President Donald J. Trump

[albrecht]

I don't see us spending much time in London but we are definitely going to Scotland.  Thanks for the tip.

I suggest otherwise, depending on your logistics,  I never go without visiting The British Museum. Though one time I had to V&A for some fabric crap? But many good pubs n museums but the ancient stuff (they saved from Muslims n Greeks etc) is awesome to see. But once drunk and do museum...get out to Scotland. 3rd best country in my book (US of course)

[Kidnostad3]

I suggest otherwise, depending on your logistics,  I never go without visiting The British Museum. Though one time I had to V&A for some fabric crap? But many good pubs n museums but the ancient stuff (they saved from Muslims n Greeks etc) is awesome to see. But once drunk and do museum...get out to Scotland. 3rd best country in my book (US of course)

Copy that.  Never have been to the British Museum but have been told by others that it is a must see.  Scotlands a definite and probably will get equal time with England. Thanks.  Will probably do Ireland in separate visit because, God help us, we've both got Irish in us.  And no I didn't marry my sister.

[Taaroa]

Its just me; but I would suggest to avoid London. It isn't England, let alone GB.

"Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

[Juan]

There is not a single person at the hewillnotdivide.us cam this morning.  More winning?

[Dr. MD MD]

Chuck (The Fuck) Schumer had the stupidity to ask a congressman where he was 8 years ago with Obama. Well, the guy was getting shot at in Afghanistan for his country and so he said so. End of conversation. Dems are just SO self-centered these days.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BknIsLZr2V8

[PrairieGhost]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQ-kgUk5g

It's amazing how much the MSM lies.

[Jackstar]

We don't have a royal family who sucks up the majority of our lands, rights and resources, for one. 

whoa whoa whoa, slow down



Historical note: The man who taught me how to play the bagpipes was named Donald Mackay. I accept your fealty.

[Dr. MD MD]

whoa whoa whoa, slow down

Historical note: The man who taught me how to play the bagpipes was named Donald Mackay. I accept your fealty.

There's only 6 degrees of separation between us all. I'm sure even a cretin like you has royalty like that in your gene line. 

P.S. I accept your fealty. 

[Jackstar]

[Meister_000]

Did the founders anticipate MEN LIKE TRUMP? Would they approve? Note below Anti-Federalist papers (mentioned) character-type (2.) "Popular Demagogues", and then the concluding bit -- but read it all. There is, btw, a difference between a "Populist" and a "Popular Demagogue" -- and Trump is the latter. [and you can thank Albrecht for the impetus.]

Federalist No. 57 (Madison)

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; . . ."

Anti-Federalist No. 57 [response to Madison] (The Federal Farmer -- either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren).

WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? PART 3

". . . . But "the people must elect good men." Examine the system --is it practicable for them to elect fit and proper representatives where the number is so small? "But the people may choose whom they please." This is an observation, I believe, made without due attention to facts and the state of the community. To explain my meaning, I will consider the descriptions of men commonly presented to the people as candidates for the offices of representatives. We may rank them in three classes:

1. The men who form the natural aristocracy, as before defined.

2. Popular demagogues -- these men also are often politically elevated, so as to be seen by the people through the extent of large districts; they often have some abilities, [are] without principle, and rise into notice by their noise and arts.

3. The substantial and respectable part of the democracy- they are a numerous and valuable set of men, who discern and judge well, but from being generally silent in public assemblies are often overlooked. They are the most substantial and best informed men in the several towns, who occasionally fill the middle grades of offices, etc., who hold not a splendid, but respectable rank in private concerns. These men are extensively diffused through all the counties, towns and small districts in the union; even they, and their immediate connections, are raised above the majority of the people, and as representatives are only brought to a level with a more numerous part of the community, the middle orders, and a degree nearer the mass of the people.

Hence it is, that the best practical representation, even in a small state, must be several degrees more aristocratical than the body of the people. A representation so formed as to admit but few or none of the third class, is in my opinion, not deserving of the name."

[Dr. MD MD]

Did the founders anticipate MEN LIKE TRUMP? Would they approve? Note below Anti-Federalist papers (mentioned) character-type (2.) "Popular Demagogues", and then the concluding bit -- but read it all. There is, btw, a difference between a "Populist" and a "Popular Demagogue" -- and Trump is the latter. [and you can thank Albrecht for the impetus.]


Federalist No. 57 (Madison)


"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; . . ."


Anti-Federalist No. 57 [response to Madison] (The Federal Farmer -- either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren).


WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? PART 3
". . . . But "the people must elect good men." Examine the system --is it practicable for them to elect fit and proper representatives where the number is so small? "But the people may choose whom they please." This is an observation, I believe, made without due attention to facts and the state of the community. To explain my meaning, I will consider the descriptions of men commonly presented to the people as candidates for the offices of representatives. We may rank them in three classes:


1. The men who form the natural aristocracy, as before defined.


2. Popular demagogues -- these men also are often politically elevated, so as to be seen by the people through the extent of large districts; they often have some abilities, [are] without principle, and rise into notice by their noise and arts.


3. The substantial and respectable part of the democracy- they are a numerous and valuable set of men, who discern and judge well, but from being generally silent in public assemblies are often overlooked. They are the most substantial and best informed men in the several towns, who occasionally fill the middle grades of offices, etc., who hold not a splendid, but respectable rank in private concerns. These men are extensively diffused through all the counties, towns and small districts in the union; even they, and their immediate connections, are raised above the majority of the people, and as representatives are only brought to a level with a more numerous part of the community, the middle orders, and a degree nearer the mass of the people.


Hence it is, that the best practical representation, even in a small state, must be several degrees more aristocratical than the body of the people. A representation so formed as to admit but few or none of the third class, is in my opinion, not deserving of the name."

TL;DR  :

[Kidnostad3]

I remember drunkenly singing some of those with friends before we could get drunk legally. 

So that was you.  You do remember puking on my shoes don't you?

[Jackstar]

Did the founders anticipate MEN LIKE DRUMPF?

Grow up.

[CornyCrow]

Jeez I was all wrong about you.  I want to have your babies.

I have opinions that don't conform to either side consistently.  I have never been able to follow party lines.  I think we should cut back on the population, but thanks for the offer. 

[Jackstar]

I think we should cut back on the population,

Oh do go on.

[Dr. MD MD]

Oh do go on.

Killuminati. 

[Jackstar]

Killuminati.

The story that I heard--the story that I believe--is that Humanity was scheduled to pass 10 billion before 2000.

This number was not reached, and so, there were consequences.


Beyond that, I cannot continue to be accurate. Hit the books, Kids.

Your degenerate faggotry does not go unnoticed.

[Meister_000]

Grow up . . .

. . . and get yourself a real reference library ffs.

[Jackstar]

Now you're talking. Go Owl's Lard.

[Dr. MD MD]

Your degenerate faggotry does not go unnoticed.

Meh...if you're gonna be a fag you might as well be a degenerate too. 

[Jackstar]

if you're gonna be a fag

[Dr. MD MD]

Here, have a bag of dicks! 

[Jackstar]

... how?

[Dr. MD MD]

... how?

Science, fool!    :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wn-gBF1A6U

[Jackstar]

... how?

... why?

[Dr. MD MD]

... why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F2hkWd2g5c

[Jackstar]

https://www.investing.com/news/politics-news/trump-to-advance-keystone,-dakota-access-pipelines:-administration-official-455320

Drumpf's action [...] a boon for oil producers concerned about limited pipeline capacity bringing oil to market.

How many guys is that? Five or six? Fortunately, they're likely all in his Cabinet and/or The Kremlin.

[PB the Deplorable]

Did the founders anticipate MEN LIKE TRUMP? Would they approve? Note below Anti-Federalist papers (mentioned) character-type (2.) "Popular Demagogues", and then the concluding bit -- but read it all. There is, btw, a difference between a "Populist" and a "Popular Demagogue" -- and Trump is the latter. [and you can thank Albrecht for the impetus.]

... Federalist No. 57 (Madison)

... WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? PART 3

". . . . But "the people must elect good men."

... 2. Popular demagogues -- these men also are often politically elevated, so as to be seen by the people through the extent of large districts; they often have some abilities, [are] without principle, and rise into notice by their noise and arts. ...

This describes Obama.

You've shown your questions are rhetorical, so yes, the Framers anticipated Popular Demagogues.  It's why we have separation of powers.  It's why the Senate was set up to be appointed by the states, and to represent their interests. 

Your citation ''these men also are often politically elevated, so as to be seen by the people through the extent of large districts'' is a key reason for the Electoral College.

Unfortunately we got an Obama anyway, an unfortunately we didn't have the ''good men [and women]'', (in the Congress or on the Supreme Court), required to do their part in blocking his seizing of power beyond the limits to his office


What the Framers didn't anticipate was political parties, and elected officials loyal to party instead of to the people.  They didn't anticipate elected office as a career.

Like Trump or not (as a person, I do not - as the president, so far so good), it's refreshing to see a non-politician in the office for a change.  Since he hasn't spent a lifetime learning to speak without saying anything and practicing with the tele-prompter in his bathroom mirror, he's going to say things the slicksters have practice not saying.