As I type this, I have a cake in the oven (2/3 of a mix of DH spice, from the leftover 2/3 mix from my birthday cake). When finished, it will have an outline of Pennsylvania on top. In blue.
And now we count down to the electoral college and end to this utter lunacy!!!!! Is there anyone out there who truly doubts this *man* is delusional??!!??
Finally! I don't know what they feel they have to gain by pandering to him. Most rats know when to leave the sinking ship.
What you have to understand is that ever since Ford lost the election, the Republican Party has been under the control of what had previously been its lunatic fringe: a faction seeking to wipe from the memory of history every last bit of political, economic, and social progress made since President Roosevelt took office. President THEODORE Roosevelt. Their goal is to give us the America that would have been, had Roosevelt taken the bullet Leon Czolgosz had intended for McKinley. Trump is merely a willing puppet, whose whole value system glorifies ruthlessness and scoffs at self-sacrifice.
OUCH!! You have such a way of stating the truth. And is is downright scary. But Reagan and Trump have both tried to take us back to an America that never was.
This morning, as I went into the office to attend church services (today was a church in Manhattan, NYC, and a church in Manhattan Beach, CA), I found that my driveway had been defiled . . . by a "free sample" copy of "The Epoch Times." For those who haven't researched that abominable disnformation-paper, it is so far to the right that it could credibly call Rupert Murdoch a "pinko." It's run by a Chinese counter-revolutionary dissident group out to disrupt Chinese-American trade, sever Chinese-American diplomatic relations, and incite armed insurrection in China. Naturally, of course, they don't just support Trump and his puppetmasters; they are among those puppetmasters.
Is anybody else following the story arc that just started Monday in the Non Sequitur strip? In which Eddie gets thrown into an alternate universe, in which Trump was jailed for tax evasion in the 1990s?
I had not but was so intrigued I looked it up. Real food for thought. All of the what ifs and if onlys.
I see so many people claiming religious justification for such suicidally stupid acts that I swear, one of these days, I'm going to have a bumper sticker made up of Matthew 4:7 (in which Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16).
Why go to the trouble, when the leader can extract all the prooftexts he needs to support his agenda (can you say "eisegesis"?) (I believe there is value in reading the entire KJV, cover-to-cover, as a Lenten discipline. That pace may be too fast for details, but it's ideal for seeing the "big picture." When it got too easy, I added the Apocrypha. Inserted in context.)
Stephen King looked at the "what if" in the Kennedy assassination in "11/22/63" It is an enjoyable read...butterfly effect kind of thing.
We watched a movie (I think on Netflix) where the South won the Civil War. Lincoln was alive in exile in Canada. I love The Butterfly Effect.
That seems rather odd: the South's objective was not to overthrow the U.S. government, but to secede, and form a new nation-state in which black slavery (which had been the whole basis of the Southern political, economic, and social order since the Revolutionary War) would be permanently protected and allowed to expand into new territory in order to keep up with soil depletion. So why would Lincoln be exiled to Canada? The North's objective, at least initially, was simply to prevent a unilateral secession that would have set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to dissolution of the U.S. into nice little bite-size pieces, ripe for re-conquest by England, or by any other European power.
Well, since it was fiction; I guess they took some poetic license. And if the southern army had defeated the North then I suppose they could have taken over the government and spread slavery.
The thing is that slavery, while it was the whole basis of the Southern political, economic, and social order (as well as being a necessity for the profitable cultivation of tobacco and cotton in plantation-scale monoculture, up through the early 19th century, as those two crops were as resistant to mechanization as they were soil-depleting), had already ceased to serve any economic purpose in the North before the Revolutionary War, because most of the crops that were suited to the Northern climate were not especially labor-intensive, even as far back as the 18th century, and slave labor was not suited to factory work as it existed at the time. That, as much as the North having been settled in large part by religious dissenters who had moral objections to slavery and a strong belief in the dignity of labor, was what led to the abolition of it in the North. I will note that Northerners saw a general policy of "containment" of slavery as an act of bending over backwards to accommodate the South, whereas the South, with soil depletion forcing it to perpetually expand into new territory, saw it as slow strangulation of their way of life. But the South had to expand into land where cotton and tobacco would grow.
I know very few people are posting here... including me for months. But I thought of LP today, and thought I ought to post something post-election. How about: "Yay!!" This assumes, of course, that the Texas suit gets laughed out of SCOTUS (or better yet, not taken up, which as with the PA case is even more of a diss). And in 40 days, Mango Mussolini will be out of the people's house. (There are SO many other things I could call him, but most wouldn't pass LP's standards. So I'm going with the one I used, which I totally stole from a friend of mine.)
