Capco

I gave a history lesson yesterday on how republics have a long track record of taking extraordinary measures during extraordinary times. Naturally that fell on deaf ears here, cuz you know the gubment is bad.

Since my Articles of Confederation example was too much for you to digest, let's try another historical example. Do you know the origin of the term dictator? Of course you don't, so I'll tell you. Dictator was an actual political office in the Roman Republic. Although the Republic had an executive that inherited the imperium of the old Roman kings (a pair of them actually, known as consuls), the Romans would also appointed dictators in times of crises because the Senate didn't perform well in times of crises. They recognized that drastic times called for drastic measures. This has nothing to do with fears of Trump becoming what the Romans would refer to as rex or king, where one assumes the above level of dictatorial powers outside of drastic times. Equating the two is again showing an utter lack of general historical context.

The bolded is literally you in a nutshell. You've spent a considerable amount of your posting history perpetuating Deep State conspiracy theories where Trump is your knight in shining armor, coming to save the day. Idk why I even try convincing you that you're insane. Has that ever worked with anyone before?

This is an excellent example of where you find grains of truth and latch on to them in an effort to perpetuate your conspiracy theories. Has the trend of the legislative branch (the direct representation of the people in a federal republic) been to delegate their powers to the executive, since at least WWII and arguably before? Yes. That's a scholarly position to take and it's well supported with examples. Does that mean that there's a small group of men behind the curtain who have great control over our lives that tried to prevent/coup Trump before he could start reigning them in? It's nuts dude.

Good point! After all, I see you posting about your own state and local officials all the time! In fact it's miraculous how little attention you give to the national narrative or the POTUS. Simply astounding.

So when ***** hits the fan, the federal government is the least accountable and important? HAHAHAHAHAHA. And you think you're informed?! Thank God you are not a person who makes important decisions for the well-being of others. There are numerous historical examples which show the exact opposite trend, but unfortunately you've proven that a 3rd grader could put your handle on history to shame. Good grief. Look up the Articles of Confederation sometime and tell me how the focus on states/locales plus a lack of a strong central government helped that system "thrive", especially in times of crisis. The role of the federal government goes hand in hand with times of crises, and the Founders were aware of that when they drafted the Constitution after seeing how ineffective the previous government was.

So the system falls short when put to the test in times of crises? Sounds like a great system. The best out there, in fact.

We should, at the very least, be able to match the readiness and preparedness of countries with a fraction of the resources that the United States possesses. The fact that we are falling short in this regard lays squarely on the shoulders of this administration. If this loser did in fact inherit a broken system, then he had 3+ years to fix it but chose not to.

Not gonna lie, I "caught" a pass like that in high school during flag football. Even the gym teacher erupted in laughter.

Sorry if already posted:

The Chinese quarantined Wuhan and it helped. If quarantining this area (or any area) helps prevent the spread of the disease it should be done. At this point it's probably too late (all it takes is 1 individual outside the quarantined area for the quarantine to be ineffective, and we already know that to be the case even with the piss poor testing being done) but again if the experts say it's a good idea then that's fine. My main concern is that people/governments outside of the quarantined areas might loosen their social distancing discipline and measures. Whether he has the legal authority to do so I don't know, but in times of crisis the president should have this kind of authority.

Giving the money to most people directly doesn't just help those people. The vast majority of people who receive this money are going to spend it almost immediately. This is just as much of a stimulus for the economy as a whole as it is for the individual American. But you're right that there are some pitfalls. For example, anyone who didn't make enough money to even file a federal tax return for 2018 or 2019 is SOL afaik, unless they are already receiving payments from SSI or Social Security. That's basically the homeless plus anyone who predominantly works under the table, and those people are typically below the poverty line.

They need your tax return for two main reasons: -it's usually linked to a bank account they can wire the money to -it provides a value for Gross Adjusted Income, which is needed to determine how much money you will get I would assume they would check the most recent tax return they have on file (2018 or 2019 only). If you think you can get more money with 2019 vs 2018, then yes I would file your return ASAP. The checks aren't going out until at least the first week of April, so you have time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52045958 So, the FBI agents who killed the right-wing extremist in Missouri before he could blow up that hospital... were they agents of the pre-Deep State cleansing or post-Deep State cleansing? I know the FBI was compromised and all that so I'm not sure who I should be thanking for this.

Sorry if already posted:

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." ―Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The window is about to open, ladies and gentlemen. Let's get it done while the gettin' is good!

I thought they wanted people to stay in their homes. Wouldn't they be dragging them to their homes?

That's interesting. Didn't know that part.

When should negotiations begin in regards to extending McBeane?

Good. That game legitimately felt like the only one we didn't stand a chance of winning. Every other game was a contest.

Look, I agree that he could learn a different system with few problems, but that has nothing to do with sitting on the sidelines and watching the opposing team's offense for 2 decades. I mean, how much of that time do you think he's sitting there studying the opposing team's offense and NOT the opposing team's defense? As I said, I agree with you but your supporting argument is ridiculous.

I don't understand the A grades. It's pretty much universally thought that Hopkins is better than Diggs. If we had gotten Hopkins instead of Diggs, how do you grade that trade? It'd be off the charts. A is reserved for the best outcomes. This wasn't the best outcome.

Huh? Brady doesn't beat the opposing offense. He plays against the opposing defense. His job has nothing to do with opposing offensive schemes. This comment makes no sense.