Peterkin

It's also enlarging and empowering to have the politically most powerful religion of your nation behind whatever persecution, discrimination, punitive exclusion, fact-denial and breach of civil rights you wish to commit against a minority.

It is convenient to dismiss people who don't buy into your world-view. It is much easier than asking why they don't and why you do, or examining the source and purpose of those "punishments" or the nature and cause of those "sins". (But at least you got excellent mileage out of that snippy little post!)

That's always assuming he even knew what they were about. I've heard that he never read the actual documents sent to him, but had either the text or a precis read to him by someone [Jared] else (and - this may be humorous anecdote - they had to insert his name in every second paragraph in order to hold his attention). My understanding, from published works by ex-employees, is that DJT was not particularly conscientious in carrying out the details of his job description. There follows the suspicion that he wasn't really familiar with the contents of the documents he abstracted on departure from the White House. (and still doesn't know)

There appears to be some indication that something like that has already taken place. Is this true? But, as I may have mentioned earlier, two other possibilities are plausible: That they contain information about his and close associates' wrongdoing, and That they contain information he may be able to use against political adversaries or rivals. The top secret stuff would be neither of those other two, so the first guess is likely the correct one.

That will be true of most inventions that grew and were developed over time. You have to load the question with more specific freight. By what measure is 'greatness'? By what standard is it recognized? Do you want the most famous, the most notorious, the most flamboyant, the one who brought it public attention, the one who applied to the most popular use, the most quoted, the most meticulous, the one who made most money, the one who got medals....? I think it's more productive to view scientific discovery and technical innovation with regard to the product - in what respect does it enhance life - rather than as a contest of who did most. It might well be the credited inventor, or the first theorist who published a paper --- and then again, maybe not.

That's not the truth, obviously. But is not what Trumps says? Yes, I knew that. Also that Trump is known to blab, bluster, twitter, rant and blurt. I was attempting to be humorous.

Huh! New broom does sweep clean.

Well, but it turns out, all those documents are automatically de-classified. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/08/12/trump-says-mar-a-lago-documents-declassified-experts-disagree/10310614002/?gnt-cfr=1 Read: "Anything Trump's seen is not a secret anymore." Besides, who doesn't bring their work home after they've been fired? https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/us/postal-worker-caught-dumping-mail-in-pennsylvania-trnd/index.html

Do they? Last I heard, the congregation got a tiny cracker, while the priest paraded the wine in front of them but didn't share. In the old country, there was a comic chant, made to to sound like a Latin incantation, that translates to "You can see, you can see, but you cannot drink it!" At least the Protestants give you a bite of bread and sip of wine. The poor little Jewish boys only get a drop for all their pain, while the parents get all the rest.

We used to celebrate the Christian holidays centered on children - Christmas and Easter - when we had children. We kept up a casual nod to those holidays - a festive meal, some decorations, a few gifts - as long as my mother was alive and we had older friends with whom to visit back and forth. When they were gone, we dropped all pretense of those remnants of a story that had been barbaric and in very bad taste from its inception. Our general rejection of superstition is not evenly distributed: some religions are more invasive, pervasive and repressive than others; only a few affect our current society. The old dead ones are fodder for anthropological study, not a threat to personal freedom.

Seems we're already down to finger-waving in the usual direction:

He's already withdrawn the objection, trying to pretend it was his idea all along to make it public. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-12/trump-calls-for-release-of-search-warrant-documents-used-in-raid ...And it came to pass, in those final days, that the affairs of powerful nation-states were conducted in the idiom of schoolyard taunts...

Should you admit to knowing this?

You mean, it's not? Of course, at MoMA, it wouldn't sand out. They wouldn't need a search warrant. But it's not too late for an exhumation order. Now, I wonder... would that legally cover a look under the mattress?

Oh, say.... That's a lot of ground to dig up!

Sold? Likely. Shared? Never!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32JFfCm37R8

Because he intended to remain president or be president again, and either use them to control/threaten/ruin other people, or retain control (however illusory) over some aspect of governance, or conceal transactions/exchanges of a criminal/treasonous nature by himself and various minions. It's quite possible he intended to, and thought he could sort out those documents and choose the ones he actually needed, then perhaps return the rest, or arrogate them to his own "library" for that long, rambling, utterly unreadable ghost-written Trump's Compf - but lacked the requisite level of literacy to complete the task. Just speculating! He has lots of toilets in that big, pretentious house, right? Good thing they contained it! Otherwise, we might be still be hearing the W word.

Yes, Minister! Despise the civil service as we may, that's who runs the government. Break up the government agencies, as the constitution-changing red states https://www.npr.org/2016/02/04/465593798/rewrite-the-constitution-several-states-are-trying-to intend to do; decapitate them and put incompetent cronies in charge, as some presidents do; defund and defang them as some administrations do - and the country simply stops working. There are two further complications: the layers and separate powers of governments - municipal, regional and national jurisdictions - alongside the public-private divide of responsibility means that many issues fall through the gaps between them. An even bigger one: Co-ordination and prioritization of policing efforts. That is a huge problem in all government business everywhere. Downloading their responsibility on a for-profit (for sale!) agent. Whereupon, everything from health-care to road construction to dam maintenance and garbage collection declines in quality as it increases in cost.

The whole process of electing representatives needs to be reorganized. Drastically. Nobody who got there by the method in place is willing to do that. Nobody who didn't has the power to do that.

It shouldn't be up to them to deal with the problem directly. It should be a police matter. Elected officials should enact effective and up-to-date laws, then empower and equip their justice system to deal with criminal activity as it occurs, without any further interference from legislators. That's the theory. In fact, the officials are not up to date on new technology or trends in the kinds of threats and the concerns that citizens may be facing from day to day. Law-enforcement also tends to be considerably behind organized crime. If they have adequate specialized advice, they either don't understand it or ignore it ... or simply never get 'round to acting on it. The systemic error - it seems to me - is the emphasis on elections, campaigning, propagandizing, canvassing, fund-raising, party-building, polling, strategizing, boozing and schmoozing, rather than the actual daily work of governance. The sojourn of any faction in power is too short and the process of getting there is too complicated, so they never have time to keep their eyes on the five dozen actual balls in play at any given moment, because they're already looking toward how to win the next scrum, the next challenge to their power, the next game. They have very little time - and, let's face it, with all the power-struggles, back-stabbing, backstage dealing and face-saving that saps their political stamina - very little ability or inclination, to do their actual job.

Okay, I take it back. You are unique! But that novelty is no longer sufficient to hold my attention. BtW: the answer is 42

Quote three examples.

It's because soft Democrats!

Or, here's an idea to save time: Reply to posts with supporting evidence. A novel approach, I grant you, but might be worth a try.