“If one shoots at a king, one must not miss.”

Sillik, I bow my shaking head — if not for your consistency, it would be unbelievable 🤣🤪🤣. Your sick religious perspective is less than desirable by those that love peace, mental wellness, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law.

Mike, Norwalk, We should have a US President with morals and manners. We are most certainly deprived in this condition.  A responsible authority figure takes complete responsibility for everyone in the community.  I believe Donald Trump totally mentally incompetent and believe it is my fault. However, until I figure how to fix the prevailing socio-economic crises we'll just have to leave the degenerated creature in the White House.   
 

Mike,, Norwalk, I dream of a time when we can observe decency, dignity, and sincerity in the oval office.  A Presidential individual who addresses the problems directly and accepts total unequivocal responsibility for the disorder in the populous arrangement.  As I look out to our unbalanced social condition I feel totally responsible for the circumstances because I have the only active competent mind processing on the planet  Despite the circumstances I feel I will eventually repair the imbalance, it will take time. Its difficult associating with a conventional creature who believes the answer more imbalance. Balance is the positive change we need for forward progress. 

Your definition of the responsibilities of a US president is certainly not accurate nor Constitutional.  Your definition is nothing short of dictatorial.  You "feel totally responsible for the circumstances because I have the only active competent mind processing on the planet"?  ;-) Talk about "an intense psychiatric condition"... 

It's this kind of rhetoric that throws a wrench into every argument for 'balance' or 'positive change.'  Thankfully you will never gain the reins of power, for you would likely be the most deranged dictator the world has ever known — all with the blessings of your own conscience.

Sillik, I also dream of a time when we can observe decency, dignity, and sincerity in the oval office. A GIANT problem here is, our definitions of decency, dignity and sincerity differ dramatically. That is why the de jure premise of jurisdiction was to be nature’s law (nature’s law does NOT take in or, rely on such sentiment(s)). I also agree with your: “disorder in the populous arrangement”. Again, I drastically disagree with your meaning of such words; - a government of nature’s law would be the ultimate answer. Your god syndrome does give reason as to your religiously diluted word salad. And then, there would be yours (religious) and my (weights and measures) definitions of “balance”. What does balance have to do with nature’s law (it simply is, what it is - how would you balance gravity / science / math / etc.?)?

Mike, Norwalk, I don't have a god syndrome. I am just the only, and run-of-the-mill at that, adult on a planet of "we are the world, we are children. 

Mr Archer, like it or not my "dictatorial" manner tells me 1+1=2.  My environmental reflections indicate that all the solutions to our environmental problems are of the same rational 
 "dictatorial" nature.  Quite sane in their appropriate application which none of the citizens offer, other than myself. 

Your godship, 🤣 🤪 🤣, I can't wait for you to become the corporeal utopia's ruling god. 😁

Mike, Norwalk, there are absolutely no gods, just a frustrated, but competent run-of-the-mill adult. 

Mike,, Norwalk, I insist you quit dealing me the god card.

Mike,, Norwalk, I got enough race cards and sexist cards dealt to me by "blacks,"  "latinos," and females and with your god card, I could shuffle a whole deck. 

Sillik, 🤣 🤣 🤣 lololol / hahaha, you insist ? ? ? 🤣 🤣 🤣 You define yourself as "god". You continually confuse religion and science. Within a scientific definition you are not a god. Within the traditional definition of religion — you define yourself as a god. When you get cured from your religiously induced mental illness, I'll quit calling you god.

Mr Archer, I have absolutely no negative psychiatric condition,  I'm just  very, very, sorry to say I have the only adult attitude on a the planet earth in the year 2025.

Sillik, it would be nice to have a President that was moral with manners while following nature’s law (the jurisdictional premise of a de jure States united). I’m not a real fan of Trump. He is very good at temporary temporal financial build-up (including some deregulation) and threatening non-violence (his version of peace); BUT !, I’m not a fan of his execution of compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licensing nor support of certain socialist implementations to achieve his goals. I’m against his unconstitutional engagements; such as, making the children pay for the sins of the parents. First, considering the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill Of Rights, show me the specific clause in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the authority to make laws (corporeal man can not make law, he can only make rules of order) concerning immigration (citizenship is another issue - that is Constitutionally clear). Further, a question, before a child is born, what governmental jurisdiction has he/she sworn an alliance to or breathed / place his/her feet on. If the parents of such newly born infant sinned (did not break a Constitutional decree but,) and came to this country contrary to religious canon, what does that have to do with the new born? The answer: NOTHING. The new born’s first human experience was a jurisdictional introduction to a land of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law (by at least, the Constitution’s clarification and tradition at the 14th Amendment). To deny an individual’s birth right based on that Childs sinning parents is an advanced socialistic / theocratic dogma that is contrary to nature’s law and the Constitution.

The GIGANTIC slipery slope created by punishing the children for the parents' sin (generational penalty correction and retribution) is a very, VERY scary next step. A next step rationalization for . . .?

Dare I ask what 'your' solutions are to sex and drugs?  What specifically are the "world's problems"?  And what specifically would/could you do as the only qualified individual on the planet?

(This ought to be good...)

Specifically the world's problems stem from and  are, quite obviously, an extreme imbalance in the world's resources.  The strategy stems from crediting honesty and integrity, and discrediting chicanery. You insist on these degenerated beings occupy high profile positions.  If to we could draw these creatures out and expose them for the imbalanced creatures they are, the honest decent gentlemen can step in and balance the system.  

Correction: The corrective strategy stems from discrediting chicanery, and crediting and properly representing the individual of diligence, honesty, and integrity.  It's not what you have, its what you represent that balances the environmental formulation. 

Mr Archer, the current population has to be positioned into legitimate positions,  critical maturation processes initiated, and the accredited drugs and sex trades discredited.  A clear demonstration of legitimacy is the necessity.  A fully prepared matured adult practitioner with adult skills and abilities is in order.  Evolution is evolving. We are the universe,  and we will conduct ourselves as adults. 

Sillik, your double minded religious rhetoric gets more confused the more you speak. Your word salad says: "Specifically the world's problems stem from and are, quite obviously, an extreme imbalance in the world's resources." (a socialist's perspective) vs. "The corrective strategy ⋯crediting and properly representing the individual of diligence, honesty, and integrity." (an individual sovereign's perspective) — polar opposites ! ! !

ah ha, Mr Archer, it is a conspiracy after all, isn't it interesting you say the word Dare and I have been consuming a product called Daring the last todays.  Coincidence or spying, you tell me. 

Caught you red handed Mr Archer,........ just kidding around. 

Um, I didn't reply, so I am not sure what you are talking about.  Once again you neglect to answer the question — what SPECIFICALLY would/could you DO?  In typical politico fashion you state only the 'needs' and the 'end' not the MEANS to the end.  THAT is the issue.  The means to such an end that defy the consent of those you seek to regulate would have to be authoritarian in nature as you so clearly elude to with YOU being the one to set it all right.  By what power or authority would it take for you to be put in such a position? 

Mr Archer, a awareness must be administered before can reach the change.  The progressive individual must step-by-step convince you that there is an alarming crises brewing. You, Mr Archer are not ready to admit you're impaired with present circumstance, that there is anything wrong. There is a tremendous, tremendous, crises being presented to us all and you won't admit it. A reasonable conventional competency behavioral practice simply does not exist in our present populous arrangement. 

Mr Archer, my understanding of the present contemporary environmental circumstances puts me in the position of authority.  We must be more than pretenders, more than a psuedo-society. An imitation of life will not even be close to allow us our sustainability. We must reach the critical advanced stage of reality.