Just Because You Win The Election.....
Pre Obama it was said, correctly, that conservatives may win elections but liberalism through its control and domination of collegesand media, law and journalism schools,plus of course Hollywood and throw in Silicon Valley, not mention social media.They have molded the culture into a form wherein conservatism is racism and bigotry, sexism and homophobia, etc.No wonder a Republican Senate gives Trump nothing except to confirm a few conservative judges, even though there are over 100 still to be confirmed. The McConnell Senate stalls even at that easy task. So...Did Trump really win the election?
Winning over the craven RINOs, now shown to be job scared hypocrites, is another matter.
Yesterday, Me dino read a prediction that the election of Roy Moore may start of trend of folks outside the establish running against RINOs and winning.
That would nice but one heck of a slow fix if that hopeful prediction actually proves true.
Me dino ain't calling Luther Strange a RINO, though he was fallibly perceived to be one by some Alabama voters.
What turned me against Strange is that his campaign lied about Moore's stance on the wall and gun rights.
Evidently, a lot of nearly swayed Alabamians, like me, saw through that mudslinging garbage.
Moore should prove to be as cooperative as Strange for working with Trump.
I don't like voting for liars.
~me dino recalls Tarzan saying that in an Edgar Rice Burroughs book I read as a teenager. Believe he was about to be burned at the stake with some other character. Oh, yeah, Tarzan also advised that breathing in the flames would lead to a quicker less painful death. The moral? Where there is life there is hope, but when you're tied up as well as burning up it's too late to wait. So snuff it.
Thought Ford did okay but he sprang from Tricky Dicky's resignation and Carter had the D beside his name.
It took only four years of Peanut Brain, as I quickly came to call that Georgia peanut farmer, to squeeze the last of my libbiness out of me.
Me dino began to THINK and am still proud I voted for Reagan instead of Mr. Malaise.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy...
Liked the cartoons!
I do toss about Evil Hag and Peanut Brain ad hominem attacks~but if Rush Limbaugh can Dingy Harry and Crazy Bernie do it, why can't I?
their choice! Help!! I've fallen and can't get up!!!!
Pushing a collectivist utopia, which the history has shown to be straight road to a disaster, cannot qualify for a rational belief. Even a superficial survey of history will demonstrate beyond doubt that French revolution leaders, Lenin, Stalin, as well as Mussolini and Hitler (shall I add Mao and Pol Pot?) all explicitly claimed, innumerable times, that their success depended vitally on suppressing the individual to promote the collective. Why do you think millions of people, over more than two centuries, kept dropping everything to go to America? It is only with the recent precipitous decline in the quality of education than demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren can get traction, mostly among the young, many of whom come out of schools brain washed.
Best wishes.
Maritimus
I was surprised when Pres. Trump won against the
Democratic Elite Kakistacratic Evil hag. It has given me some hope that a fair number of folks are awakening, Trump has been accused of collaborating with the Russian with no evidence, and with no consequences for the inflammatory
Disgraceful deciet .
The media , education, entertainment , congress they all side together in this
UNCIVIL WAR.
I am thankful that we finally have a leader who has said "We The People " and " I am going to take the power from Washington and give it back to the people" can he do it? So far he has rope-a-doped
with conviction . I can not think of any politician with his thick skin to fight the good fight. Go Trump Go . Don't think Trump won't go down without exposing the sham. These people are scared to death of his no nonsense approach .
He is result oriented, they are snobby thieves.
I hope I am surprised again and these RINO's are fired.
I think Trump's election has exposed a few things about the Republican Party to the general populace:
1. They are not unified in their platform and ideas, in contrast with the Democratic Party.
2. There are several key Republicans who are decidedly not conservative and in fact should probably be labeled as Democrats.
3. The Republican Party has no interest in policing its own members to the point of electing conservatives (see senators from Arizona, Maine, Alaska).
4. The Republican leaders were more than happy to remain in the minority because they could complain without having to actually act (see McConnell, Ryan). They are ill-equipped to actually lead and get things done.
Which leads me to believe that in the next two elections we're likely to see a large shift toward the Democrats as Republicans stay home disgusted with the party which for the last eight years could say nothing but "give us control and we'll get it done."
On point #2 I think the Democrats have become socialist/communist in spite of still calling themselves "Democrats" and the Republicans have become Democrats, that is socialists lite. They are left and right wings of the same left flying abomination party. Trump is a wake up call from the electorate that's getting sick of the whole thing.
Also, I don't expect too many "Republican" voters to stay home in spite of their disgust. They will hold their noses and vote Republican just so the Democrats (socialist/communists) can't get a free ride to rule.
The republicans will show up, IN FORCE, to remove EVERY establishment GOP candidate and replace with a fresh face to send their message.
WE are willing to lose seats in the process (and the RNC will WANT us to lose seats, so they can say "told ya so"). But the TeaParty and other conservative groups are not going to stay home. We will fight.
We will never get perfectly conservative people, but we will send a message in 2018 that makes the GOP wake up, or step down. It is no longer about this country, it is about these people lining their own pockets. Setting up their own deals.
I think we are actually in agreement on the last point. I would love to see many of these establishment types get primaried and lose. The choice of Moore in Alabama is what I want to see more of. I think what I was getting at is that those establishment Republicans who do win their Primaries are going to find the Generals much harder because of base apathy.
Simply out of disgust for how bad things have gotten, and the realization that we are headed to being Venezuela if the left wins!
BTW, It is the job of every patriotic American to get people out to change the system for the better. Because giving up now, simply assures either Civil War, or Martial Law down the road.
It is a VERY dark refrain...
They also say "Politics is about one billionaire trying to make another billionaire pick up the tab (using the lives of the peasants to do it)".
Greed is not bad. People having a profit motive is not bad.
But politicians have a twisted relationship. It is more profitable for them to do a DISSERVICE to the country, than to do the country right.
THAT is the problem we must find a way to solve.
Otherwise, I have to go to Mark Twain: "Everyone in Office should serve 2 terms. One if office, followed by one in prison".
Methinks Mr. Twain was a VERY SMART MAN!
They elected a president who proposed a budget that would nearly triple the deficit. He's vocally supported asset forfeiture. He promised to protect domestic workers from foreign competition. He promised an amazingly great alternative to PPACA. Instead of getting things done, he seems mainly interested in drawing attention to himself.
So if conservative = small gov't, there is no mainstream conservative representation.
"are not unified in their platform and ideas, in contrast with the Democratic Party"
Democrats are not as unified as you think. The only thing we agree on is that President Trump is very offensive.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
I am closest to the "Coastal Elite Bloc", although I'm neither Coastal or elite. I live in an area dominated by the "Traditional Liberal Bloc". I know this sounds far-fetched, but I think the Traditional Liberals, the vast majority in my area, are closer to President Trump, and the anti-tax / anti-spending segment of Republicans are closer to the Democratic Coastal Elite.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
Logically, I'd like them to separate so I'm not shoe-horned into the same party as Bernie Sanders, BUT if they did separate maybe after the re-alignment the big-gov't coalition would win decisive and I'd regret the change.
That's not a big departure from our previous President, who actually DID (nearly) triple the deficit. Yes, it's absurd, but it is Congress who should ultimately shoulder the blame as they ultimately are responsible for passing the budget.
"He's vocally supported asset forfeiture. He promised to protect domestic workers from foreign competition. He promised an amazingly great alternative to PPACA. Instead of getting things done, he seems mainly interested in drawing attention to himself. "
Which is why I don't label Trump either a conservative or a libertarian. To be honest, his pick of Gorsuch really surprised me. He's at best a centrist and more a social nationalist than anything.
There is a major faction within the Republican Party which is conservative in nature called the House Freedom Caucus (I think led by Jim Jordan). They have a similar group in the Senate led by Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. But they are opposed by what I will call the "establishment" Republicans such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and others.
"Democrats are not as unified as you think."
Perhaps not, but they are not as ideologically differentiated as the Republicans - especially now that they have expunged those who used to be called Blue Dog Democrats (arguably libertarians really). The only Democrats remaining are the "hard left" and "fanatical left" where there used to be some centrists. The Republicans are all over the board from conservatives to RINO's (who are for all intents and purposes Democrats). The latest fights on healthcare, immigration, and tax reform (pending) all demonstrate 1) the solidarity of the Democrats and 2) the fractiousness of the Republicans.
I'd be in that group. I loved watching Ron Paul in the debates. I felt like he should be a Democrat and bring to life the Democratic Freedom Caucus, which I think is nearly defunct.
"the solidarity of the Democrats"
I could be wrong, but I think that's only due to how they respond to President Trump's antics. Some Democrats think Sanders got us President Trump. They can stay united by disgust with Trump's antics.
"and bring to life the Democratic Freedom Caucus..."
You have a strange view of the Democratic Party. But then, my wife's grandma was a lifelong Democrat because she lived through Roosevelt and WW II and just never could match up the reality with her romantic (and by that I mean imaginary) views of the man. Jefferson and Madison would be astounded and ashamed at the antics of the Democratic Party because it diverged from everything they stood for quite early on. Remember, it was the Democratic Party who agitated to continue slavery even in the early 1800's. (Lincoln was only voted in because the other three tickets all split the vote!) Following the Civil War, Democrats were the ones who brought in "separate but equal". Andrew Jackson - though a war hero - was responsible for the "Trail of Tears" - persecuting American Indians and the segregation of blacks and whites in the White House. All semblance of attendance to the Constitution was thrown out by Woodrow Wilson, who was the first major proponent of "one-world government" via the League of Nations. Wilson was also a huge proponent and original provocateur of the imperial presidency, arguing contrary to the Constitution that it was the role of a strong president to make "executive decisions" which were in all reality laws and to carry them out. The Democrats were overwhelmingly against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Fast forward a few more years to LBJ, who bragged that through social welfare programs he would both enslave the blacks AND make them willing victims/voters. I don't even need to get into Carter, Clinton, or Obama.
That is the real history (in a paragraph) of the Democratic Party. Democrats do not have freedom on their minds, and I can argue that every one of their policies is decidedly anti-freedom. That anyone - especially someone with functioning rational faculties - could associate themselves with such an organization staggers me.
Regarding Trump, he is a populist/nationalist response to the current political status of establishment politics. He's an outsider, which offends the Democrats (who consider themselves an elite class) as well as many of the Republicans. Yes, he's got more than a few rough edges and these irritate those who are used to the greased-palm machine of the Establishment. He's a bull in the china shop, and many on both sides of the aisle are lamenting the broken dishes. I look at the dishes and go "you're complaining about THAT?!?!"
Sanders is mental - as in mentally gone. He's down the rabbit hole. Socialism can only be contemplated by the demented or the self-appointed elite who think they would be in control. And that's what he wants - power. Clinton was even worse and more brazen in her pay-for-play. She (like Obama) are Wilsonites who see themselves as the self-appointed emperors that the voting public is too beneath them to recognize for their brilliance. In fact, she's so morally depraved she makes pond scum downright appealing.
Seriously. How can you even think of voting for people like this while calling yourself a lover of freedom?
You're right. I take it back. He should have been in some other small-gov't party like libertarian, and they should be a major party.
Party politics is holding this back, however. There are two major things that would have to happen (in my mind) to broaden the sphere of political parties participating in our process:
1) Repeal the 12th Amendment. Eliminate party-line voting that puts both President and Vice-President on the same ticket. Go back to the President being the top vote-getter and the Vice-President being the second-highest vote-getter. This would also restore the office of the Vice President to one that actually mattered. It would also make it so that impeachment proceedings would become a serious matter because in the event of Conviction, power would change hands - and parties.
2) Campaign finance revision. Make it so that candidates for political office can't accept money from anyone not a registered voter in the precinct for which they are running. That means no one but someone in that voting district can give money to a candidate. No foreigners, no George Soros, and no outside special interests - including PAC's and unions and National Committees. Just plain grass-roots financing. This one provision would have the ancillary effect of gutting most lobbying efforts.
It hit near the trillion dollar range when President Obama took office. There had been a major financial crisis and a recession. President Bush proposed borrowing as an answer, and President Obama increased it. When President Trump took office, after the stock market had doubled, he proposed returning to trillion dollar deficits. I consider that worse because when the pendulum swings the other way, that would turn into a 2 trillion dollar deficit. At some point we will have a major monetary/fiscal crisis.
And if you want to see a budget at least as ridiculous as President Trump's, look at some of Obama's initial budgets. They were so bad not even the Democrats would support them. Obama's first two budgets failed in a staggering manner, garnering a TOTAL of ONE vote between them (including both House and Senate)!
We already have a major monetary crisis. Our debt outstrips our entire economy and at staggeringly low interest rates. If those interest rates go up - which they must - debt service becomes the elephant in the room to rival either military or social spending.
And the last time we had a balanced budget Republicans controlled Congress and we had a Democrat president. They argued mightily. Between their actions and the expansion following the recession of '91, they balanced the budget.
I would also point out that in Gingrich's "Contract with America" were also several tax cuts and reformations to social spending programs. Those were significant factors which are often overlooked amongst those deliberations.
The winning scenario is if they separate into a big-gov't party and small-gov't party and the country would decisively reject the big gov't one. The big-gov't party would be a minority that only dominated on the few rare times and issues where people felt the need for big gov't.
We need a new study, an honest and in-depth one that will teach us to successfully talk to stupid...
Did you see the movie "LUCY"?A fairy tale illustrating what happens as the brain is being utilized up to 100%.
Now stupid, on the other hand, does not lack the ability to express his stupidity.
Too bad that wasn't the other way around.
The brain in most, Is 100% utilized, just not all at the same time...maybe those times when much of it is engaged at the same time is a new understanding of multitasking...which gets us nowhere fast instead of everywhere in a slow methodical way, integrating each step and stringing dots like jeweled beads to be worn around the neck.
It would seem that the advantage be given to those unconsciously competent to the point where one leaves the automatic bicameral brain to it's important tasks while one engages the mind and the quantum to broaden and widen ones scope into infinity. [Wide Scope Accountability]
The brain, aside from providing function and support for the whole is also necessary to properly decode the messages, information and knowledge asked for by the mind bringing thought into the spoken world and pen to paper.
The Fight for Conscious Human LifeĀ© The Journey begins within...
.