidents, either Obama or Trump with implied threats.

In sure a lot of foreigners try to influence us. Many have a lot to say about us.

[Drummond]

Maybe I missed that in the Constitution? When it came to shutting down, when the threat was growing, he mentioned he didn't have the power, that the Constitution gave that too the state governments, they had to make the determination of how far to go.

Now claiming that when the threat is lessening, he needs 'absolute power?' Am I missing something?

You could be seeing a pragmatist in action. Someone seeing reality, and wanting to see the very best outcome possible, made true.

The US Constitution, remarkable as it is in many ways, is not proof against scenarios that its writers had no ability to imagine or properly comprehend.

Or, were they perhaps well versed in modern-day virology ? Did they frame the Constitution so that it fully met the dangers posed by a pandemic ?

A lessening of a viral threat can be apparent, but not ACTUAL ... what if a second wave of it comes about, through premature action ? Trump will want to assess this quickly, without having to cope with input from State after State.

I daresay that the Left will hate him for it.

Trump is a realist. He deserves support for it ... not censure.

[Black Diamond]

You could be seeing a pragmatist in action. Someone seeing reality, and wanting to see the very best outcome possible, made true.

The US Constitution, remarkable as it is in many ways, is not proof against scenarios that its writers had no ability to imagine or properly comprehend.

Or, were they perhaps well versed in modern-day virology ? Did they frame the Constitution so that it fully met the dangers posed by a pandemic ?

A lessening of a viral threat can be apparent, but not ACTUAL ... what if a second wave of it comes about, through premature action ? Trump will want to assess this quickly, without having to cope with input from State after State.

I daresay that the Left will hate him for it.

Trump is a realist. He deserves support for it ... not censure.

He is. But why not try for a national shutdown. It would have saved lives.

[Black Diamond]

He is. But why not try for a national shutdown. It would have saved lives.

If he moves forward and puts his comments to action (which he won't), the question becomes why didn't you try to "overrule" some of the idiot governors?

[Drummond]

In sure a lot of foreigners try to influence us. Many have a lot to say about us.

Many do have a lot to say about the US. You're absolutely right. I hear what they have to say.

I'd give a lot to see those voices silenced.

Equivocations will definitely not do it.

I believe in Trump ... he's the best President you've had in a VERY long time. He needs faith and support, not sniping from his enemies, and ABSOLUTELY NOT at a time of national emergency !!

I dare to hope, even as a foreigner myself, that he gets all he needs.

[Drummond]

If he moves forward and puts his comments to action (which he won't), the question becomes why didn't you try to "overrule" some of the idiot governors?

I'm floundering a bit here, purely as a result of sheer ignorance. I've very little familiarity with the US Constitution, or what powers State officials do or do not have.

I don't actually KNOW what powers Trump has. All I can say, is that Trump, as President, is perfectly placed to see the US's problem as the national emergency that it is, and to deal with it as one. This can hardly be said for State Governors.

IF President Trump had 'cataclysmic' powers as President, and could have overruled Governors to serve a wider purpose, then, it seems reasonable to say that he should have done.

More to the point, though, is to not indulge in some navel-gazing about a past that's already happened. If Trump can, now, exercise remedial powers in the service of his entire nation, that seems fine by me !

Practicality should be the order of the day. You meet an enemy - in this case, a virus ! - in terms most effective against it. The virus won't care about 'ethical thinking', it won't pontificate over political conundrums. It just destroys.

Destroy the destroyer, in any way that'll be effective. I'm sure Trump wants to.

I'm also sure his enemies are so eaten up with their hatreds that they'll sacrifice the National Good in order to pursue them further.

[Kathianne]

He said something during press conference about producing paperwork to support his statement. Looking forward to what basis they use.

I'm also wondering when MSM or Congress files paperwork about him using press briefings as free campaign ads. CNN was pretty pissed yesterday about the brief "propaganda" presentation yesterday. I thought it was great that he is trying to correct fake news but knew it would backfire.
I'd be very interested in the paperwork.

CNN is an abomination, which is a long fall from what it once was. Then again, so it the NYT.

[Kathianne]

In sure a lot of foreigners try to influence us. Many have a lot to say about us.

Without a doubt. As I admitted, both Obama and Trump did their best, worst as it were, imo.

[Kathianne]

You could be seeing a pragmatist in action. Someone seeing reality, and wanting to see the very best outcome possible, made true.

The US Constitution, remarkable as it is in many ways, is not proof against scenarios that its writers had no ability to imagine or properly comprehend.

Or, were they perhaps well versed in modern-day virology ? Did they frame the Constitution so that it fully met the dangers posed by a pandemic ?

A lessening of a viral threat can be apparent, but not ACTUAL ... what if a second wave of it comes about, through premature action ? Trump will want to assess this quickly, without having to cope with input from State after State.

I daresay that the Left will hate him for it.

Trump is a realist. He deserves support for it ... not censure.

You do not understand, but then again, so do few here. IMO, a quaint deal it seems, the Constitution is as darn close to sacred.

[Kathianne]

If he moves forward and puts his comments to action (which he won't), the question becomes why didn't you try to "overrule" some of the idiot governors?
Actually speaking pragmatically, he's now saying that everything that happens with the opening up and anything that happens going forward with the virus, he alone 'absolutely owns.'

Putting aside the unconstitutionality of the claim, the whole idea of the aftermath being his alone is a farce, but it's how it will play out.

[Drummond]

The Left wing delights in rubbishing Donald Trump. Any and every excuse they have, they do it.

If none exist, they invent them.

It's an unceasing effort. Your Lefties do it. So do mine.

I think it might help if I illustrate an example of it, from the British media. What you'll see here, if you view it, is a video of a James O'Brien radio broadcast. He, during it, relayed audio feed of a President Trump address during a NATO summit .. where Trump was in the middle of a press conference.

What you'll see is O'Brien indoctrinating his audience into getting them to see Trump as O'Brien wants you to .... he 'interprets' Trump's answers to fit his own insisted-upon truth of what Trump is supposedly 'all about'.

So, here it is ... a Trump-hating propagandist in action, injecting his 'balance'. Be aware that many will take whatever O'Brien utters as gospel truth .. they're too far removed from American politics to know any better.

Watch ... 'and weep' ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikyU8QXJukE

[Kathianne]

The Left wing delights in rubbishing Donald Trump. Any and every excuse they have, they do it.

If none exist, they invent them.

It's an unceasing effort. Your Lefties do it. So do mine.

I think it might help if I illustrate an example of it, from the British media. What you'll see here, if you view it, is a video of a James O'Brien radio broadcast. He, during it, relayed audio feed of a President Trump address during a NATO summit .. where Trump was in the middle of a press conference.

What you'll see is O'Brien indoctrinating his audience into getting them to see Trump as O'Brien wants you to .... he 'interprets' Trump's answers to fit his own insisted-upon truth of what Trump is supposedly 'all about'.

So, here it is ... a Trump-hating propagandist in action, injecting his 'balance'. Be aware that many will take whatever O'Brien utters as gospel truth .. they're too far removed from American politics to know any better.

Watch ... 'and weep' ....



Seriously, do you actually believe anyone here, myself included need the Brits to tell us about our left or the media biases?

We got it.

[Black Diamond]

I'm floundering a bit here, purely as a result of sheer ignorance. I've very little familiarity with the US Constitution, or what powers State officials do or do not have.

I don't actually KNOW what powers Trump has. All I can say, is that Trump, as President, is perfectly placed to see the US's problem as the national emergency that it is, and to deal with it as one. This can hardly be said for State Governors.

IF President Trump had 'cataclysmic' powers as President, and could have overruled Governors to serve a wider purpose, then, it seems reasonable to say that he should have done.

More to the point, though, is to not indulge in some navel-gazing about a past that's already happened. If Trump can, now, exercise remedial powers in the service of his entire nation, that seems fine by me !

Practicality should be the order of the day. You meet an enemy - in this case, a virus ! - in terms most effective against it. The virus won't care about 'ethical thinking', it won't pontificate over political conundrums. It just destroys.

Destroy the destroyer, in any way that'll be effective. I'm sure Trump wants to.

I'm also sure his enemies are so eaten up with their hatreds that they'll sacrifice the National Good in order to pursue them further.

Most would say the 10th amendment to our constitution says trump "couldn't" shut down the nation due to covid 19; that it is up to each states governor to make the decision.

Trump himself stated he didn't have the power to quarantine the nation. If he can't shut down the country nationally due to a grave threat , it wouldn't make sense that he could "undo" the quarantine when the grave threat no longer exists.

Presidents have violated our constitution due to grave threats in the past. Some of them are on our currency.

[Black Diamond]

Most would say the 10th amendment to our constitution says trump "couldn't" shut down the nation due to covid 19; that it is up to each states governor to make the decision.

Trump himself stated he didn't have the power to quarantine the nation. If he can't shut down the country nationally due to a grave threat , it wouldn't make sense that he could "undo" the quarantine when the grave threat no longer exists.

Presidents have violated our constitution due to grave threats in the past. Some of them are on our currency.

The paragraph in bold is what I've been wondering about the last month or so.

[Kathianne]

Most would say the 10th amendment to our constitution says trump "couldn't" shut down the nation due to covid 19; that it is up to each states governor to make the decision.

Trump himself stated he didn't have the power to quarantine the nation. If he can't shut down the country nationally due to a grave threat , it wouldn't make sense that he could "undo" the quarantine when the grave threat no longer exists.

Presidents have violated our constitution due to grave threats in the past. Some of them are on our currency.

I assume Lincoln? In any case, none that have done so, are free of their decisions historically. Just get Gunny started on Lincoln and the Constitution. On second thought, don't do that.

[Kathianne]

Doubling down:


Cuomo, “our shadow president” (https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/14/video-tv-news-hosts-still-slobbering-andrew-cuomo-shadow-president/)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/874276197357596672/kUuht00m_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1250075668282576898)


Tell the Democrat Governors that “Mutiny On The Bounty” was one of my all time favorite movies. A good old fashioned mutiny every now and then is an exciting and invigorating thing to watch, especially when the mutineers need so much from the Captain. Too easy!


105K (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1250075668282576898)
7:57 AM - Apr 14, 2020 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1250075668282576898)







He's not going to be happy to hear about the 10th Amendment.

[Drummond]

Seriously, do you actually believe anyone here, myself included need the Brits to tell us about our left or the media biases?

We got it.

I'm glad.

In which case, the lesson is clear. Equivocation is exploitable. Better not to do it.

President Trump needs unstinting support. Forgive my 'foreigner's arrogance' .. but it's my very firm recommendation that HE RECEIVES IT.

[Kathianne]

Backlash, though still muted:


in a pandemic emergency:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/681152691461042177/_PrgDgFA_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/RandPaul)Senator Rand Paul
✔@RandPaul
(https://twitter.com/RandPaul)

(https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1250090771702743043)


The constitution doesn’t allow the federal gov’t to become the ultimate regulator of our lives because they wave a doctor’s note. Powers not delegated are RESERVED to states & the PEOPLE. If we dispense with constitutional restraints, we will have more to worry about than a virus


20.9K (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1250090771702743043)
8:57 AM - Apr 14, 2020 (https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1250090771702743043)









Meanwhile it does appear that the states are breaking into regions to respond to the Federal threat of withholding support to the sick.

IL, MI, OH, WI, MN, IN are in talks. MA has joined with NY, NJ, CT, ME, and the 'other one.' ;)

Anyone who thinks that most people trust the Federal government regarding response to virus over their local doctors and government is deluding themselves.

[jimnyc]

The Left wing delights in rubbishing Donald Trump. Any and every excuse they have, they do it.

If none exist, they invent them.

It's an unceasing effort. Your Lefties do it. So do mine.

Our lefties are nuttier than I thought after watching the past 3 or so years. This includes the MSM. They have lied endlessly, and that's a fact. Both democrat leaders and the media. They have been busted many many times, both of them. The democrats are based on hypocrisy, live it and breath it. They will reverse order in quick fashion in order to bash Trump. There can be video evidence to the contrary of anything they say, and as you see it doesn't even make a difference. They will actively lie while a video plays in the background proving they are lying. When it comes to condemning Trump or anyone on the right, truth and facts go out the window. It's mind boggling the amount. Lie, cheat & steal... and they do all of them in addition.

Their skills in cheating have them drooling at the moment about the upcoming election and their desire to move things to mail this November.

And inventing, oh yeah, they are good at that too! And have been busted making shit up. Look at Schiff and his inventing evidence for a year in his possession, and then inventing a phone call Trump made at the beginning of the trial. Literally make shit up if the truth isn't good enough.

And will the petey types of the world hold them remotely accountable? Hell no. He ignores it like it doesn't exist while running with the crap they spill out, and has been wrong like 4,976 times out of his last 4,974 gotcha posts.

[Kathianne]

I’ve no beef with what Jim has written about those on the left, including msm. I also don’t mind threads evolving.

In on this case though, I’m sad to see this happening, as I thought the discussion was good, dealing with some opinions and some facts, while remaining civil.

If you all want another right/left thread, fine. Maybe soon there will be enough?

[Gunny]

I found his comments about absolute power jarring. However, I think he meant in reference to national emergency.

This might be what the president is referring to. But, who knows what he was thinking and who planted that seed of absolute power. Probably got the idea from Abraham Lincoln and/or FDR. Both of them DID have and use ultimate power.

In this case though I'm sure it won't fly because the President's name is Trump.

[Drummond]

I’ve no beef with what Jim has written about those on the left, including msm. I also don’t mind threads evolving.

In on this case though, I’m sad to see this happening, as I thought the discussion was good, dealing with some opinions and some facts, while remaining civil.

If you all want another right/left thread, fine. Maybe soon there will be enough?

My only real point in this has been that it's not a good thing to give the Left ammunition from acts of equivalency. I see that as an eminently reasonable position to take.

More to the point (your Left will never agree) is that, in a time of national emergency, the country should rally around its leader. He, and your Government, is charged with the duty of serving the safety and security of your country. Respect Trump's efforts, Trump in turn will do his best for you. I absolutely, 100 percent, believe this.

Trump is a very good man, and the best President you've had over the past couple of decades (at least). Just let him do his job, minus the sniping.

Is that REALLY asking so very much ??

That's all I really want to say.

[SassyLady]

I’ve no beef with what Jim has written about those on the left, including msm. I also don’t mind threads evolving.

In on this case though, I’m sad to see this happening, as I thought the discussion was good, dealing with some opinions and some facts, while remaining civil.

If you all want another right/left thread, fine. Maybe soon there will be enough?
I don't like big government and I don't like big brother.

Seems like the "absolute authority" issue wasn't addressed in press briefing today.

[Kathianne]

My only real point in this has been that it's not a good thing to give the Left ammunition from acts of equivalency. I see that as an eminently reasonable position to take.

More to the point (your Left will never agree) is that, in a time of national emergency, the country should rally around its leader. He, and your Government, is charged with the duty of serving the safety and security of your country. Respect Trump's efforts, Trump in turn will do his best for you. I absolutely, 100 percent, believe this.

Trump is a very good man, and the best President you've had over the past couple of decades (at least). Just let him do his job, minus the sniping.

Is that REALLY asking so very much ??

That's all I really want to say.

Maybe there are some on the right that agree with your stand? Seems most are hoping he can back up what he’s saying or doesn’t mean what he’s saying?

It really does have to do with that pesky federalism built into the Constitution.

[Drummond]

Maybe there are some on the right that agree with your stand? Seems most are hoping he can back up what he’s saying or doesn’t mean what he’s saying?

It really does have to do with that pesky federalism built into the Constitution.

I'll be very surprised indeed if there aren't those on the Right who agree with me - for two distinct reasons. One ... seeing President Trump getting all the support he deserves, should cheer the heart of any Right-winger who wants to see the Right flourish. Two ... what could be more practical ? In a time of national emergency, there SHOULD be a coming-together of people in the nation, with a unified resolve to do what it takes to defeat a threat.

Gratuitous division serves no 'good' purpose at all ... apart, maybe, from delighting our friend Pete .....

I agree with you about 'pesky' federalism (I assume you're referring to State authorities, as distinct from national Government ?), again, because there's the potential there for disunity. As I said .. those who were behind your Constitution could have had no conception, it seems to me, of how the national interest may need to be best served to face and defeat a world epidemic !

[Drummond]

I don't like big government and I don't like big brother.

Seems like the "absolute authority" issue wasn't addressed in press briefing today.

Well, who does, on the Right ?

The whole 'Big Brother' concept, courtesy of Orwell, was all about using BB as a figurehead to unite a society under the rule of a totally repressive Left wing regime (INGSOC', or, 'English Socialism'). No human being worthy of the name could ever wish for such a thing.

Then again, wartime emergencies cannot be compared to the normality of peacetime .. and we're all at war against Covid-19. Do we act effectively against it, in a unified rather than a fractured manner ? Or do we give Covid an edge, borne of dogmatist preference ?

Let Trump proceed unopposed. Let him help all Americans.

[FakeNewsSux]

I don't like big government and I don't like big brother.

Seems like the "absolute authority" issue wasn't addressed in press briefing today.

I believe that the "absolute authority" issue was addressed. He clearly and emphatically stated that he would in no way tell a governor what to do in their state.

Plus, I think that the "absolute authority" statement worked just as President Trump intended. He knows exactly how the MSM and the resistance Democrats react to his hyperbolic statements. He understood that the moment those words passed his lips, the TDS infected would throw out the comparisons to Hitler and the overwrought editorials lecturing us about his lack of constitutional authority would appear everywhere. To what end you may ask? Well, you now have total consensus that only individual governors have the authority to lift stay at home and issue back to work orders. No one can blame him for economy destroying rulings on lockdowns while hospital beds remain empty, liquor stores remain open but the local dry cleaner is shuttered and why jails need to be emptied while gun stores have to close.

With Trump, "the art of the deal" is too close to watching the sausage being made for most people. Rather than enjoy a great double brat with mustard and sauerkraut, they turn away disgusted along with the rest of the PETA crowd before the brats even hit the grill.

[Kathianne]

I believe that the "absolute authority" issue was addressed. He clearly and emphatically stated that he would in no way tell a governor what to do in their state.

Plus, I think that the "absolute authority" statement worked just as President Trump intended. He knows exactly how the MSM and the resistance Democrats react to his hyperbolic statements. He understood that the moment those words passed his lips, the TDS infected would throw out the comparisons to Hitler and the overwrought editorials lecturing us about his lack of constitutional authority would appear everywhere. To what end you may ask? Well, you now have total consensus that only individual governors have the authority to lift stay at home and issue back to work orders. No one can blame him for economy destroying rulings on lockdowns while hospital beds remain empty, liquor stores remain open but the local dry cleaner is shuttered and why jails need to be emptied while gun stores have to close.

With Trump, "the art of the deal" is too close to watching the sausage being made for most people. Rather than enjoy a great double brat with mustard and sauerkraut, they turn away disgusted along with the rest of the PETA crowd before the brats even hit the grill.
I’m surprised that only the left had a problem with his statements and tweets. I thought conservatives valued the separation between branches and levels.

[Kathianne]

Well, who does, on the Right ?

The whole 'Big Brother' concept, courtesy of Orwell, was all about using BB as a figurehead to unite a society under the rule of a totally repressive Left wing regime (INGSOC', or, 'English Socialism'). No human being worthy of the name could ever wish for such a thing.

Then again, wartime emergencies cannot be compared to the normality of peacetime .. and we're all at war against Covid-19. Do we act effectively against it, in a unified rather than a fractured manner ? Or do we give Covid an edge, borne of dogmatist preference ?

Let Trump proceed unopposed. Let him help all Americans.
You are saying to hell with the Constitution.

[Kathianne]

I'll be very surprised indeed if there aren't those on the Right who agree with me - for two distinct reasons. One ... seeing President Trump getting all the support he deserves, should cheer the heart of any Right-winger who wants to see the Right flourish. Two ... what could be more practical ? In a time of national emergency, there SHOULD be a coming-together of people in the nation, with a unified resolve to do what it takes to defeat a threat.

Gratuitous division serves no 'good' purpose at all ... apart, maybe, from delighting our friend Pete .....

I agree with you about 'pesky' federalism (I assume you're referring to State authorities, as distinct from national Government ?), again, because there's the potential there for disunity. As I said .. those who were behind your Constitution could have had no conception, it seems to me, of how the national interest may need to be best served to face and defeat a world epidemic !
With few exceptions here I think most support the country and the Constitution it’s based upon. A few care more for Trump and party.

[Drummond]

You are saying to hell with the Constitution.

I said no such thing. Kathianne, it'd be helpful if you didn't put words in my mouth, thanks.

What I am saying is (- shock, horror !! -) that the Constitution isn't perfect. Its authors, contributors, weren't perfect, either. Tell me, how many of them were experts in 21st century virology science ?

Think about it. Ask yourself about the extent to which your Constitution is designed to address the realities of a global pandemic.

It's a serious question. Please answer it. If, indeed, you can ...

[Drummond]

With few exceptions here I think most support the country and the Constitution it’s based upon. A few care more for Trump and party.

Well ... I'm not a product of your society, so maybe I can't share your mindset on this. Thinking of a Constitution -- ANY Constitution -- as something existing to be worshipped, isn't something I can do, myself.

My own social system has no Constitution. Result: our people can create laws perfectly tailored to deal with emergencies arising, such as, for example, a global pandemic. Those doing so face the realities of the age, advised by those expert to give the best possible, up to date, guidance. We can frame the disposition of authority, and its extent, according to fully and properly tailored need.

Compare that to the reality of your own Constitution. Tell me, in your estimation, which does a better job in meeting the requirements of modern crises ?

There's a word I'd like you to consider. That word is ... ADAPTATION.

[Kathianne]

I said no such thing. Kathianne, it'd be helpful if you didn't put words in my mouth, thanks.

What I am saying is (- shock, horror !! -) that the Constitution isn't perfect. Its authors, contributors, weren't perfect, either. Tell me, how many of them were experts in 21st century virology science ?

Think about it. Ask yourself about the extent to which your Constitution is designed to address the realities of a global pandemic.

It's a serious question. Please answer it. If, indeed, you can ...

actually you are:



Let Trump proceed unopposed. Let him help all Americans.

As for your question about pandemic, much like air travel, space program, a civil war, two world wars-Yes. Just like the US response has overall been very good, the responses were on a state by state decision made, with material help from the fed, which each state contributes to.

You said earlier, you really know very little about our Constitution. It's true. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, until you think if I told you your Parliamentary system sucks during anything but perfect times, you'd say something like, "You dolt, you haven't a clue to how it works and you are insulting our history."

[Kathianne]

Well ... I'm not a product of your society, so maybe I can't share your mindset on this. Thinking of a Constitution -- ANY Constitution -- as something existing to be worshipped, isn't something I can do, myself.

My own social system has no Constitution. Result: our people can create laws perfectly tailored to deal with emergencies arising, such as, for example, a global pandemic. Those doing so face the realities of the age, advised by those expert to give the best possible, up to date, guidance. We can frame the disposition of authority, and its extent, according to fully and properly tailored need.

Compare that to the reality of your own Constitution. Tell me, in your estimation, which does a better job in meeting the requirements of modern crises ?

There's a word I'd like you to consider. That word is ... ADAPTATION.
LOL! You are making the argument of George III in 1700's. No thanks.

[Drummond]

actually you are:

You think, then, that the Constitution exists to oppose President Trump ?

Do you WELCOME a scenario where President Trump cannot do, unopposed, what he feels he needs to do, in order to best help the American people ??

If the answer to that, Kathianne, really is 'yes' .. then, explain to me how that makes you different from the Lefties I'd always strenuously oppose !!!

Does the Constitution exist to defy a President's best efforts to serve his People ?


As for your question about pandemic, much like air travel, space program, a civil war, two world wars-Yes. Just like the US response has overall been very good, the responses were on a state by state decision made, with material help from the fed, which each state contributes to.

Well ... perhaps point taken. I say again ... PERHAPS.

Given the point that your society has something fundamental that's jamming its gears ... I'd say that yes, you do remarkably well. But, can you do better ?

You mention two world wars. Not wishing to take anything away from the gratitude I say we DO owe you, for your contributions in each ... it remains the fact, as most Brits would readily say, that you entered each 'late'.

It's a standing joke here ... has been for decades, and generations. I've mentioned this before.

Did your late entry into each war (I honestly, genuinely, don't know) come down to a lack of national unity in agreeing that you should be a part of them ?


You said earlier, you really know very little about our Constitution. It's true. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, until you think if I told you your Parliamentary system sucks during anything but perfect times, you'd say something like, "You dolt, you haven't a clue to how it works and you are insulting our history."

I don't think I'd say that, no. Facts are facts, and as a good Conservative, I'm also a realist.

The dysfunctional paralysis our Parliamentary system suffered last year said one thing, very starkly and irrefutably; namely, that it isn't suited to weak Government !!! Our Conservatives at that time had a mixture of internal rebellion and a lack of a Parliamentary majority to contend with, and as a consequence, our Government became paralysed, unable to do anything of what it wanted in the Commons.

It was truly, and mind-numbingly, PATHETIC.

I have absolutely no difficulty in saying it was. I am a realist.

Now that Boris is armed with his substantial majority, our Government and our entire system is capable of running smoothly again (distancing rules notwithstanding !!). What this all is, is a LESSON IN UNITY. Unity leads to things being done. Unity means unity of purpose, effort, achievement.

So it ideally should be, in America. If ONLY Americans could all stand, full-square, behind your President Trump ... much would be smoothly and efficiently achieved.

What, Kathianne, will prevent such a happy outcome from becoming reality ? YOU tell ME.

And is that a good thing ?

[Kathianne]

You think, then, that the Constitution exists to oppose President Trump ?

Do you WELCOME a scenario where President Trump cannot do, unopposed, what he feels he needs to do, in order to best help the American people ??

If the answer to that, Kathianne, really is 'yes' .. then, explain to me how that makes you different from the Lefties I'd always strenuously oppose !!!

Does the Constitution exist to defy a President's best efforts to serve his People ?



Well ... perhaps point taken. I say again ... PERHAPS.

Given the point that your society has something fundamental that's jamming its gears ... I'd say that yes, you do remarkably well. But, can you do better ?

You mention two world wars. Not wishing to take anything away from the gratitude I say we DO owe you, for your contributions in each ... it remains the fact, as most Brits would readily say, that you entered each 'late'.

It's a standing joke here ... has been for decades, and generations. I've mentioned this before.

Did your late entry into each war (I honestly, genuinely, don't know) come down to a lack of national unity in agreeing that you should be a part of them ?



I don't think I'd say that, no. Facts are facts, and as a good Conservative, I'm also a realist.

The dysfunctional paralysis our Parliamentary system suffered last year said one thing, very starkly and irrefutably; namely, that it isn't suited to weak Government !!! Our Conservatives at that time had a mixture of internal rebellion and a lack of a Parliamentary majority to contend with, and as a consequence, our Government became paralysed, unable to do anything of what it wanted in the Commons.

It was truly, and mind-numbingly, PATHETIC.

I have absolutely no difficulty in saying it was. I am a realist.

Now that Boris is armed with his substantial majority, our Government and our entire system is capable of running smoothly again (distancing rules notwithstanding !!). What this all is, is a LESSON IN UNITY. Unity leads to things being done. Unity means unity of purpose, effort, achievement.

So it ideally should be, in America. If ONLY Americans could all stand, full-square, behind your President Trump ... much would be smoothly and efficiently achieved.

What, Kathianne, will prevent such a happy outcome from becoming reality ? YOU tell ME.

And is that a good thing ?

Again, you are arguing against our system of government. One that was established by the states' representatives and rarely changed-28 times and one of those rescinded.

Again I ask you, how would you feel if I or anyone for that matter, claimed that 'we' had a much better way for your country to govern than what you and your fellow citizens have agreed to? In fact, basically denigrated your system?

You do so, in spite of the many times you've spoken of how our country has so often done the right thing, especially for other countries, including your own.

In fact, you are arguing that our President, this one indeed, should have absolute powers, something he never claimed while the situation was deteriorating, but now is improving-THIS you call an emergency calling for 'war powers' including those of absolute powers? Something I doubt you'd be arguing for if it were President Obama or President Warren or anyone you call 'left.'

I think it rude, not too mention pretentious to tell another country what they should be doing.

[Drummond]

LOL! You are making the argument of George III in 1700's. No thanks.

You think it undesirable to adapt to a crisis, to meet it, and deal with, it in the most realistic and efficient way possible ?

This actually astonishes me. Dogmatic non-adaptation to real situations is something I'd describe as a fundamental problem of Leftieism !

Reality is something you adapt to. You face it. You deal with it. You don't just wave a piece of paper at it, and say 'This exists, so there' ... and that becomes the beginning and end of your efforts to combat that threat.

Everything has its place. Your Constitution does have its advantages. But it isn't automatically adaptable for each and every emergency out there ... it cannot be. It doesn't undergo an automatic metamorphosis that allows for any / all adaptation(s) to a prevailing reality.

[Kathianne]

You think it undesirable to adapt to a crisis, to meet it, and deal with, it in the most realistic and efficient way possible ?

This actually astonishes me. Dogmatic non-adaptation to real situations is something I'd describe as a fundamental problem of Leftieism !

Reality is something you adapt to. You face it. You deal with it. You don't just wave a piece of paper at it, and say 'This exists, so there' ... and that becomes the beginning and end of your efforts to combat that threat.

Everything has its place. Your Constitution does have its advantages. But it isn't automatically adaptable for each and every emergency out there ... it cannot be. It doesn't undergo an automatic metamorphosis that allows for any / all adaptation(s) to a prevailing reality.

I believe we the people, as well as our elected officials should follow our Constitution. It's not used toilet paper.

[Drummond]

Again, you are arguing against our system of government. One that was established by the states' representatives and rarely changed-28 times and one of those rescinded.

Again I ask you, how would you feel if I or anyone for that matter, claimed that 'we' had a much better way for your country to govern than what you and your fellow citizens have agreed to? In fact, basically denigrated your system?

You do so, in spite of the many times you've spoken of how our country has so often done the right thing, especially for other countries, including your own.

In fact, you are arguing that our President, this one indeed, should have absolute powers, something he never claimed while the situation was deteriorating, but now is improving-THIS you call an emergency calling for 'war powers' including those of absolute powers? Something I doubt you'd be arguing for if it were President Obama or President Warren or anyone you call 'left.'

I think it rude, not too mention pretentious to tell another country what they should be doing.

Well, perhaps you do see things differently. Here, we'd say that wartime conditions cannot possibly be the same as peacetime ones. That's just sheer fact. Reality needs to be adapted to.

Take the Falklands War, 1982. We went on a war footing. We well knew that information from the zone of conflict couldn't possibly be free-flowing, because WARTIME CONDITIONS PREVAILED. Our citizens knew it. We accepted it, because that was the necessary reality in play.

Now, we're all at war against Covid-19. Now, do we see the world in the same way, or, do we adapt to its realities ?

You say I'm telling another country what to do. In fact, I'm reasoning with you. REASON says that adaptation to reality best meets that reality. REASON therefore determines that the lesser the adaptation, the greater the advantage that which you oppose, has.

Lefties can be relied upon to NOT adapt. They have their worldview, and nothing, but NOTHING, ever intrudes upon it. Consequently, I'd always argue that because of that truth (& much else besides), they are permanently unfit for Government.

But as I see it, Conservatives are different. We deal with the real world. Realities of human nature, CONSERVATISM addresses, because that's its fundamental purpose ... to serve the REALITY of human existence.

So, then. What is today's reality of human existence ? Why doesn't your brand of Conservatism fully and uncompromisingly address it ?

Why does it REFUSE to do so ?

You have a principle which says that your President must never have absolute power ... regardless of ANY reality out there. That principle is completely immovable .. yes ?

And tell me, does Covid-19 have the remotest respect for your lack of adaptation to it ? Is it dealt a 'mortal blow' as a result ?

Well ... hardly.

[Kathianne]

I don't like big government and I don't like big brother.

Seems like the "absolute authority" issue wasn't addressed in press briefing today.


Still not addressed, seems he's trying to ignore what he said. 'He'll react if they do something he doesn't like,' but the governors ARE going to come up with their own processes, which he'll review. Seems he has backed off 'absolute authority.'

Governors will decide, the feds will work with them.

Confusing, with no acknowledgement of repudiating the claim of 'absolute authority', there may or may not be backfire.

[Drummond]

I believe we the people, as well as our elected officials should follow our Constitution. It's not used toilet paper.

Perhaps something has been lost in the passage of time ?

'WE, THE PEOPLE'. Meaning, that the Constitution exists to serve them ? That this was the reason for its existence ?

Today, the Constitution is - by my understanding - acting as a brake against the evolutionary step that allows for the greatest, most realistic, defence against Covid-19. Was it ever meant to be that brake ? Since when did it exist to ensure that a response to a threat suffers greater inefficiency than it needs to ?

Here's the truth. As well intentioned as those who drafted the Constitution undoubtedly were, they had no chance whatever to be so visionary that they could comprehend and foresee every future threat the United States could and would face. Covid-19 is one such example of what they NEVER foresaw.

President Trump is a product of today's reality, as the founders of the Constitution could never hope to be.

Yet, despite that, you'd rather see President Trump robbed of any powers he needs to best do his job ?

[Kathianne]

Perhaps something has been lost in the passage of time ?

'WE, THE PEOPLE'. Meaning, that the Constitution exists to serve them ? That this was the reason for its existence ?

Today, the Constitution is - by my understanding - acting as a brake against the evolutionary step that allows for the greatest, most realistic, defence against Covid-19. Was it ever meant to be that brake ? Since when did it exist to ensure that a response to a threat suffers greater inefficiency than it needs to ?

Here's the truth. As well intentioned as those who drafted the Constitution undoubtedly were, they had no chance whatever to be so visionary that they could comprehend and foresee every future threat the United States could and would face. Covid-19 is one such example of what they NEVER foresaw.

President Trump is a product of today's reality, as the founders of the Constitution could never hope to be.

Yet, despite that, you'd rather see President Trump robbed of any powers he needs to best do his job ?


For now, I think you've proved my point, as an American. I'll see if most folks here agree that the Constitution should be set aside, because we've now elected a near perfect President, save a tweet or two.

[Drummond]

Still not addressed, seems he's trying to ignore what he said. 'He'll react if they do something he doesn't like,' but the governors ARE going to come up with their own processes, which he'll review. Seems he has backed off 'absolute authority.'

Governors will decide, the feds will work with them.

Confusing, with no acknowledgement of repudiating the claim of 'absolute authority', there may or may not be backfire.

For your sake, I hope that all this works in your favour. That all of these governors are going to come up with processes (whatever they are) that are equally VERY good, and interlockingly so, in meeting the Covid-19 threat.

Disharmony between them could be damaging, it seems to me. At worst, possibly catastrophic. If one governors jurisdiction does far worse than another's, and people travel freely enough to bring disease to the better-prepared one ... then, the advantages of whichever is the better system are undone.

And, for what ? To ensure that total coordination offered by one single leader directing everything, is avoided ?

Our people came up with a model of infection. It showed that if just ONE person went to an uninfected territory, interacted normally, that at the end of one month, the consequent interactions would produce ONE THOUSAND infections after that month was up.

Efficiency should be the order of the day .. not doctrine. I say that it's one hell of a lifesaver.

Sez me ... yes.

[SassyLady]

Still not addressed, seems he's trying to ignore what he said. 'He'll react if they do something he doesn't like,' but the governors ARE going to come up with their own processes, which he'll review. Seems he has backed off 'absolute authority.'

Governors will decide, the feds will work with them.

Confusing, with no acknowledgement of repudiating the claim of 'absolute authority', there may or may not be backfire.

I want to see the paperwork he said they were going to provide to support his assertion. Until then, I think he overstated his position.

[Kathianne]

For your sake, I hope that all this works in your favour. That all of these governors are going to come up with processes (whatever they are) that are equally VERY good, and interlockingly so, in meeting the Covid-19 threat.

Disharmony between them could be damaging, it seems to me. At worst, possibly catastrophic. If one governors jurisdiction does far worse than another's, and people travel freely enough to bring disease to the better-prepared one ... then, the advantages of whichever is the better system are undone.

And, for what ? To ensure that total coordination offered by one single leader directing everything, is avoided ?

Our people came up with a model of infection. It showed that if just ONE person went to an uninfected territory, interacted normally, that at the end of one month, the consequent interactions would produce ONE THOUSAND infections after that month was up.

Efficiency should be the order of the day .. not doctrine. I say that it's one hell of a lifesaver.

Sez me ... yes.

Like the above, I believe you are proving my point. Indeed, it seems you are arguing that during 'wartime' which in this case when the crisis medically is on the wan, we should have a President that is de facto a tyrant.

[Kathianne]

I want to see the paperwork he said they were going to provide to support his assertion. Until then, I think he overstated his position.

I think we'll be waiting a long time on those papers. You?

[Drummond]

For now, I think you've proved my point, as an American. I'll see if most folks here agree that the Constitution should be set aside, because we've now elected a near perfect President, save a tweet or two.

I cannot claim to see this as Americans are likely to .... it seems !

I just prefer practicality and realism to being tied to a doctrine going back hundreds of years, and one that could never have been designed to meet today's reality.

It comes down to this ... and, forgive my bluntness. A lack of adaptability is deadly. It did the dinosaurs no good at all !

All anti-Covid measures directed by a single authority; no deviations, no countering methods employed by anyone ... just a single-minded dedication to the solution of the threat posed by Covid-19 ... do you really think this must produce an INFERIOR response to the disease, to one which has as its guiding light a document drafted by people having no conception of the Covid threat ??

Realistic measures are better than unrealistic ones.

[SassyLady]

Perhaps something has been lost in the passage of time ?

'WE, THE PEOPLE'. Meaning, that the Constitution exists to serve them ? That this was the reason for its existence ?

Today, the Constitution is - by my understanding - acting as a brake against the evolutionary step that allows for the greatest, most realistic, defence against Covid-19. Was it ever meant to be that brake ? Since when did it exist to ensure that a response to a threat suffers greater inefficiency than it needs to ?

Here's the truth. As well intentioned as those who drafted the Constitution undoubtedly were, they had no chance whatever to be so visionary that they could comprehend and foresee every future threat the United States could and would face. Covid-19 is one such example of what they NEVER foresaw.

President Trump is a product of today's reality, as the founders of the Constitution could never hope to be.

Yet, despite that, you'd rather see President Trump robbed of any powers he needs to best do his job ?

He doesn't need absolute power to do his job. He is not a king, or dictator. The US works best as a Republic with checks and balances. The states need to be self governed with assistance from federal. The president is part of team USA. A team that needs guidance yes, but also needs to utilize all the talents of team members .... Congress and state governors. He can't, and should not, try to go alone.

[SassyLady]

I cannot claim to see this as Americans are likely to .... it seems !

I just prefer practicality and realism to being tied to a doctrine going back hundreds of years, and one that could never have been designed to meet today's reality.

It comes down to this ... and, forgive my bluntness. A lack of adaptability is deadly. It did the dinosaurs no good at all !

All anti-Covid measures directed by a single authority; no deviations, no countering methods employed by anyone ... just a single-minded dedication to the solution of the threat posed by Covid-19 ... do you really think this must produce an INFERIOR response to the disease, to one which has as its guiding light a document drafted by people having no conception of the Covid threat ??

Realistic measures are better than unrealistic ones.

The Constitution protects against putting absolute power in the hands of a single entity. Imagine a liberal like Bernie having the power you want to give Trump. Not going to happen.

[Kathianne]

I cannot claim to see this as Americans are likely to .... it seems !

I just prefer practicality and realism to being tied to a doctrine going back hundreds of years, and one that could never have been designed to meet today's reality.

It comes down to this ... and, forgive my bluntness. A lack of adaptability is deadly. It did the dinosaurs no good at all !

All anti-Covid measures directed by a single authority; no deviations, no countering methods employed by anyone ... just a single-minded dedication to the solution of the threat posed by Covid-19 ... do you really think this must produce an INFERIOR response to the disease, to one which has as its guiding light a document drafted by people having no conception of the Covid threat ??

Realistic measures are better than unrealistic ones.

It seems to me that you've been around awhile, near enough to my experiences. Over time, which system has adapted better, yours or ours? Quicker to respond to crisis? More likely to make the 'right choices'? Part of the reason for the nimbleness, the built in forgivability if you will, is our eggs are distributed all over this vast country. What one does right, others can copy. When something goes drastically wrong somewhere, others in better circumstances can and do help. Unlike the EUs machinations, we have over 200 years of coming to the aid of other member states, even when there is profound disagreements-as in 'red' and 'blue.' Those disappear, just as long as the immediate threat of any crisis looms, as it wans, so does cooperation and finger pointing begins.

I don't expect you to understand, but you shouldn't be so very quick to call for our chucking the system. Very presumptuous.

[SassyLady]

I think we'll be waiting a long time on those papers. You?

Don't know. Reporters put pressure on Pence about whether he agrees with Trump on absolute power. I think they need some type of clarification. Pence didn't talk yesterday. Perhaps because he didn't want the question popping up again until he had legal clarification on what to say.

[Drummond]

Like the above, I believe you are proving my point. Indeed, it seems you are arguing that during 'wartime' which in this case when the crisis medically is on the wan, we should have a President that is de facto a tyrant.

Why a 'tyrant' .. ? Why do you say that such a leader must be a 'tyrant' ?

I thought it was Lefties who demonised for the sake of effect. Be anti-islamic, that makes you 'racist' ... because a demoniser says so, not because it's true !

Likewise, someone assuming concentrated power 'must' be a 'tyrant'.

It's impossible for him to be a well-meaning leader, one with the single imperative of serving his people in the best possible way ?

I know that you don't like Trump, Kath. But isn't that taking things to extremes ?

I bet Pete would be pleased with you, right this minute.

Try TRUSTING a Conservative leader.

Is that REALLY asking so very much ??

[Kathianne]

Why a 'tyrant' .. ? Why do you say that such a leader must be a 'tyrant' ?

I thought it was Lefties who demonised for the sake of effect. Be anti-islamic, that makes you 'racist' ... because a demoniser says so, not because it's true !

Likewise, someone assuming concentrated power 'must' be a 'tyrant'.

It's impossible for him to be a well-meaning leader, one with the single imperative of serving his people in the best possible way ?

I know that you don't like Trump, Kath. But isn't that taking things to extremes ?

I bet Pete would be pleased with you, right this minute.

Try TRUSTING a Conservative leader.

Is that REALLY asking so very much ??

Sorry, calling me a 'liberal' in this case won't work. Nothing more basic to conservatives than the Constitution and our being a republic-federated at that.

I was, still am open to voting for Trump, this isn't about that. This is about whether the President, ANY president has 'absolute power.'

[SassyLady]

Why a 'tyrant' .. ? Why do you say that such a leader must be a 'tyrant' ?

I thought it was Lefties who demonised for the sake of effect. Be anti-islamic, that makes you 'racist' ... because a demoniser says so, not because it's true !

Likewise, someone assuming concentrated power 'must' be a 'tyrant'.

It's impossible for him to be a well-meaning leader, one with the single imperative of serving his people in the best possible way ?

I know that you don't like Trump, Kath. But isn't that taking things to extremes ?

I bet Pete would be pleased with you, right this minute.

Try TRUSTING a Conservative leader.

Is that REALLY asking so very much ??

Yes! Think long term, like our founders did. The next president could be even worse. Slippery slope Drummond.

PS ... I voted for and support Trump but I do not advocate absolute power.

[Kathianne]

Yes! Think long term, like our founders did. The next president could be even worse. Slippery slope Drummond.
If I've been reading Drummond correctly, he's of the opinion that Trump is practically perfect, way better at handling crisis than the founders, they're old, dead guys.

[Drummond]

Sorry, calling me a 'liberal' in this case won't work. Nothing more basic to conservatives than the Constitution and our being a republic-federated at that.

I was, still am open to voting for Trump, this isn't about that. This is about whether the President, ANY president has 'absolute power.'

Oho .. how does THAT scan ?? Trump characterised for taking on increased powers, that makes him a 'tyrant' in your eyes ? Yet, you're 'still open to voting for Trump' .. ???

Are you accustomed to considering voting for 'tyrants' ?

I somehow don't think you are.

Either you hate Trump with such a passion that a Leftie could envy you for it, or, you're taking on the attribute a Leftie has .. namely, non-adaptability to any reality that's not a preferred one.

I say again: only Conservatives are realists, in the political spectrum. I believe Trump to be one. I believe he'll take on whatever powers he can have and use them for the betterment of his People.

I for one will never call him a tyrant.

I am saddened that you are prepared to, with apparent ease.

[Drummond]

The Constitution protects against putting absolute power in the hands of a single entity. Imagine a liberal like Bernie having the power you want to give Trump. Not going to happen.

How well will the Constitution's limiting influence protect you against the practicality involved of the most effective counter to Covid-19 ?

From what I've been following .. apparently, you prefer to see a collection of governors cobble together an approach, in the hope (unproven as yet) that they all unify, that they're all equally effective ?

This is the best solution possible ?

I don't believe it is.

There's a simple solution to your 'abuse of power' argument, and we in the UK are applying it, even as I type. Simply: any and all laws, any & all powers, created to combat Covid-19, have an inbuilt shelf life to them. Written into law is the provision, here in the UK, that all those extra laws and powers will cease to have legal weight after TWO YEARS.

That's your answer to the supposed (highly flattering) 'Trump Tyranny' invention, of Kath's. Just give additional powers a shelf life, beyond which they become null and void !!

Easy peasy. Problem solved.

Bernie would never have the power which I would NOT wish to grant him. Nobody's voted him in as President ... and even were it to be possible that he was (he's conceded to Biden ?) ... he'd not be inheriting any additional powers granted to Trump during Trump's term.

As I say - problem solved.

[SassyLady]

Oho .. how does THAT scan ?? Trump characterised for taking on increased powers, that makes him a 'tyrant' in your eyes ? Yet, you're 'still open to voting for Trump' .. ???

Are you accustomed to considering voting for 'tyrants' ?

I somehow don't think you are.

Either you hate Trump with such a passion that a Leftie could envy you for it, or, you're taking on the attribute a Leftie has .. namely, non-adaptability to any reality that's not a preferred one.

I say again: only Conservatives are realists, in the political spectrum. I believe Trump to be one. I believe he'll take on whatever powers he can have and use them for the betterment of his People.

I for one will never call him a tyrant.

I am saddened that you are prepared to, with apparent ease.

Thank you Drummond for your support of Trump. However, what keeps him on track is conservative voices reminding him that he is just 1/3 of our governing power system. Conservatives know that giving him absolute power will eventually bleed out to a liberal President claiming same power. Can't have that.

I personally don't think he's a tyrant but the next one could be.

[Drummond]

If I've been reading Drummond correctly, he's of the opinion that Trump is practically perfect, way better at handling crisis than the founders, they're old, dead guys.

Trump's not perfect. No one person is.

However, Trump lives in the present. He understands today's problems ... but your Founders never had a chance to. Consequently, they could never hope to legislate for dangers and issues for which they had absolutely no knowledge or comprehension.

Trump, VERY obviously, is better equipped than any of them could have been to meet today's challenges.

And, no. Doing so, does NOT mean he has to become, or be seen to be, 'A TYRANT'.

I don't care how much you'll insist he must be one, Kath. I will not accept it.

[SassyLady]

How well will the Constitution's limiting influence protect you against the practicality involved of the most effective counter to Covid-19 ?

From what I've been following .. apparently, you prefer to see a collection of governors cobble together an approach, in the hope (unproven as yet) that they all unify, that they're all equally effective ?

This is the best solution possible ?

I don't believe it is.

There's a simple solution to your 'abuse of power' argument, and we in the UK are applying it, even as I type. Simply: any and all laws, any & all powers, created to combat Covid-19, have an inbuilt shelf life to them. Written into law is the provision, here in the UK, that all those extra laws and powers will cease to have legal weight after TWO YEARS.

That's your answer to the supposed (highly flattering) 'Trump Tyranny' invention, of Kath's. Just give additional powers a shelf life, beyond which they become null and void !!

Easy peasy. Problem solved.

Bernie would never have the power which I would NOT wish to grant him. Nobody's voted him in as President ... and even were it to be possible that he was (he's conceded to Biden ?) ... he'd not be inheriting any additional powers granted to Trump during Trump's term.

As I say - problem solved.

Yes, I believe the governor's will do what's best for their state to survive. Each state needs to survive to keep America healthy. The governor's know this which is why they are forming coalitions in their area. This country is huge Drummond and each state is like a separate country. Imagine the leader of EU dictating what each country in EU had to do. Instead, each country did what they thought was best because each country is different.

If Trumps strategy is sound the governors will follow his lead. No need to change the constitution.

[Drummond]

Thank you Drummond for your support of Trump. However, what keeps him on track is conservative voices reminding him that he is just 1/3 of our governing power system. Conservatives know that giving him absolute power will eventually bleed out to a liberal President claiming same power. Can't have that.

I personally don't think he's a tyrant but the next one could be.

I'm glad that you agree with me that Trump's no tyrant (present, or future). Thanks for that. And you've nothing to thank me for in my support of Trump .. I'm a Conservative, who recognises Trump to be a very good man. I trust him to have the highest of motivations in the service of his People and Nation.

My previous post answered you, I think. If any / all of Trump's taking of increased powers could be passed unopposed, from the basis that they have a definite shelf life to them, then how is there a future problem ?

The UK's managed that status quo, with ease. I find it difficult to believe that it's beyond America to do the same.

[Drummond]

Yes, I believe the governor's will do what's best for their state to survive. Each state needs to survive to keep America healthy. The governor's know this which is why they are forming coalitions in their area. This country is huge Drummond and each state is like a separate country. Imagine the leader of EU dictating what each country in EU had to do. Instead, each country did what they thought was best because each country is different.

If Trumps strategy is sound the governors will follow his lead. No need to change the constitution.

On your EU example, I don't think it works particularly well. The leader of the EU (via the EU's Parliament) effectively DOES dictate to other EU countries. Those EU Member States are obliged to take on laws passed in that Parliament.

But US States aren't at all the equivalent of other EU countries .. each such country has its own national identity, its own country's culture, even its own language !! Are each of the US's States so different that they don't share a common heritage ? Are they effectively different nations ?? Do they not have a common language ?

The comparison doesn't work very well, I suggest.

I'd say that the EU's domination of the UK was, indeed, a tyranny .. because it was all too obvious that it was a FOREIGN power, dictating to us, a separate nation with its own, different, national identity. I don't believe that what made the EU a tyranny can possibly be said of Washington directing American States to follow a common policy to defeat ONE SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

You just can't convincingly equate the two, as I see it. This isn't different nations inflicting their will ... Trump's leadership will be ONE nation, COMING TOGETHER.

Is that really a bad thing ?

I agree with you. If Trump has a strategy, seen to be sound by all your governors, and they follow it .. then, yes, you've got your problem solved. All fine and dandy !! But if some governors have their own differing ideas, than all you'll see is useless fracturing. That will do nobody any good.

Why risk it ?

[SassyLady]

I'm glad that you agree with me that Trump's no tyrant (present, or future). Thanks for that. And you've nothing to thank me for in my support of Trump .. I'm a Conservative, who recognises Trump to be a very good man. I trust him to have the highest of motivations in the service of his People and Nation.

My previous post answered you, I think. If any / all of Trump's taking of increased powers could be passed unopposed, from the basis that they have a definite shelf life to them, then how is there a future problem ?

The UK's managed that status quo, with ease. I find it difficult to believe that it's beyond America to do the same.
I think we already have a good system in place.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act

[jimnyc]

I don't see Trump anywhere near being a tyrant. I don't even think he overacted on anything. But he did overspeak.

All of his actions throughout this have been things based on advice and recommendations from others. Fauci spoke out and made it clear that it was his recommendation to close up shop for 15 days, and then another 30 days. Much of the information and actions that may have evolved, is becoming clearer and clearer as we find out who reported what, to whom and when. He spoke things down in the beginning and has been a little too positive at times, but I think much of that is his job. And then too much talk of reopening too quickly. But he is waiting and hearing out all of the recommendation first. I don't believe for a second that he would override what everyone tells him. Let's just hope any models and projections and info brought about, will start being more and more accurate out there. And then of course overspeaking what he believed to be his authority to reopen entirely. He was wrong on that but don't expect a massive retraction to the world. And don't expect him to override governors or anything of the sort. We all know that anything changing our COTUS and changes within congress, will follow along down through the years. I think even Trump understands this. But he ain't one to be admitting he was wrong while being attacked by the media for that, and for everything else known to man. Is what it is, IMO.

He was wrong and overspoke. But personally I am not worried about it for a second as I know he can't and won't. And also know him as a person and how he handles the media, so I won't be upset with him ignoring it going forward.

He would also get hit with 50 lawsuits, but one would be all it took to override any such decision. But again, I think it's all about nothing going forward. But I also know that many and the MSM will make a bigger deal of it and try for impeachment even though no actions were ever taken. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I think we already have a good system in place.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act

Thanks very much for those links. Seems to me that they considerably weaken Kath's contention that Trump could become 'a tyrant' ... unless all of this is overruled ...

i can't help but observe that your Public Health Service wasn't doing a great job ! Covid-19 got into the US with apparent ease. How come ?

It took that 'tyrant' of a President to decree what countries were subject to a travel ban. [I'll make this point: trump should never have delayed including the UK as part of it ... but at least, he corrected that mistake.]

Otherwise, it looks like you've a better set of checks and balances in place than I'd thought. Again, though, one possible problem ... don't the Dems have their majority in Congress ? The one that led to their trying to impeach the President ....

Now .... what if a biased Congress again intervened, to stop Trump enacting powers otherwise provided for ? What if their hatred of Trump was so extreme, that they preferred to put the US at increased risk of infection than allow Trump to use any power legislated for ?

Who believes that their hatred isn't so extreme that they'll do ANYTHING to stop him becoming Kath's, ahem, 'tyrant' ?

[Kathianne]

Oho .. how does THAT scan ?? Trump characterised for taking on increased powers, that makes him a 'tyrant' in your eyes ? Yet, you're 'still open to voting for Trump' .. ???

Are you accustomed to considering voting for 'tyrants' ?

I somehow don't think you are.

Either you hate Trump with such a passion that a Leftie could envy you for it, or, you're taking on the attribute a Leftie has .. namely, non-adaptability to any reality that's not a preferred one.

I say again: only Conservatives are realists, in the political spectrum. I believe Trump to be one. I believe he'll take on whatever powers he can have and use them for the betterment of his People.

I for one will never call him a tyrant.

I am saddened that you are prepared to, with apparent ease.

It was not I that said 'we' should allow him 'absolute power' so he could protect us.

What is a leader called with 'absolute power?' We have safeguards built into the Constitution, put into that document to protect the people from any one person having 'absolute power.' That is a king, whatever other word title you'd like to put to it. Those old, dead guys knew a thing or two about a ruler with absolute power and the results.

[Kathianne]

Again, I'm not saying Trump IS a tyrant, I'm saying that a leader with absolute powers has the opportunity to be one. The founders did not want that possibility open to a president, thus checks and balances, thus federalism.

Like Sassy, I'd love to see the 'papers' or the part of the Constitution that justifies what the president tweeted and claimed in his press conference.

As I said earlier, prompted by what Jim had written prior, one has to watch what he does, more than what he says. Yes, he uses bellicosity beyond hyperbole. Then he can double down or he can act in the fashion of a backwalk of what he so forcefully said. I think we're seeing now that he's talking of leading and conferring with the governors, the way a federated system, not a monarchy, works.

[jimnyc]

The main reason I don't worry too much about certain things I read/hear, is that I know the protections we have in place won't allow for it. Between the constitution and congress and lawsuits and our SC, certain things I have read over the years never bothered me. Like talk of presidents taking over for extra terms or forever. Not gonna happen. We have seen agenda after agenda after agenda fail in congress alone and stall. It's not as easy as one saying something stupid.

[Kathianne]

The main reason I don't worry too much about certain things I read/hear, is that I know the protections we have in place won't allow for it. Between the constitution and congress and lawsuits and our SC, certain things I have read over the years never bothered me. Like talk of presidents taking over for extra terms or forever. Not gonna happen. We have seen agenda after agenda after agenda fail in congress alone and stall. It's not as easy as one saying something stupid.

Which is the exact reason we don't choose 'expediency' over the Constitution, as Drummond has suggested is the more practical, easy peasy way to go.

I'm not trying to pick on Drummond, he is not familiar with the Constitution, nor apparently why it is the way it is. This is not his country, not his monkeys. ;)

[jimnyc]

Which is the exact reason we don't choose 'expediency' over the Constitution, as Drummond has suggested is the more practical, easy peasy way to go.

I'm not trying to pick on Drummond, he is not familiar with the Constitution, nor apparently why it is the way it is. This is not his country, not his monkeys. ;)

I do think he makes some valid points, up to the COTUS and it's various protections AND limitations, and how various acts work as well. That's not knowing about it and growing up with it as we did. That's like me trying to understand how the system works in parliament over there. I gotta give it to him for the level he does know about how much works in America. Especially in comparing to me personally and my knowledge of parliament, for example, which is next to nothing. :thumb:

And yeah, not only growing up being kinda immersed in it, then also about how it all came to be and came together. But I do believe as someone from the UK, he does an admirable job!!

But it's enjoyable for me learning from both as I read. :)

[Kathianne]

I do think he makes some valid points, up to the COTUS and it's various protections AND limitations, and how various acts work as well. That's not knowing about it and growing up with it as we did. That's like me trying to understand how the system works in parliament over there. I gotta give it to him for the level he does know about how much works in America. Especially in comparing to me personally and my knowledge of parliament, for example, which is next to nothing. :thumb:

And yeah, not only growing up being kinda immersed in it, then also about how it all came to be and came together. But I do believe as someone from the UK, he does an admirable job!!

But it's enjoyable for me learning from both as I read. :)

Sassy brought up the acts, which were made for wartimes. I could buy the implementation or at least the attempt of doing such as the crisis hit and swelled-indeed look at what happened with 9/11, we added the Patriot Act. There are inherent dangers in doing so, i.e., FISA abuses.

Gunny's not real cool on President's exceeding their authority, even in war, at least as FDR and Lincoln did, both of which were massive wars.

My problem with this, which does seem to be in process of rectifying, was the claim to such powers during the downside of the crisis, after arguing during the upswing that it was the state's responsibility, headed by their governors and mayors, the Fed was to lend needed support. He was right then, but the same holds true now.

I understand his concerns, the markets, unemployment, people being fed up are ugly. I'm super concerned too, as is everyone, but we shouldn't 'go along' with super president because . . .

Each governor should open as soon as is safe, my guess is the Northern NY could probably open fairly quickly, like AZ. That is why such threats are best handed locally, as they can go county-by-county.

[Kathianne]

Sassy brought up the acts, which were made for wartimes. I could buy the implementation or at least the attempt of doing such as the crisis hit and swelled-indeed look at what happened with 9/11, we added the Patriot Act. There are inherent dangers in doing so, i.e., FISA abuses.

Gunny's not real cool on President's exceeding their authority, even in war, at least as FDR and Lincoln did, both of which were massive wars.

My problem with this, which does seem to be in process of rectifying, was the claim to such powers during the downside of the crisis, after arguing during the upswing that it was the state's responsibility, headed by their governors and mayors, the Fed was to lend needed support. He was right then, but the same holds true now.

I understand his concerns, the markets, unemployment, people being fed up are ugly. I'm super concerned too, as is everyone, but we shouldn't 'go along' with super president because . . .

Each governor should open as soon as is safe, my guess is the Northern NY could probably open fairly quickly, like AZ. That is why such threats are best handed locally, as they can go county-by-county.

Here's an example:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/365921/



APRIL 15, 2020


NEWS FROM MY NECK OF THE WOODS: 32 active cases in Knox County, Health Director Buchanan supports ‘phased’ reopening of economy. (https://www.wate.com/news/coronavirus-in-tennessee-32-active-cases-172-total-in-knox-county/)


The Knox County Health Department reported two new cases Wednesday in its latest update on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

There are now 32 active cases in the county as of April 14, down from 35 on Tuesday. The total number of cases grew to 172.

The total number of recovered cases rose to 136. Recovered cases refer to those who have been released from isolation after seven days from their onset of symptoms, plus 72 hours of being symptom-free. Recovered does not mean necessarily the person had to be hospitalized.

Of the 172 cases, 21 have resulted in hospitalization at any point during the illness. This figure does not reflect the number of patients currently hospitalized in the county.

In Knox County, 4,422 total COVID-19 tests have now been conducted. . . .

Knox County Health Department Director Dr. Martha Buchanan said at Wednesday’s media briefing that she supports a phased reopening of the economy.

Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs unveiled his proposal for a strategic, phased reopening on Tuesday. Jacobs, along with the mayors of Davidson, Shelby and Hamilton counties, were asked to share their ideas for reopening with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee.

“We all want to reopen the economy,” Buchanan said. “We will make that decision together.

“The plan is thoughtful. We are convening a local team to start local planning. Across our state, Nashville and Memphis look way different than the rest of us do. Planning to reopen in those areas is going to look very different.”

Buchanan said the key to knowing how and when to open the economy, as well as to what extent, will be “knowing the burden of the disease.” That includes seeing a decline on the curve of total and active cases.
“Knowing the burden of disease is going to be really important in helping us understand as we open do we need to back off or did we go too fast,” she said.

Finding that burden will require more health care providers to offer coronavirus testing, increased access to more specimen collectors and expansion of lab analysis capacity.

Regardless of when the reopening happens, Buchanan said practicing basic social distancing guidelines, like staying home when sick and washing your hands, will need to continue for some time.


Well, people should always stay home when sick and wash their hands. I will add that I don’t think Davidson or Shelby counties, which still have a lot of cases, are nearly as ready to start reopening as Knox County.

[Drummond]

It was not I that said 'we' should allow him 'absolute power' so he could protect us.

What is a leader called with 'absolute power?' We have safeguards built into the Constitution, put into that document to protect the people from any one person having 'absolute power.' That is a king, whatever other word title you'd like to put to it. Those old, dead guys knew a thing or two about a ruler with absolute power and the results.

Yours is one massive leap. A person having absolute power is certainly not, unavoidably, destined to become a 'tyrant'. A tyranny describes the KIND of rule produced ... not the fact of that ruling power. Someone having absolute power could use it to rule benevolently, and therefore not be a tyrant !

The very suggestion of Trump being a tyrant was one of your choosing, Kath. I fail to see how you infer that this would be the way Trump would go with increased powers.

I know you don't like Trump. This is extremely obvious.

[Drummond]

Again, I'm not saying Trump IS a tyrant

The idea that he'd become one, though, was yours. I fail to see why you'd make any such conclusion.


I'm saying that a leader with absolute powers has the opportunity to be one. The founders did not want that possibility open to a president, thus checks and balances, thus federalism.

Yet ... your system can be led by those whose interests aren't those of stewardship of an America your Founders would have recognised as America. Potential certainly exists for a leader, and a Party, determined to completely redefine what America is all about.


As I said earlier, prompted by what Jim had written prior, one has to watch what he does, more than what he says. Yes, he uses bellicosity beyond hyperbole. Then he can double down or he can act in the fashion of a backwalk of what he so forcefully said. I think we're seeing now that he's talking of leading and conferring with the governors, the way a federated system, not a monarchy, works.

Sounds like a leader, regardless of rhetoric, who's willing to bend, and be reasonable to others ? The 'mark of a tyrant' ... ?

[Kathianne]

Yours is one massive leap. A person having absolute power is certainly not, unavoidably, destined to become a 'tyrant'. A tyranny describes the KIND of rule produced ... not the fact of that ruling power. Someone having absolute power could use it to rule benevolently, and therefore not be a tyrant !

The very suggestion of Trump being a tyrant was one of your choosing, Kath. I fail to see how you infer that this would be the way Trump would go with increased powers.

I know you don't like Trump. This is extremely obvious. Drummond, I do so appreciate your hammering home your 'choice of tyrant,' which I've addressed multiple times. I appreciate your attempting to deflect by my concerns about my country, my president, and whether or not I love/hate/just choose the least bad.

What is very interesting though is that you can't seem to stop saying the same things, 'hate Trump', 'liberal', 'tyrant.' Why is that? I'm thinking you really don't want anyone here to really look at what you've read about the follies of holding onto our Constitution; ignore the centuries dead founders, who knew nothing about plagues with the exceptions of course of smallpox, cholera, typhus...

You've made the argument that our liberals, not yours, have been making for decades, the Constitution is living, the document too old, our current leader (Obama, Clinton, Johnson, etc.,) are benevolent-in their opinion.

[Kathianne]

The idea that he'd become one, though, was yours. I fail to see why you'd make any such conclusion.



Yet ... your system can be led by those whose interests aren't those of stewardship of an America your Founders would have recognised as America. Potential certainly exists for a leader, and a Party, determined to completely redefine what America is all about.



Sounds like a leader, regardless of rhetoric, who's willing to bend, and be reasonable to others ? The 'mark of a tyrant' ... ?

LOL! Perhaps our system is stronger than you think? Nah, couldn't be.

[Drummond]

Which is the exact reason we don't choose 'expediency' over the Constitution, as Drummond has suggested is the more practical, easy peasy way to go.

I'm not trying to pick on @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), he is not familiar with the Constitution, nor apparently why it is the way it is. This is not his country, not his monkeys. ;)

Well ... for all its 'flaws', and its lack of a Constitution, the UK, no matter how differently run, still doesn't have a tyrant running it. When he's not gasping for breath, Boris is capable of 'ruling' in a decent fashion.

We do OK.

Perhaps your Founders worried too much.

[Kathianne]

Well ... for all its 'flaws', and its lack of a Constitution, the UK, no matter how differently run, still doesn't have a tyrant running it. When he's not gasping for breath, Boris is capable of 'ruling' in a decent fashion.

We do OK.

Perhaps your Founders worried too much.

Not for the people here. That is why borders and fences make better neighbors.

Neighbors that do NOT tell the other how their country should be run, because they think it would be better.

Neighbors that do not say that our Founders were overly worried about the king's actions and parliament's inactions.

Nah, you enjoy your nest, we'll enjoy ours.

[Black Diamond]

:popcorn:

[Drummond]

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287), I do so appreciate your hammering home your 'choice of tyrant,' which I've addressed multiple times. I appreciate your attempting to deflect by my concerns about my country, my president, and whether or not I love/hate/just choose the least bad.

It's nice to be appreciated. Thank you.

Perhaps you should just be more careful with your suggestions about Trump and what you'd expect to happen, were he to have and to wield increased powers ?


What is very interesting though is that you can't seem to stop saying the same things, 'hate Trump', 'liberal', 'tyrant.' Why is that? You see nothing in your wording that led me to post as I have ?

'Hate Trump'. It would never have occurred to me that Trump would misuse power. Any suggestion of even the possibility of it did not come from me. So, where did it originate from ?

'Liberal'. Not even my usual choice of word ... why would I use it as an American would, and within the context of our debate ? You know what I call them. I call them 'Lefties'.

'Tyrant'. Your word. Your suggestion. The word, its intended context, did not originate with me.


I'm thinking you really don't want anyone here to really look at what you've read about the follies of holding onto our Constitution; ignore the centuries dead founders, who knew nothing about plagues with the exceptions of course of smallpox, cholera, typhus...

Good point !!

OK. In which case, this question comes to mind: would your Founders, in drafting your Constitution and in also KNOWING of diseases and how they spread and kill, have approved of seeing their document used as a brake to applying effective solutions ?

I'm inclined to believe that they'd have been appalled at that.


You've made the argument that our liberals, not yours, have been making for decades, the Constitution is living, the document too old, our current leader (Obama, Clinton, Johnson, etc.,) are benevolent-in their opinion.

As I've said, 'liberals' is not my choice of word at all.

But as for the benevolence of your Leftie leaders ... I wonder if they were benevolent even in THEIR opinions. Clinton, for example, did he see his repeated refusal to order OBL's assassination as an act of benevolence towards the American people ?

Good luck in explaining that one.

Obama's damage to your economy in frittering away taxpayers' money on scheme after scheme ... benevolent to Americans overall ? Downsizing your armed forces ... a benevolent act ?

We do have different ways of seeing these things, I'm thinking .....

[Black Diamond]

Well ... for all its 'flaws', and its lack of a Constitution, the UK, no matter how differently run, still doesn't have a tyrant running it. When he's not gasping for breath, Boris is capable of 'ruling' in a decent fashion.

We do OK.

Perhaps your Founders worried too much.

Hey If you redcoats had created one colony instead of 13, we would have had our national shutdown and in a few weeks, Trump would be saying when we all go back to work.

[Kathianne]

It's nice to be appreciated. Thank you.

Perhaps you should just be more careful with your suggestions about Trump and what you'd expect to happen, were he to have and to wield increased powers ?

You see nothing in your wording that led me to post as I have ?

'Hate Trump'. It would never have occurred to me that Trump would misuse power. Any suggestion of even the possibility of it did not come from me. So, where did it originate from ?

'Liberal'. Not even my usual choice of word ... why would I use it as an American would, and within the context of our debate ? You know what I call them. I call them 'Lefties'.

'Tyrant'. Your word. Your suggestion. The word, its intended context, did not originate with me.



Good point !!

OK. In which case, this question comes to mind: would your Founders, in drafting your Constitution and in also KNOWING of diseases and how they spread and kill, have approved of seeing their document used as a brake to applying effective solutions ?

I'm inclined to believe that they'd have been appalled at that.



As I've said, 'liberals' is not my choice of word at all.

But as for the benevolence of your Leftie leaders ... I wonder if they were benevolent even in THEIR opinions. Clinton, for example, did he see his repeated refusal to order OBL's assassination as an act of benevolence towards the American people ?

Good luck in explaining that one.

Obama's damage to your economy in frittering away taxpayers' money on scheme after scheme ... benevolent to Americans overall ? Downsizing your armed forces ... a benevolent act ?

We do have different ways of seeing these things, I'm thinking .....

We do see things differently. I'm speaking of ideas enveloped within the Constitution-they are not there for one President or one 'crisis.'

I also see a difference from admiring a people, a country, their ideals, and thinking that one has the right to advise those people what to do or choose, when one purposefully chooses to not be a part of that country. Indeed, in particular you denigrate our system, one our forefathers suffered and died for, against your king, your country. I reacted the same when Balu or the Turkish guy felt invested enough to do the same. It's not just you, certainly not UK. As I've said multiple times, I like your people and country. I'm glad we've been each other's staunchest allies, since at least 1813 or so. ;) I don't mind when you speak of liberals or conservatives, though whatever names we give them, they are not the same. We are different peoples. Likewise it doesn't bother me when you favor Trump, without one bit of criticism, I think you may even feel Jim has been overly harsh with his feelings that sometimes Trump really needs a twitter editor at the very least.

We can all have opinions in what we think another country should do, but when it comes to telling individuals of that country that they must believe this or they are .... Yeah, I find that crossing a line. Certainly these are my opinions, though I will say that I don't think I've a right to say that the Brits should do this or that. I might prefer they do something, (like vote for Johnson and Brexit), but I can only celebrate or bemoan they chose differently than I'd like-not their reasoning for what's best for their country-I'm not there, I don't have their history.

[Drummond]

Hey If you redcoats had created one colony instead of 13, we would have had our national shutdown and in a few weeks, Trump would be saying when we all go back to work.

Curses !!! Point well and truly taken.

Extremely remiss of us Brits at the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Drummond]

We do see things differently. I'm speaking of ideas enveloped within the Constitution-they are not there for one President or one 'crisis.'

I also see a difference from admiring a people, a country, their ideals, and thinking that one has the right to advise those people what to do or choose, when one purposefully chooses to not be a part of that country. Indeed, in particular you denigrate our system, one our forefathers suffered and died for, against your king, your country. I reacted the same when Balu or the Turkish guy felt invested enough to do the same. It's not just you, certainly not UK. As I've said multiple times, I like your people and country. I'm glad we've been each other's staunchest allies, since at least 1813 or so. ;) I don't mind when you speak of liberals or conservatives, though whatever names we give them, they are not the same. We are different peoples. Likewise it doesn't bother me when you favor Trump, without one bit of criticism, I think you may even feel Jim has been overly harsh with his feelings that sometimes Trump really needs a twitter editor at the very least.

We can all have opinions in what we think another country should do, but when it comes to telling individuals of that country that they must believe this or they are .... Yeah, I find that crossing a line. Certainly these are my opinions, though I will say that I don't think I've a right to say that the Brits should do this or that. I might prefer they do something, (like vote for Johnson and Brexit), but I can only celebrate or bemoan they chose differently than I'd like-not their reasoning for what's best for their country-I'm not there, I don't have their history.

Nicely done.

I have NOT, repeat, NOT, 'denigrated' your Constitution.

Definition of 'denigrate':

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate


Definition of denigratetransitive verb

1: to attack the reputation of : DEFAME
denigrate one's opponents

2: to deny the importance or validity of : BELITTLE
denigrate their achievements

I have done neither of those things.

As to the rest of your post, it has one overall message, doesn't it. You're saying, in more simple terms, that if I disagree with how something is done in a country other than my own, it is my duty to shut up about it ! I 'cross a line' if I publicly criticise.

Should I have taken that line, when you criticised the UK's Parliamentary system ? Because, it didn't occur to me to do that. Your saying :


I will say that I don't think I've a right to say that the Brits should do this or that

... isn't completely in line with criticism you've offered in the past. OK, no, you've given us no 'orders', as such. But you've not been shy to criticise, when moved to do so. You've not been shy to infer that you consider that what is done in your country, is superior to what happens in mine.

So, what happens as of now ? You are an Administrator here. Will you ban me, if I offer any critical comment that offends you ? Clearly, my freedom to express my views 'must' undergo review, not least on grounds that I'm not an American.

Yes ?

I await your decision.

[Kathianne]

Nicely done.

I have NOT, repeat, NOT, 'denigrated' your Constitution.

Definition of 'denigrate':

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate



I have done neither of those things.

As to the rest of your post, it has one overall message, doesn't it. You're saying, in more simple terms, that if I disagree with how something is done in a country other than my own, it is my duty to shut up about it ! I 'cross a line' if I publicly criticise.

Should I have taken that line, when you criticised the UK's Parliamentary system ? Because, it didn't occur to me to do that. Your saying :



... isn't completely in line with criticism you've offered in the past. OK, no, you've given us no 'orders', as such. But you've not been shy to criticise, when moved to do so. You've not been shy to infer that you consider that what is done in your country, is superior to what happens in mine.

So, what happens as of now ? You are an Administrator here. Will you ban me, if I offer any critical comment that offends you ? Clearly, my freedom to express my views 'must' undergo review, not least on grounds that I'm not an American.

Yes ?

I await your decision.

I thought we were having a disagreement/discussion, obviously you are not differentiating between moderating and participating. No you’re not going to get banned or even a tsk, tsk.

I do think your opinion of the Constitution and our founding fathers was denigrating. Read those definitions again. You accuse me of feeling my country is superior, no more so than yourself.

Just imagine that I gave Churchill or Thatcher the remarks you did our founders. SMH

[Drummond]

I thought we were having a disagreement/discussion, obviously you are not differentiating between moderating and participating. No you’re not going to get banned or even a tsk, tsk.

I do think your opinion of the Constitution and our founding fathers was denigrating. Read those definitions again. You accuse me of feeling my country is superior, no more so than yourself.

Just imagine that I gave Churchill or Thatcher the remarks you did our founders. SMH

I don't know what 'SMH' means. Does it have a uniquely American derivation ?

We were indeed having a disagreement / discussion ... one which reached the point of your saying that I 'cross a line' if I criticise a country's way of doing things (i.e, in this case, America). What line, exactly ? One of forum rules ? One of freedom of expression, or of personal view ?

I'm not even sure that all I've expressed adds up to a full-blown criticism, in any case. Saying that it'd be good to excellent if Americans rallied behind their President, and gave him the fullest freedoms to do his job, that of protecting and serving the American people, in time of crisis ... well, is that so very controversial a position ? REALLY ??

I am not critical, by the way, of your Constitution. Not as such. I have criticisms, these defined (it seems to me) by sheer logic, which says that your Constitution, written many generations ago is not proof against all of today's real-time ills.

Your claim that I've 'denigrated' your Constitution is simply untrue. Have I, for example, 'attacked its reputation' .. ??

Kathianne, shall we stop this little dance, and just get to the nub of the matter ?

Much of this is a smokescreen.

The TRUTH, is this: you, Kathianne, for whatever precise reason you have, are strongly opposed to President Trump. At the mere dropping of a hat (or maybe not even that much !!) you're very willing to liken him to a 'tyrant' if he ever gets increased powers to use. Is this because you support him ? Trust him ? Would prefer to have him as your President ?

I hardly think so.

So, then. Here I am, a foreigner, actually far more supportive of your President, than YOU are. I'm sure you can't like that. However ... since you can correctly identify me as a foreigner, why not use that to my supposed detriment ? I have the audacity to hold a view or 2 which you can label as controversial. All well and good. Ignore the view of that foreigner on the basis that he IS a foreigner .. regardless of its logic ... well, why not ?

You fight your corner well. That much is obvious. But you'll take arguments down to, shall we say, 'less-than-ideal' depths, to win out, if you see the need to. Trump, more greatly empowered, should be seen as a TYRANT. A foreigner, having views you don't like, whether on Trump or the sheer usefulness of your Constitution, can be labelled AS a foreigner, as a means of saying that he 'crosses a line' if he pushes his views.

Tell me. If Trump is at a press conference, and he is challenged by a reporter from a land other than America with a question he may not be comfortable with ... if Trump rounded on that reporter, saying he'd crossed a line because he was a foreigner ... I'm wondering, Kath, if you'd regard Trump's reaction as a 'tyrannical' one ??

Just asking.

Bottom line. You REALLY don't like Trump, AT ALL. The suggestion that you 'might' vote for Trump in future, despite his having a supposed predisposition towards tyranny (this, your own invention !) ... is preposterous ... I don't believe it.

But then, this is a foreigner speaking. I must not cross a line .. if you don't personally approve.

Sure you don't want to ban me ?;)

[Black Diamond]

I don't know what 'SMH' means. Does it have a uniquely American derivation ?

We were indeed having a disagreement / discussion ... one which reached the point of your saying that I 'cross a line' if I criticise a country's way of doing things (i.e, in this case, America). What line, exactly ? One of forum rules ? One of freedom of expression, or of personal view ?

I'm not even sure that all I've expressed adds up to a full-blown criticism, in any case. Saying that it'd be good to excellent if Americans rallied behind their President, and gave him the fullest freedoms to do his job, that of protecting and serving the American people, in time of crisis ... well, is that so very controversial a position ? REALLY ??

I am not critical, by the way, of your Constitution. Not as such. I have criticisms, these defined (it seems to me) by sheer logic, which says that your Constitution, written many generations ago is not proof against all of today's real-time ills.

Your claim that I've 'denigrated' your Constitution is simply untrue. Have I, for example, 'attacked its reputation' .. ??

Kathianne, shall we stop this little dance, and just get to the nub of the matter ?

Much of this is a smokescreen.

The TRUTH, is this: you, Kathianne, for whatever precise reason you have, are strongly opposed to President Trump. At the mere dropping of a hat (or maybe not even that much !!) you're very willing to liken him to a 'tyrant' if he ever gets increased powers to use. Is this because you support him ? Trust him ? Would prefer to have him as your President ?

I hardly think so.

So, then. Here I am, a foreigner, actually far more supportive of your President, than YOU are. I'm sure you can't like that. However ... since you can correctly identify me as a foreigner, why not use that to my supposed detriment ? I have the audacity to hold a view or 2 which you can label as controversial. All well and good. Ignore the view of that foreigner on the basis that he IS a foreigner .. regardless of its logic ... well, why not ?

You fight your corner well. That much is obvious. But you'll take arguments down to, shall we say, 'less-than-ideal' depths, to win out, if you see the need to. Trump, more greatly empowered, should be seen as a TYRANT. A foreigner, having views you don't like, whether on Trump or the sheer usefulness of your Constitution, can be labelled AS a foreigner, as a means of saying that he 'crosses a line' if he pushes his views.

Tell me. If Trump is at a press conference, and he is challenged by a reporter from a land other than America with a question he may not be comfortable with ... if Trump rounded on that reporter, saying he'd crossed a line because he was a foreigner ... I'm wondering, Kath, if you'd regard Trump's reaction as a 'tyrannical' one ??

Just asking.

Bottom line. You REALLY don't like Trump, AT ALL. The suggestion that you 'might' vote for Trump in future, despite his having a supposed predisposition towards tyranny (this, your own invention !) ... is preposterous ... I don't believe it.

But then, this is a foreigner speaking. I must not cross a line .. if you don't personally approve.

Sure you don't want to ban me ?;)

SMH means "shaking my head".
Trump Isn't a a tyrant. Saying "I have absolute power" is an authoritarian comment. Maybe a tyrannical one. Assuming there's a difference.

[Black Diamond]

Curses !!! Point well and truly taken.

Extremely remiss of us Brits at the time. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hey why stop with the founding fathers re trumps inability to shut down or open back up. There'd be no states were there not first colonies.

[Drummond]

SMH means "shaking my head".

Translation appreciated - thanks.


Trump Isn't a a tyrant. Saying "I have absolute power" is an authoritarian comment. Maybe a tyrannical one. Assuming there's a difference.

I absolutely agree. Trump is neither a tyrant, nor, in my humble opinion, will ever be. Even the merest suggestion of that is utterly ludicrous.

Saying 'I have absolute power' ... in the most literal sense possible, is a nonsense. Imagine a leader, with his so-called 'absolute power', being struck down by a bolt of lightning. So much for the 'absolute' nature of his power.

Authoritarian comment or not, it is not of itself at all tyrannical .. UNLESS .. ruling benevolently is an impossibility. If it were, then yes, it could be tyrannical. But, it need not be, therefore, it effectively fails to be.

So, yes, there's certainly a difference. President Trump would prove the point, if ever permitted to.

But Kathianne is unlikely to approve under any circumstances .. I think.

She is welcome to prove me wrong.

[Black Diamond]

Translation appreciated - thanks.



I absolutely agree. Trump is neither a tyrant, nor, in my humble opinion, will ever be. Even the merest suggestion of that is utterly ludicrous.

Saying 'I have absolute power' ... in the most literal sense possible, is a nonsense. Imagine a leader, with his so-called 'absolute power', being struck down by a bolt of lightning. So much for the 'absolute' nature of his power.

Authoritarian comment or not, it is not of itself at all tyrannical .. UNLESS .. ruling benevolently is an impossibility. If it were, then yes, it could be tyrannical. But, it need not be, therefore, it effectively fails to be.

So, yes, there's certainly a difference. President Trump would prove the point, if ever permitted to.

But Kathianne is unlikely to approve under any circumstances .. I think.

She is welcome to prove me wrong.

Trump has walked back his statement in a trumpian way. He is now talking of working with the governors to open things back up.

[Drummond]

Hey why stop with the founding fathers re trumps inability to shut down or open back up. There'd be no states were there not first colonies.

Well ... what's done, is done.

We had a perfectly good monarchy for you colonials to obey ! But then, you had to go and rebel, and in the process, evolve to eventually become the mightiest nation on earth !!

You can't win 'em all, I suppose.:slap:

No matter. As a Brit, I'll make the best of a so-called 'bad job', and just be supportive of the best President you've had in ages ... a VERY good man.

Don't you 'agree', Kath ?:rolleyes:

Eh, Kath ?:rolleyes:

..... Kath ... ?? ;)

[Kathianne]

Translation appreciated - thanks.



I absolutely agree. Trump is neither a tyrant, nor, in my humble opinion, will ever be. Even the merest suggestion of that is utterly ludicrous.

Saying 'I have absolute power' ... in the most literal sense possible, is a nonsense. Imagine a leader, with his so-called 'absolute power', being struck down by a bolt of lightning. So much for the 'absolute' nature of his power.

Authoritarian comment or not, it is not of itself at all tyrannical .. UNLESS .. ruling benevolently is an impossibility. If it were, then yes, it could be tyrannical. But, it need not be, therefore, it effectively fails to be.

So, yes, there's certainly a difference. President Trump would prove the point, if ever permitted to.

But Kathianne is unlikely to approve under any circumstances .. I think.

She is welcome to prove me wrong.
I’m not sure I even used tyranny the way you’ve been saying and I’ve responded to. I’d have to go back to the beginning, not now.

BD summed up my concerns with his response. It was what Trump wrote and said, not claims by me of his behaviors.

You really should stop 'facts' that are your opinion. I do not hate Trump. I don’t care for the man but he’s been a better president than I thought possible. Certainly better than Biden or Bernie would be.

[Drummond]

Trump has walked back his statement in a trumpian way. He is now talking of working with the governors to open things back up.

He's obviously a practical man, then. Fair enough.

You've got to feel good (.. sez me ..) about a leader who'll do what it takes to reach equitable solutions, in the service of his Nation. Definitely a praiseworthy trait.

[Drummond]

I’m not sure I even used tyranny the way you’ve been saying and I’ve responded to. I’d have to go back to the beginning, not now.

nd summed up my concerns with his response. It was what Trump wrote and said, not claims by me of his behaviors.

You really should stop facs that are your opinion. I do not hate Trump. I don’t care for the man but he’s been a better president than I thought possible. Certainly better than Biden or Bernie would be.

Good to see that you have something good to say for your President, Kath.

Your introduction of Trump as a tyrant came from this wording ... a response to one of my posts:


it seems you are arguing that during 'wartime' which in this case when the crisis medically is on the wan, we should have a President that is de facto a tyrant.

No mention of 'tyrant' had appeared before this point. The very notion that Trump would under ANY circumstances act as one, originated with you. I never suggested any such thing, nor ever implied it.

As I've just argued, having absolute power (whatever that precisely means) doesn't need to have anything at all to do with tyranny. Any idea that it would need to, began with you, using Trump as your model for it (since, after all, he IS your serving President, facing a crisis of a medical nature).

What was it that, to quote you, 'Trump wrote and said' which implies such an association with tyranny ? Can you explain that ?

Anyway, and assuming that you don't ban me in the meantime, I have need for some sleep ! I'll return in several hours to see what's transpired in my absence.

[Black Diamond]

He's obviously a practical man, then. Fair enough.

You've got to feel good (.. sez me ..) about a leader who'll do what it takes to reach equitable solutions, in the service of his Nation. Definitely a praiseworthy trait.

I think he loves the country. He has had to deal with an onslaught from the press like we have never seen. And of course the shenanigans from Pelosi and Schiff and other dems.
Some of his tweets I don't mind. Sometimes I smh

. We can't afford Biden or God help us his running mate (see 25th amendment to constitution).

[Kathianne]

Trump has walked back his statement in a trumpian way. He is now talking of working with the governors to open things back up.

Did he show his papers? Just kidding. He had no choice, he cannot force the governors to open, anymore than he could force them to close. He can suggest, he can apply pressure, though too much-such as threatening medical, etc., with the virus, would not play well.

What I don't get, all of this could be avoided, with a minimum of self-control. He was riding higher in approval, one would think he'd like to keep it-to pressure Pelosi, et al.

[Kathianne]

Good to see that you have something good to say for your President, Kath.

Your introduction of Trump as a tyrant came from this wording ... a response to one of my posts:



No mention of 'tyrant' had appeared before this point. The very notion that Trump would under ANY circumstances act as one, originated with you. I never suggested any such thing, nor ever implied it. Actually not true. I said that based upon your idea of wartime president-any wartime president. You were setting up the the definition of 'absolute power' which could be tyrannical. Far different from saying that Trump IS a tyrant. I even mentioned that many, particularly Gunny, has never been fond of excess Presidential powers, especially when unconstitutional, which would be the case with 'ordering the governors to open the states. The President is the final decider.'


As I've just argued, having absolute power (whatever that precisely means) doesn't need to have anything at all to do with tyranny. Any idea that it would need to, began with you, using Trump as your model for it (since, after all, he IS your serving President, facing a crisis of a medical nature). Medical nature is NOT wartime, though I'd no problem with his and his advisers using their bully pulpit to encourage the shut down amid rising popularity.


What was it that, to quote you, 'Trump wrote and said' which implies such an association with tyranny ? Can you explain that ? It was made clear, now you're just being obstinate. His tweets and his presser. Not only I, but Sassy, BD, and even Jim have acknowledged that. You don't have to agree with me, you rarely do, but I do not make crap up.


Anyway, and assuming that you don't ban me in the meantime, I have need for some sleep ! I'll return in several hours to see what's transpired in my absence.

Oh, it was made so perfectly clear that there's nothing to ban you for or even give you a tsk, tsk. You are not a victim-what a liberal/lefty way to respond in a discussion.

[Kathianne]

I think he loves the country. He has had to deal with an onslaught from the press like we have never seen. And of course the shenanigans from Pelosi and Schiff and other dems.
Some of his tweets I don't mind. Sometimes I smh

. We can't afford Biden or God help us his running mate (see 25th amendment to constitution).

I think his showing those clips of the press, was very effective. I know that he has a sense of humor, too bad he can't play on that to show the likes of Acosta for the fool he is, rather than getting down with him. Oh well, he is what he is.

[Drummond]

Actually not true. I said that based upon your idea of wartime president-any wartime president. You were setting up the the definition of 'absolute power' which could be tyrannical. Far different from saying that Trump IS a tyrant.

Neat, but also misleading (good to know that I'm still here ... wow, knock me down with some fish & chips, a steak & kidney pie and some black pudding ... PLEASE !!! :rolleyes:).

The concept of tyranny was introduced by you, not me. Absolute power CAN be wielded benevolently. I never said otherwise, but, you chose to introduce 'tyranny' into the argument .. very obviously with President Trump in mind.


I even mentioned that many, particularly Gunny, has never been fond of excess Presidential powers

You forgot to include me in that too. As I think I said to Sassy, I'm definitely not in favour of Big Government, and that feeling extends to all-powerful figureheads.

But that's a luxury one can indulge, in peacetime conditions. Non peacetime conditions are a different reality, demanding a different response to them. Adaptability to changing conditions, I suggest, MATTERS.

Talking of which ...


.. especially when unconstitutional, which would be the case with 'ordering the governors to open the states

As you've made clear, and I am acutely aware of, America is your country, nor mine. But the principle is universal. Change DEMANDS adaptation to it ... IF .. that change cannot be prevented or neutralised. No means exists to neutralise Covid-19, not yet, anyway. So, one needs to adapt to the change in reality it creates.

Concentrated, tailored responses are - I continue to suggest - better than ones predetermined by rules hundreds of years old, and which involve a devolution of power to the point where fracturing of direction becomes a real possibility.


The President is the final decider.'

Sounds good to me !


Medical nature is NOT wartime

This comes across to me like splitting hairs. OK, so you're not launching missiles. or fighting with troops, tanks & the like. But there is a force out there, sentient or not, with a physically unshakeable goal, that of infecting and (in extreme cases) indiscriminately killing. Now ... it's either fought, or one surrenders to it. JUST AS IN WARTIME.

So, in real terms, at least the psychology involved has to be one of fighting a war. Which creates, inevitably ... WARTIME CONDITIONS.


... though I'd no problem with his and his advisers using their bully pulpit to encourage the shut down amid rising popularity.

No anti-Trump bias there ... ?

This is hardly worth pointing out. It's just too obvious.


It was made clear, now you're just being obstinate. His tweets and his presser. Not only I, but Sassy, BD, and even Jim have acknowledged that. You don't have to agree with me, you rarely do, but I do not make crap up.

I don't offer judgement on this particular issue (within the context of your sentence) ... but I do offer one comment, nonetheless. It's possible to be in a minority of one and STILL be correct.


Oh, it was made so perfectly clear that there's nothing to ban you for or even give you a tsk, tsk. You are not a victim-what a liberal/lefty way to respond in a discussion.

I don't claim to be a victim. But, an Administrator's gotta do, what an Administrator's gotta do !

Especially if a pesky foreigner, of all people, intrudes with ... well, er'm ... 'foreign' ideas and perspectives !!

Tell you what .. I'll do you a deal. How about ... you rein in some of that monumental anti-Trump bias of yours (e.g lapsing into language such as 'bully pulpit', probably because you couldn't help yourself at the time), and I for my part will try to express my considerable, yet 'cheeky', FOREIGN respect and support for your President in a manner you may find less abrasive.

... Deal ? Yes ?

Anyway, you'll have to excuse me for the moment, I've a plate of scrumptious black pudding to polish off (sorry, Noir !). It's a foreign delicacy I genuinely hope you get to try out someday.

Toodle-oo, chaps & chap-esses, begorrah (foreign-speak !!) .... :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Neat, but also misleading (good to know that I'm still here ... wow, knock me down with some fish & chips, a steak & kidney pie and some black pudding ... PLEASE !!! :rolleyes:).

The concept of tyranny was introduced by you, not me. Absolute power CAN be wielded benevolently. I never said otherwise, but, you chose to introduce 'tyranny' into the argument .. very obviously with President Trump in mind.



You forgot to include me in that too. As I think I said to Sassy, I'm definitely not in favour of Big Government, and that feeling extends to all-powerful figureheads.

But that's a luxury one can indulge, in peacetime conditions. Non peacetime conditions are a different reality, demanding a different response to them. Adaptability to changing conditions, I suggest, MATTERS.

Talking of which ...



As you've made clear, and I am acutely aware of, America is your country, nor mine. But the principle is universal. Change DEMANDS adaptation to it ... IF .. that change cannot be prevented or neutralised. No means exists to neutralise Covid-19, not yet, anyway. So, one needs to adapt to the change in reality it creates.

Concentrated, tailored responses are - I continue to suggest - better than ones predetermined by rules hundreds of years old, and which involve a devolution of power to the point where fracturing of direction becomes a real possibility.



Sounds good to me !



This comes across to me like splitting hairs. OK, so you're not launching missiles. or fighting with troops, tanks & the like. But there is a force out there, sentient or not, with a physically unshakeable goal, that of infecting and (in extreme cases) indiscriminately killing. Now ... it's either fought, or one surrenders to it. JUST AS IN WARTIME.

So, in real terms, at least the psychology involved has to be one of fighting a war. Which creates, inevitably ... WARTIME CONDITIONS.



No anti-Trump bias there ... ?

This is hardly worth pointing out. It's just too obvious.



I don't offer judgement on this particular issue (within the context of your sentence) ... but I do offer one comment, nonetheless. It's possible to be in a minority of one and STILL be correct.



I don't claim to be a victim. But, an Administrator's gotta do, what an Administrator's gotta do !

Especially if a pesky foreigner, of all people, intrudes with ... well, er'm ... 'foreign' ideas and perspectives !!

Tell you what .. I'll do you a deal. How about ... you rein in some of that monumental anti-Trump bias of yours (e.g lapsing into language such as 'bully pulpit', probably because you couldn't help yourself at the time), and I for my part will try to express my considerable, yet 'cheeky', FOREIGN respect and support for your President in a manner you may find less abrasive.

... Deal ? Yes ?

Anyway, you'll have to excuse me for the moment, I've a plate of scrumptious black pudding to polish off (sorry, Noir !). It's a foreign delicacy I genuinely hope you get to try out someday.

Toodle-oo, chaps & chap-esses, begorrah (foreign-speak !!) .... :rolleyes:
Just woke. Saw this. Dumb founded. I thought a common term, I guessed wrong, making your 'foreign delicacy that much more delicious.' LOL!




https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully%20pulpit

bully pulpit noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.


Definition of bully pulpit
: a prominent public position (such as a political office) that provides an opportunity for expounding one's views
also : such an opportunity

Bully vs Bully Pulpit
Bully pulpit comes from the 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, who observed that the White House was a bully pulpit. For Roosevelt, bully was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate"—not the noun bully ("a blustering, browbeating person") that's so common today. Roosevelt understood the modern presidency's power of persuasion and recognized that it gave the incumbent the opportunity to exhort, instruct, or inspire. He took full advantage of his bully pulpit, speaking out about the danger of monopolies, the nation's growing role as a world power, and other issues important to him. Since the 1970s, bully pulpit has been used as a term for an office—especially a political office—that provides one with the opportunity to share one's views.


Examples of bully pulpit in a Sentence
She uses her position as a famous actress as a bully pulpit.


Recent Examples on the Web
Previous occupants of the Oval Office used the bully pulpit for policy and fundraised on the side.
— Jake Bernstein, The New York Review of Books, "The Fundraising Pulpit," 8 Apr. 2020
While Trump has the benefit of the presidency's bully pulpit, Biden has had to rely on interviews and online broadcasts to break through.
— David M. Drucker, Washington Examiner, "Newly launched daily virtual campaign events compound Trump media dominance," 7 Apr. 2020
These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'bully pulpit.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

[Drummond]

Just woke. Saw this. Dumb founded. I thought a common term, I guessed wrong, making your 'foreign delicacy that much more delicious.' LOL!

Wow.

I stand corrected !!

'Bully pulpit' is a term I've never heard. After seeing your sources, it's obvious why. It's an Americanism, having little relevance to anything on my side of the Pond. It came across as both aggressive and disdainful. 'Bully' spoke for itself ... arrogant, pushy, an act of bullying to subdue for effect. 'Pulpit' ... the lofty stage for the bullying.

In all, a totally negative picture was conjured up for me, one consistent with an attempt to disparage in the worst of terms. I thought you'd lapsed into it, because you'd got to a point where you just couldn't contain your contempt for Trump any longer.

A pity that you employed a term whose meaning was wholly grounded in American history. From your reported definition:


bully was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate"

I would never have guessed at such a meaning, not in a million years.

OK, then.

I APOLOGISE.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Thank you for correcting me.

[Kathianne]

Wow.

I stand corrected !!

'Bully pulpit' is a term I've never heard. After seeing your sources, it's obvious why. It's an Americanism, having little relevance to anything on my side of the Pond. It came across as both aggressive and disdainful. 'Bully' spoke for itself ... arrogant, pushy, an act of bullying to subdue for effect. 'Pulpit' ... the lofty stage for the bullying.

In all, a totally negative picture was conjured up for me, one consistent with an attempt to disparage in the worst of terms. I thought you'd lapsed into it, because you'd got to a point where you just couldn't contain your contempt for Trump any longer.

A pity that you employed a term whose meaning was wholly grounded in American history. From your reported definition:



I would never have guessed at such a meaning, not in a million years.

OK, then.

I APOLOGISE.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Thank you for correcting me.

No problem, my mistake as I knew it originated with Roosevelt, I just thought it was widely used now. I just woke a bit ago, so I only answered on that one problem with communication. Need more coffee and need to get a few things done, be back in a bit.

[Drummond]

No problem, my mistake as I knew it originated with Roosevelt, I just thought it was widely used now. I just woke a bit ago, so I only answered on that one problem with communication. Need more coffee and need to get a few things done, be back in a bit.

I'm logging off for a few hours - my morning started around 9 hours ago, after all. Back later.

[Kathianne]

Just saw this, something to jaw on. Is Pence going rogue or is this the way the administration puts this behind? If the later is the case, fine by me, any acknowledgment of the way the system works is great:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/16/coronavirus-mike-pence-shows-alliance-governors-despite-trump/2973430001/

Vice President Pence shows alliance with governors, despite Trump's attacksMaureen Groppe (https://www.usatoday.com/staff/2646919001/maureen-groppe/)USA TODAY





...





“A few weeks ago, the guidance seemed to be that states should get these materials themselves, which Colorado is actively pursuing,” Cahill said in an email last week. “And now the guidance seems to be shifting, but no one is certain.”


In fact, the next day Trump tweeted that he was sending 100 ventilators to the state, not because of Polis – who had complained that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had blocked a shipment of ventilators – but at the request of Cory Gardner, the state’s Republican senator who faces a difficult reelection.
...


“President Donald Trump is treating lifesaving medical equipment as emoluments he can dole out as favors to loyalists,” the Denver Post wrote in an editorial.


Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker, a Democrat, said it’s not clear that Pence “has the authority ultimately to deliver on the things that are being promised by the White House.”


“We would like it if more of the promises that have been made at the federal level had been delivered upon,” Pritzker told USA TODAY. “I’m glad to have a friendly voice on the other end of the call in the vice president, and I do think that he is listening to the governors even if sometimes he isn’t able to fulfill our requests.”


Several governors have expressed appreciation for Vice President Mike Pence.


More than half the respondents to a Monmouth University poll said Washington isn’t doing enough to help states.


“Most Americans disagree with the Trump administration’s position that the federal government is a backup to the states,” pollster Patrick Murray said.


Pence has repeated a mantra that the administration's approach is "locally executed, state managed and federally supported."


And he’s leaned into the support role.

...

[Drummond]

Just saw this, something to jaw on. Is Pence going rogue or is this the way the administration puts this behind? If the later is the case, fine by me, any acknowledgment of the way the system works is great:

I note this, from your quote:


Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker, a Democrat, said it’s not clear that Pence “has the authority ultimately to deliver on the things that are being promised by the White House.”

Is it just me (... I'll just bet it is ? ..) ... or ... is this a sign that Democrat-run States are going to play disruptive politics games EVEN over Covid-19 ?

I'm not confident, any more, that I know the answer. Still .. I know the Leftie mind. I think that they'll stoop to anything. Does your system encourage the chance to see that happen ?

[Kathianne]

I note this, from your quote:



Is it just me (... I'll just bet it is ? ..) ... or ... is this a sign that Democrat-run States are going to play disruptive politics games EVEN over Covid-19 ?

I'm not confident, any more, that I know the answer. Still .. I know the Leftie mind. I think that they'll stoop to anything. Does your system encourage the chance to see that happen ?
I feel there's no limit to partisan moves for any reason. There's no bottom.

[Drummond]

I feel there's no limit to partisan moves for any reason. There's no bottom.

Worrying .. not just in terms of applying relevant decency applicable to a situation requiring and needing same, but because of any potential existing in this to see needless death arising.