Putting America First

[Luce NDs]

The only one in that family, currently, who is any sort of a risk taker is Harry, but I very highly doubt he'd pull any Bond maneuvers (but hey, he'd be great cast in a movie). Maybe he'd say something cheeky - but I doubt even that. The royals don't rock the political boat.

Is cheeky more about the opposing fore side ... as aft? The golden one that cannot see his hynds!

He must be chas't about wiping it ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Yes, I had my doubts she would be able to lift up that sword for the final blow.

The empire is really more about join age and conjugal stuff all for the sake of Koine age ... a Greek slip contrary to the Freudian slide ... right between the ribs will do as a sol Eire Plexis as something that clips dehe art there as poe citii? Sur Ban yah ... versus de slums?

We don't yet know about the cost of building unsustainable cittis tates ... where Brutus wanders absconding with po' damos els ... just for the underlying beauty that escapes eM!

That cave man theme again as in Sunday Morning Downs ... or getting there if the ghost of thought castes yah ... knows hite ... in ancient Gael ... Gobshite?

One is required prescience to do etudes on alien tongues to the English fixation as Terre 'd ... another plat form 've the Great code 'd myth of Avalon ... avarice in a hole as reciprocal to the whet base it is upturned ... few see what loaming ... consequence of the demos recess ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Yes, I had my doubts she would be able to lift up that sword for the final blow.

 

[Luce NDs]

There is much more to the partisan spirit of support of what goes round ... Eri-Ka's ... denial!

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

This guy has a point really, we'd be naive to think otherwise.

Trump himself is just a symbol, a tool (pun intended) for what a large part of America acually believes. He is, at this time, the face of America. But however cruel and selfish it may be, it is at the very least (somewhat) "honest". (Ok, he's being honest about the fact that he's dishonest) Nevertheless, he's beginning to do doing openly what the other governments did covertly.

Maybe this is just what the world needs at this time, to bring it all out to the surface so we as a people can deal with it. It's also, I believe, a time of opportunity for Americans. The opportunity to make the "right choice", which is rehttps://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorryally, the "only" choice, since we've seen, in our lifetimes, how bad the wrong choice can be.

We're standing at a cross road, and this time the choice is obvious. The Sword of Cleavage is dividing the people.

i'm not taking what Ron Paul says at face value.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry

 

[Luce NDs]

i'm not taking what Ron Paul says at face value.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry

Is there a masque here as facetiae to the story presented?

It could be A'Moor than appeared as isn't ... and look what happened with the Celts out on the Heather ... sheepish and funny cattle ... hairy beastes ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

His " point" is motivated by some things that I cannot get behind.

 

[Luce NDs]

His " point" is motivated by some things that I cannot get behind.

His Roman Noes?

 

[Neo]

i'm not taking what Ron Paul says at face value.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry

I don't know anything about this guy, I just agree with his point that all the US governments have all done nefarious and clandestine deeds during their administrations. We would be naive to think they hadn't.

 

[Mendalla]

The royals don't can't rock the political boat.

Fixed yer typo. If the royals actually took political stands (and Charles has been called on it before), it would be a constitutional crisis for the Brits. They are supposed to be "above politics". Charles has been skirting that line for years with some success but once he is King, his political stands and statements will be subject to even tighter scrutiny. I've even seen one British constitutional expert suggest that Charles could kill the monarchy by being too political once he move into Buckingham.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Fixed yer typo. If the royals actually took political stands (and Charles has been called on it before), it would be a constitutional crisis for the Brits. They are supposed to be "above politics". Charles has been skirting that line for years with some success but once he is King, his political stands and statements will be subject to even tighter scrutiny. I've even seen one British constitutional expert suggest that Charles could kill the monarchy by being too political once he move into Buckingham.

I don't think a royal saying something would put them into a constitutional crisis. They have enough going on with Brexit. Technically, but symbolically, the Queen is still the head of the British military and the Church of England...and she's pretty popular.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't think a royal saying something would put them into a constitutional crisis. They have enough going on with Brexit. Technically, but symbolically, the Queen is still the head of the British military and the Church of England...and she's pretty popular.

Right, and part of her success has been that, save for the odd carefully chosen words (e.g. during the Brexit referendum debate), she has been resolutely apolitical. There's no issue as long as Elizabeth II remains on the throne and Charlies is just Prince of Wales; it's after he is crowned that it could be a problem. To my eye, Charles has his father's knack for shooting his mouth off and openly commenting on a piece of legislation or an issue of the day once he becomes king could blow up in his face, and that of the monarchy. The constitutional expert I read suggested that the Brits would have minimal tolerance for a politically active monarch after Elizabeth's studious efforts to remain (mostly) above the fray.

 

[KayTheCurler]

Charles, of course, may not get the throne. He has waited many years and is aging at the same rate as his mother. He could quite easily die before her. Many people have also suggested that he should stand aside for his son, who is certainly liked a lot better.

 

[Luce NDs]

Now ... if ignorance is bliss are there national precedence? Is such a thing unconscious when within the BS that you're just too sharp for your own good? Hypothetic, or hypochondriac in believing all about your is sick?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

When was the last time the royals took a decisive stand on anything? Their subjects are giving them a pretty comfortable lifestyle, they were handed their jobs from birth. I understand that they don't and won't...I'm conflicted, because I kind of like them...but it sure would be interesting to see them take a decisive stand on important issues.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

However, they have given up aspects of the monarchy willingly over time. Maybe they would be willing to give it up altogether, if need be sometime, if it would help the world.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Not sure Will really wants to be a king anyway. I get that impression. They're doing it for granny and their dad. Will and Harry could probably manage well without the royal trappings. Charles, maybe less so. He's more tied to it.

 

[Luce NDs]

When in comfort ... no comings and goings as in sympathee and Para sympathee ... unless suffering an autonomous paint in the behind as discipleship ... those lessor followings as Otto's cycle ... and thus it comes around when you least expect ... beware of what's hidden in Great Expectations ... the paradigm could be a huge pain ... asq de rump ... or is that esq.?

 

[Mendalla]

Charles, of course, may not get the throne. He has waited many years and is aging at the same rate as his mother. He could quite easily die before her. Many people have also suggested that he should stand aside for his son, who is certainly liked a lot better.

If the Queen predeceases Charles, I fully expect he will take the throne. Talk of him abdicating in favour of William is just that: talk. Realistically, I doubt William wants to be on the throne until the kids are older. Up until now, he's been able to get away with something vaguely resembling a normal life with his job as a air rescue pilot and living away from London. Now that he's becoming a full-time royal and moving to Kensington Palace, he's already taking a step closer to royal reality but I doubt he wants the throne that badly at this point in his life. Charles isn't popular and well-liked like his mother and his son, but I doubt anyone would object to him being a bridge between them.

 

[revsdd]

Monarchy is not a popularity contest. Regardless of your views on constitutional monarchy (and if you don't like it that's a valid political and ideological view and promote it and try to abolish it), the reality is that our monarchy (as long as it lasts) is hereditary and as soon as you skip one generation for another just because of popularity then the whole system crumbles. Assuming he outlives his mother Charles will be King one day. And expecting that the monarchy should take a stand of course misses the point of constitutional monarchy. The monarch neither governs nor rules. The monarch reigns - meaning that the monarch is merely a symbol of a state governed by others - in the case of Canada and the UK by a Parliament elected by the people and a Prime Minister who is accountable to that Parliament. In an absolute constitutional crisis the monarch might get involved - but it would be controversial.