What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Not drained yet. We have a long way to go.

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Unprecedented volume of leaks, opposition by media and politicians of both parties, opposition within the executive branch and the military, appointment of special prosecutor, to name a few.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Unprecedented volume of leaks, opposition by media and politicians of both parties, opposition within the executive branch and the military, appointment of special prosecutor, to name a few.

---

Agreed

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

We won't really know until the Super PAC money faucet is cut off. Sam has rightly commented that the pot is being stirred though.

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Well its hard to say. Trump puts so much trash in the swamp:

[ol]

The insider trading charges against Trump ally Rep. Chris Collins for allegedly urgently calling in stock tips to his son from a White House party about a company Collins had ties to and which he simultaneously oversaw in Congress. Collins has pleaded not guilty.

The first lady's parents getting citizenship as their son-in-law aims to crack down on legal immigration.

The IRS agent walking a Virginia court through the complicated alleged money laundering scheme used by Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to clean millions he was bringing in from Ukraine.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who admitted last month to error in failing to divest assets as required under ethics rules, is now facing allegations of bilking friends and investors in a tough new Forbes report. Ross has vigorously denied those new allegations.

[/ol]
Add to these swampy actions, Manafort's lawyers reporting details of the Mueller investigation to the lawyers of the potential subject of the investigation, and you have yourself a Florida Everglades of swampiness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Unprecedented volume of leaks, opposition by media and politicians of both parties, opposition within the executive branch and the military, appointment of special prosecutor, to name a few.

---

But is more of any of these a sign of more swampiness, or less? Point by point follows, but I guess it depends on how one defines "swamp". On one end of the scale would be "how things get done" or "establishment" and the other would be "corruption" or "convictions", with special prosecutors and Congressional investigations in the middle. You could say all of the above and use it as a scoring metric instead of a continuum. Or one metric: that which impedes good governance. Hard to say, really hard.

Leaks. Are leaks inherently bad or are they an extra-constitutional check and balance? Most administrations have used leaks as a way to gauge response to a policy change proposal, Cabinet appointee etc. If this is a sign of establishment practices then it comes from the low end and is scored a 1. If it is considered corruption, or pursued criminally as the Obama administration did, then at first glance you score it much higher. But the Obama administration pursued leakers to reduce transparency, in my mind. Many here decried going after leakers as an attack on the First Amendment but many switched sides when Trump got elected and blame leakers as part of the swamp. So, leaks: a transparency check and balance or pure swamp? Bringing criminal charges: swamp, or swamp cleaning?

Media and political opposition. Straight up I would say political opposition, the party system, is not the swamp. If there were no political opposition you'd get one party and no freedoms; see any one-party state. Obviously, I would prefer greater access for third parties and less Too Party overlap, but I am not prepared to ditch political opposition. Media opposition is similar but exact. Without the media you again get a serious loss of freedom as the state becomes unaccountable. Watergate never comes to light without the media; that was a major lowering of the swamp level, leading as it did to multiple convictions.

Opposition within the executive branch (and military, POTUS being C in C). Not sure what you are getting at with this one. Should there be more or less? Shouldn't the president face valid criticism, or is that the issue: some see the criticism as invalid and it therefore impedes good governance while others see it as valid and promoting good governance.

Appointment of special prosecutors. I would add "Congressional investigations" except that we are back to the same dilemma: are these investigations signs of the swamp level going up or down? Benghazi produced seven Congressional investigations (score that as 5 each, for 35 Swamp Points?) that resulted in no charges (score that a zero?). The Mueller investigation: call it a witch hunt and devote almost daily presidential attention to it and it gets major points impeding governance; ignore it until it concludes and governing can continue unaffected and we score the results.

In the end, each of these depends on whose ox is gored and I was hoping for a non-partisan yardstick. That may not be possible.

• Don'f forget about Trump's chauffeur's nephew back in 1992 that never paid the late fees on two movies rented at Blockbuster. I have heard this will be Mueller's next shoe to drop.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

• Don'f forget about Trump's chauffeur's nephew back in 1992 that never paid the late fees on two movies rented at Blockbuster. I have heard this will be Mueller's next shoe to drop.

---

Acorns belong on any of the numerous Doc threads.

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

• Don'f forget about Trump's chauffeur's nephew back in 1992 that never paid the late fees on two movies rented at Blockbuster. I have heard this will be Mueller's next shoe to drop.

---

Acorns belong on any of the numerous Doc threads.

---

Wut?

1) If the "swamp" is long tenured reps then it has begun. Ryan, Flake, Et al are gone.
2) Getting money out of politics is draining then I don't see it.
As Quash says, "What are the metrics?" How do we know?

When you're opening floating a possible pardon to a guy convicted of corruption in dealings with a foreign government that involved bank fraud, and his lawyer is reporting his testimony following a guilty plea with the lawyer who is investigation possible Russian interference with our elections, you can't get much lower.

Plus there are the cabinet members trying to use taxpayers' money so they don't have to fly commercial and cutting inside deals for themselves and their cronies

The swamp will always be with us.

Midnight Rider said:

---

The swamp will always be with us.

---

Washington was built on a swamp. It always comes back.

Jinx 2 said:

---

When you're opening floating a possible pardon to a guy convicted of corruption in dealings with a foreign government that involved bank fraud, and his lawyer is reporting his testimony following a guilty plea with the lawyer who is investigation possible Russian interference with our elections, you can't get much lower.

Plus there are the cabinet members trying to use taxpayers' money so they don't have to fly commercial and cutting inside deals for themselves and their cronies

---

See Marc Rich, et al.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

What are the metrics for this? How does one know if the swamp is getting shallower or deeper?

---

Unprecedented volume of leaks, opposition by media and politicians of both parties, opposition within the executive branch and the military, appointment of special prosecutor, to name a few.

---

But is more of any of these a sign of more swampiness, or less? Point by point follows, but I guess it depends on how one defines "swamp". On one end of the scale would be "how things get done" or "establishment" and the other would be "corruption" or "convictions", with special prosecutors and Congressional investigations in the middle. You could say all of the above and use it as a scoring metric instead of a continuum. Or one metric: that which impedes good governance. Hard to say, really hard.

Leaks. Are leaks inherently bad or are they an extra-constitutional check and balance? Most administrations have used leaks as a way to gauge response to a policy change proposal, Cabinet appointee etc. If this is a sign of establishment practices then it comes from the low end and is scored a 1. If it is considered corruption, or pursued criminally as the Obama administration did, then at first glance you score it much higher. But the Obama administration pursued leakers to reduce transparency, in my mind. Many here decried going after leakers as an attack on the First Amendment but many switched sides when Trump got elected and blame leakers as part of the swamp. So, leaks: a transparency check and balance or pure swamp? Bringing criminal charges: swamp, or swamp cleaning?

Media and political opposition. Straight up I would say political opposition, the party system, is not the swamp. If there were no political opposition you'd get one party and no freedoms; see any one-party state. Obviously, I would prefer greater access for third parties and less Too Party overlap, but I am not prepared to ditch political opposition. Media opposition is similar but exact. Without the media you again get a serious loss of freedom as the state becomes unaccountable. Watergate never comes to light without the media; that was a major lowering of the swamp level, leading as it did to multiple convictions.

Opposition within the executive branch (and military, POTUS being C in C). Not sure what you are getting at with this one. Should there be more or less? Shouldn't the president face valid criticism, or is that the issue: some see the criticism as invalid and it therefore impedes good governance while others see it as valid and promoting good governance.

Appointment of special prosecutors. I would add "Congressional investigations" except that we are back to the same dilemma: are these investigations signs of the swamp level going up or down? Benghazi produced seven Congressional investigations (score that as 5 each, for 35 Swamp Points?) that resulted in no charges (score that a zero?). The Mueller investigation: call it a witch hunt and devote almost daily presidential attention to it and it gets major points impeding governance; ignore it until it concludes and governing can continue unaffected and we score the results.

In the end, each of these depends on whose ox is gored and I was hoping for a non-partisan yardstick. That may not be possible.

---

Good questions. Will follow up later.

So, there have been competing definitions of "the swamp" since Trump took office. I tend to see it as the establishment. Anti-Trumpers tend to see it as corruption. I think Trump has shown at least some improvement by either metric. There's less evidence of campaign finance violations and foreign influence than there was with the Clintons. Despite his penchant for petty bulls***ting, Trump hasn't told the sort of consequential, even catastrophic lies that were associated with Bush and the Iraq war. And unlike Obama, he hasn't used the IRS against his political enemies or, as far as we know, planned to use the DOJ against his successor.

Leaking is a valuable extra-constitutional check, but like all checks it can be abused. Often it's intended to reveal important information about ethical and legal violations that the public needs to know. Other times it may be motivated by policy disagreements. In that case the justification is more questionable, but it can be hard to draw the line. For example, did they leak information about war crimes because they oppose the crimes or because they oppose the war? There's a good chance it was both. What sets apart the leaking in the Trump administration is that it's not just about the law or ethics and many times not even about specific policies. It's about resistance to Trump himself, his whole philosophy and mandate, and his legitimacy as president. To me that's evidence that he's a genuine threat to the status quo (and also that the status quo is capable of being a genuine threat to democracy).

Political opposition and media accountability are of course important. The question is, what does it mean when both party establishments and the media are on the same team? To me that sounds a lot like one-party rule. I will say the GOP has been more cooperative than it looked like they were going to be. That may mean Trump has acclimated himself to the swamp. What I hope it means is that Republicans have listened to their populist constituency. It's probably some of both.

Bush wasn't criticized as harshly by his own military and intelligence people, but what criticism he did receive had to do with violating international law and lying to the public in the pursuit of military adventures. The criticism of Trump seems largely based on his lack of belligerence and his willingness to pursue diplomacy. In my view this is yet another challenge to an establishment that has been in search of a raison d'etre since the end of the Cold War.

Technically there was no legal basis for Mueller's appointment since there was no evidence of a crime. That might not be the end of the story, but it's a big red flag. Combine it with what we know from the Horowitz report and other sources, and the context looks pretty bad. The DOJ or at least a significant faction thereof had entrenched itself against the incoming president even before the election. Very swampy, that.

There is nobody alive swampier and more establishment than Wilber Ross

There are a lot of critters in the swamp. The biggest crittters are the special interest groups that have incestuous relationships with congress and the administrative agencies that regulate and have oversight. There is a revolving door between the two of personnel and money. I haven't seen where Trump has even begun to make a dent in this part of the swamp, which is where the root of the problem lies. Pull that plug and the swamp begins to drain.

TexasScientist said:

---

There are a lot of critters in the swamp. The biggest crittters are the special interest groups that have incestuous relationships with congress and the administrative agencies that regulate and have oversight. There is a revolving door between the two of personnel and money. I haven't seen where Trump has even begun to make a dent in this part of the swamp, which is where the root of the problem lies. Pull that plug and the swamp begins to drain.

---

He can't.

The FBI and DOJ will make sure of it. You don't think they want the party who is going to perpetually increase government to win so that they themselves are stronger?

Both parties and the establishment want this.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There are a lot of critters in the swamp. The biggest crittters are the special interest groups that have incestuous relationships with congress and the administrative agencies that regulate and have oversight. There is a revolving door between the two of personnel and money. I haven't seen where Trump has even begun to make a dent in this part of the swamp, which is where the root of the problem lies. Pull that plug and the swamp begins to drain.

---

He can't.

The FBI and DOJ will make sure of it. You don't think they want the party who is going to perpetually increase government to win so that they themselves are stronger?

Both parties and the establishment want this.

---

I'm afraid you are right. It will require a cooperative effort between the White House and Congress to enact laws that will prohibit those activities. So far though, neither Trump nor Congress has taken any steps in that direction. We really need comprehensive systemic reform.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There are a lot of critters in the swamp. The biggest crittters are the special interest groups that have incestuous relationships with congress and the administrative agencies that regulate and have oversight. There is a revolving door between the two of personnel and money. I haven't seen where Trump has even begun to make a dent in this part of the swamp, which is where the root of the problem lies. Pull that plug and the swamp begins to drain.

---

He can't.

The FBI and DOJ will make sure of it. You don't think they want the party who is going to perpetually increase government to win so that they themselves are stronger?

Both parties and the establishment want this.

---

I'm afraid you are right. It will require a cooperative effort between the White House and Congress to enact laws that will prohibit those activities. So far though, neither Trump nor Congress has taken any steps in that direction. We really need comprehensive systemic reform.

---

We will vote in a radical Democrat and it will only get worse.

Bank on it.

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

#SwainTheDramp

- KKM

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

Quash, you know it's going to happen.

This is the future:

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

---

One reason we have a whopping deficit is the Iraq War.

Another is GOP tax cuts. The time to cut taxes is AFTER you pay your debts.

Obama came into office right after the economic collapse. Expecting him to clean up the war and the deficit and deal with healthcare was unreasonable. He managed to do 2 of the 3 despite withering criticism, 6 years of obstruction that included not even meeting with his SCOTUS nominee, and no help from the GOP.

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

---

One reason we have a whopping deficit is the Iraq War.

Another is GOP tax cuts. The time to cut taxes is AFTER you pay your debts.

Obama came into office right after the economic collapse. Expecting him to clean up the war and the deficit and deal with healthcare was unreasonable. He managed to do 2 of the 3 despite withering criticism, 6 years of obstruction that included not even meeting with his SCOTUS nominee, and no help from the GOP.

---

You are illustrating your lack of knowledge with respect to basic tax principle. I suggest you read up on federal tax receipts in relation to tax policy. Over the last 100+ years, federal tax revenue has increased at a steady and predictable rate regardless of tax policy (over the long term and taking into consideration economic downturns). The current tax policy is not the problem. The problem is the massive bipartisan spending bill that was passed following the new tax law.

Iraq is part of the problem, but we don't know what foolish mistakes Gore possibly could have made that could have increased the national debt as well. We can only speculate at this point, and democrats will speculate that it would have been much better and republicans will speculate it would have been worse. In reality, it probably would have been about the same, but with different policy.

And that's the underlying issue. Regardless of which party is in power, spending exceeds revenue, it's just a matter of what we spend the money on. Neither party has an incentive to bring the budget in control because the sheep in each party gladly play the "it's the other party's fault" game. So that's where we are. The only time we had the deficit under control was when the republicans controlled congress with the "Contract with America" and Clinton was willing to play ball. Currently, neither party shows any interest in working together, they would rather just play stupid political games.

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

---

One reason we have a whopping deficit is the Iraq War.

Another is GOP tax cuts. The time to cut taxes is AFTER you pay your debts.

Obama came into office right after the economic collapse. Expecting him to clean up the war and the deficit and deal with healthcare was unreasonable. He managed to do 2 of the 3 despite withering criticism, 6 years of obstruction that included not even meeting with his SCOTUS nominee, and no help from the GOP.

---

You are illustrating your lack of knowledge with respect to basic tax principle. I suggest you read up on federal tax receipts in relation to tax policy. Over the last 100+ years, federal tax revenue has increased at a steady and predictable rate regardless of tax policy (over the long term and taking into consideration economic downturns). The current tax policy is not the problem. The problem is the massive bipartisan spending bill that was passed following the new tax law.

Iraq is part of the problem, but we don't know what foolish mistakes Gore possibly could have made that could have increased the national debt as well. We can only speculate at this point, and democrats will speculate that it would have been much better and republicans will speculate it would have been worse. In reality, it probably would have been about the same, but with different policy.

And that's the underlying issue. Regardless of which party is in power, spending exceeds revenue, it's just a matter of what we spend the money on. Neither party has an incentive to bring the budget in control because the sheep in each party gladly play the "it's the other party's fault" game. So that's where we are. The only time we had the deficit under control was when the republicans controlled congress with the "Contract with America" and Clinton was willing to play ball. Currently, neither party shows any interest in working together, they would rather just play stupid political games.

---

It will continue this way until no one will buy our debt, and no one has confidence in the dollar.

TexasScientist said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

---

One reason we have a whopping deficit is the Iraq War.

Another is GOP tax cuts. The time to cut taxes is AFTER you pay your debts.

Obama came into office right after the economic collapse. Expecting him to clean up the war and the deficit and deal with healthcare was unreasonable. He managed to do 2 of the 3 despite withering criticism, 6 years of obstruction that included not even meeting with his SCOTUS nominee, and no help from the GOP.

---

You are illustrating your lack of knowledge with respect to basic tax principle. I suggest you read up on federal tax receipts in relation to tax policy. Over the last 100+ years, federal tax revenue has increased at a steady and predictable rate regardless of tax policy (over the long term and taking into consideration economic downturns). The current tax policy is not the problem. The problem is the massive bipartisan spending bill that was passed following the new tax law.

Iraq is part of the problem, but we don't know what foolish mistakes Gore possibly could have made that could have increased the national debt as well. We can only speculate at this point, and democrats will speculate that it would have been much better and republicans will speculate it would have been worse. In reality, it probably would have been about the same, but with different policy.

And that's the underlying issue. Regardless of which party is in power, spending exceeds revenue, it's just a matter of what we spend the money on. Neither party has an incentive to bring the budget in control because the sheep in each party gladly play the "it's the other party's fault" game. So that's where we are. The only time we had the deficit under control was when the republicans controlled congress with the "Contract with America" and Clinton was willing to play ball. Currently, neither party shows any interest in working together, they would rather just play stupid political games.

---

It will continue this way until no one will buy our debt, and no one has confidence in the dollar.

---

True story.

contrario said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

quash said:

---

Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another. H. L. Mencken

---

We would at least be taking some action toward climate change and not dismissing it as a hoax if a Democrat had been elected.

We would not have invaded Iraq if Gore had been elected, because Cheney and Rumsfeld wouldn't have controlled the post 9-11 narrative (although we'd still be hearing the howls from Republicans if Gore had been president when the towers fell).

Both sides play the same insider games. But their policies are signficantly different enough that there's a clear choice underneath all the noise.

---

Gore may not have invaded Iraq, but he may have made a different bad action or inaction. There is no way to know.

Yes, their policies are different, but their results are effectively the same (more debt and broken promises).

---

One reason we have a whopping deficit is the Iraq War.

Another is GOP tax cuts. The time to cut taxes is AFTER you pay your debts.

Obama came into office right after the economic collapse. Expecting him to clean up the war and the deficit and deal with healthcare was unreasonable. He managed to do 2 of the 3 despite withering criticism, 6 years of obstruction that included not even meeting with his SCOTUS nominee, and no help from the GOP.

---

You are illustrating your lack of knowledge with respect to basic tax principle. I suggest you read up on federal tax receipts in relation to tax policy. Over the last 100+ years, federal tax revenue has increased at a steady and predictable rate regardless of tax policy (over the long term and taking into consideration economic downturns). The current tax policy is not the problem. The problem is the massive bipartisan spending bill that was passed following the new tax law.

Iraq is part of the problem, but we don't know what foolish mistakes Gore possibly could have made that could have increased the national debt as well. We can only speculate at this point, and democrats will speculate that it would have been much better and republicans will speculate it would have been worse. In reality, it probably would have been about the same, but with different policy.

And that's the underlying issue. Regardless of which party is in power, spending exceeds revenue, it's just a matter of what we spend the money on. Neither party has an incentive to bring the budget in control because the sheep in each party gladly play the "it's the other party's fault" game. So that's where we are. The only time we had the deficit under control was when the republicans controlled congress with the "Contract with America" and Clinton was willing to play ball. Currently, neither party shows any interest in working together, they would rather just play stupid political games.

---

It will continue this way until no one will buy our debt, and no one has confidence in the dollar.

---

True story.

---

Maybe we can get Space Force to find some aliens looking to invest twenty-two trillion in quatloos . Just hope we don't get shorted...

Won't mattwr much as long as we remain the tallest midget in the room which we are.

That will remain as long as the democrats can find a way to shed their Socialist label.

If they don't clean it up from within we go the way of Venezuela, England, Russia, China etc

Baylor3216 said:

---

Won't mattwr much as long as we remain the tallest midget in the room which we are.

That will remain as long as the democrats can find a way to shed their Socialist label.

If they don't clean it up from within we go the way of Venezuela, England, Russia, China etc

---

Seems to be a mistake on this list with England in the mix.