So, the Mrs and a good friend went to early vote here; two entirely different locations. No biggie – it’s still nearly 3 weeks before election day, but might as well get it out of the way. It isn’t out of the way – they both came across hour-long lines to vote. Just to put it into perspective here, folks: this was on a balmy Saturday afternoon…and people were lined up to vote.
Why line up to vote? There’s plenty of time to vote – all the way until November 8th. Unless you’re leaving town tomorrow and won’t be back until the 9th, why bother if there’s any wait, at all? But people were bothering. Lots of them. Who are they voting for? No idea, of course. Now, ask yourself, who is more likely to generate enough excitement to convince someone to wait in line on a beautiful Saturday afternoon for an hour to vote? You can make your own guesses. I’ve made mine. We’ll all see on November 8th.
Almost everyone is in a bubble this year. Trumpsters. HillBots. Beltway Conservatives. I don’t think anyone really knows what is going on – but they keep yammering on as if they do. I have decided to come through to November 9th with the certainty of no egg on my face. It’s an easy trick to do – all you have to do is admit ignorance. I’ve seen the predictions for a Hillary Landslide and a Trump Landslide and everything in between. But no one really knows. It isn’t a matter of “the polls may be wrong” – given that we have polls showing everything from a 12 point Hillary lead to a 2 point Trump lead, at least some of the polls are definitely wrong. I’ve seen State polls come out within a day of each other showing 180 degree difference in the direction of the race. Supposedly, the pollsters are calling the same population and should generally come up with the same result – but, they aren’t. The problem, I think, is that the electorate is in flux…rich people who normally vote GOP are flooding into Democrat ranks, while working class people who normally vote Democrat are on fire for Trump…and the joker in the deck is rare- and never-voters. Some indicators are out there that the number of Independents in some Battle Ground States have massively grown in numbers. Grown in numbers to vote for Hillary or Trump? No one can possibly know.
I refuse the bubble. I’ve even started closely following some Progressive Twitter accounts – they are often more interesting than the Conservative accounts this year because all too often those accounts are just yelling at each other over Trump. The depth of Progressive dislike of Hillary, by the way, is astonishing. I do expect them to pull the lever for Hillary because Trump, for most of them, is very much a bridge too far…but you just watch what happens in 2017 if Hillary does win…there’s going to be a Progressive revolt in the Democrat ranks because Hillary, especially if she has a GOP Congress, won’t be able to bring about the sort of Progressive policies they are demanding. The sort of revolt we’ve seen against the GOP leadership is brewing now on the left against the Democrat leadership. And more power to them – I don’t see why they should continually put up with Democrats who talk a great game of bashing the banks and then take $250,000.00 speaking fees from them.
In the United States and around the world, the post-WWII consensus is crumbling. As long as people felt financially secure, all was well – but now people don’t feel all that secure, and so all bets are off. Trump might not duplicate the Bexit result, but the fact that he’s even in the mix shows that American politics isn’t what is used to be. He’s said a dozen thing which, had anyone said them even 4 years ago, would result in him being down 20 points in the RCP averages by now. Even if the reality is a 6 point Hillary lead as RCP indicates, then that shows how close to the edge of destruction the Establishment is. They might well drag granny across the finish line this year, but it will be at the cost of losing the last of their credibility with the people…and that is right and left. And if the average folks of the left and right ever figure out that, ultimately, their problem is the same group of people, then look out.
Unlike many who appear to be in agony over this election, I’m not. I’m quite happy and content. I’m going to vote and then just see what happens. No matter what the result, you won’t see my shocked face. You will see my happy face if Hillary loses – but that will mostly be because of the sweet satisfaction of seeing that grifter couple brought low. But if Hillary wins, you won’t see my sad face – I’m too familiar with history to see anything but destruction ahead for the people who would make a Hillary victory. They don’t see it, of course – some how or another they expect that this fake money, debt-ridden, low-growth economy can just keep going, and that no matter how nauseatingly corrupt they are, they’ll never be turned out. The Bourbons thought that, too.
The votes are there to turn them out, right now. It’s just a question of when they will coalesce to do so. This year? 2020? 2024? Eventually, it will happen. One thing that is very clear to me is that both Trumpsters and BLM have genuine reasons for complaint. Both of them miss some very important things, and that’s a pity. But the bottom line is that the system sucks for poor and working class people – BLMers are still looking to the Progressives who created the problems, while the Trumpsters are going after a man who talks the talk, but no one has any idea if he’ll walk the walk. It is forgotten these days that Reagan won by cobbling together a coalition of Conservatives and Populists against the GOP Establishment for the primaries and then the overall Establishment for the general election. Since Reagan, however, Conservatism has tried to step away from the people…to argue things out on issues, rather than on underlying philosophy. This has led Conservatism to be a bizarre defense of low corporate taxes while the people lose their jobs and homes and the Constitution is steadily shredded. Someone is eventually going to figure out how to properly tap into the frustrations out there and build a winning coalition. Trump still has his chance to do it – but if he doesn’t, you just watch Rubio or Rand Paul or some such do it. People expecting Rubio to slam Trumpsters and become Romney 3.0 for 2020 are simply not paying attention. There’s a reason for his refusal to break with Trump even as he cruises to a now-easy re-election. The reason is that he’s smart – he knows that if he ever wants to enter the White House (and I believe he does, very much) then he’s going to need the Trumpsters…meaning, he’s going to need some of those angry poor and working class people who have flocked to Trump’s standard this year. And if that means shedding a few traditional Conservatives on the side, he’ll do it.
We’ll all know soon enough how this year goes. I’ll end by saying that if we Conservatives want to be relevant then the time is not right for purges, but for figuring out how to ride the wave of political re-alignment.
Excellent post, Mark. I’ve said all along that I’m prepared for a Hillary presidency. The Left is getting very impatient and can all but taste final victory. That makes them both dangerous and stupid. If a President Hillary goes along with the Progressive agenda and steps on the accelerator, multiplying the damage that Obama has done, the tipping point most of us have been predicting will just come sooner. And it’s not like tens of millions of rational Americans are going to sit back and let the Left stick the knife in for the final time and twist it. If President Hillary does in office what she’s said in private, (thank you WikiLeaks) there’s going to be a massive revolt within the Democrat Party, which may just result in a massive revolt period.
So I join you in not going off the deep end regardless of who wins, or what he or she does after taking office. I do have some empathy for the working poor living in large metro areas if Hillary wins as they are really going to take it in the shorts, but in the end we generally get the best government money can buy.
Now where is that Way Forward Machine that can fast forward us through the next 10 days?
Don’t want that as I want to enjoy the Cubs winning the World Series!
And did you see that awesome comeback by the Bolts? 17 points down and then went on a 23-3 run to win the game in over time.
They came out with the poll showing Hillary up by 12 this morning and by some, strange coincidence they also had a raft of “Hillary’s already won this” articles came out in the MSM. One would start to think it was all coordinated, or something…but, that’s just paranoid, conspiracy-mongering.
Anyways – heard rumors of another massive oppo-drop about to hit Trump because what you do when you’re heading for a landslide is drop more oppo on an opponent who is already finished, done, kaput. You also make sure that there’s an orchestrated social media attack on those who are pointing out some flies in the ointment vis a vis the “Hillary has this in the bag” argument. You also make sure that not a single poll showing it close is even mentioned on the MSM, because when you’ve got it all sewn you always make sure that the other side gets as depressed as possible. Just to make sure…
Yeah, I hear you. I’m not a big baseball fan, but with my proximity to Chicago, I’m surrounded by rabid Cubs fans. I hope their multi-generational dream is realized this year.
I’ll end by saying that if we Conservatives want to be relevant then the time is not right for purges, but for figuring out how to ride the wave of political re-alignment.
Hallelujah. I have been saying this all along. I had no problem jumping on the Trump train once my candidate lost. For better or worse, Trump ignited the fire in a lot of right leaning folks out there who had turned their backs on the endless string of establishment GOPers like Bush, McCain and Romney, and conservatism’s future survival depends on their participation so in my opinion it would behoove conservatives of all stripes to harness this new energy and get on board. If conservatives follow the likes of George Will, they will most definitely cement their status as the minority party.
I am mixed on Rubio. When he first came on the scene I thought he had tremendous promise. I saw him as the new conservative JFK who could galvanize a movement and bring in the younger generation and hispanics, but lately I think he has listened to, and taken too much money from the establishment and is no longer the outspoken tea partier he was when first elected. He needs to go back to his roots.
I have to think if people are waiting in line in NV, they are in line to vote Trump. That is my hope at least. I just don’t see Hillary generating that kind of excitement. I too however am resigned to a Hilary victory but if that does happen, I will need to fully unplug for a while to retain my sanity and will no longer follow politics. I will simply focus on family, work and sports hoping to simply get through the next 20 years without too much disruption. I feel bad for my grandkids though.
Rubio has charm and charisma, but he is mostly fluff, and his citizenship does not qualify as Natural Born Citizen because neither of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth.
Once we start throwing out or ignoring laws because we just don’t like them, we don’t even need to bother with the rest of Constitutional governance.
“… we Conservatives want to be relevant then the time is not right for purges, …”
That makes no sense to me at all. If the reason Conservatives are not relevant now is because the elites in the GOP have exiled them to the fringes while promoting status quo candidates or a candidate who can’t win because he at least knocked out the true Conservative threat to those elites, then what answer IS there but getting rid of those elites?
At least that is the kind of purging I am talking about—-the cleansing of the GOP elites who have put us in this mess in the first place. Cruz was a threat to them so they backed the one guy who could run Cruz off the road—Donald Trump—-and I think they thought that he would burn out and the way would be clear for one of their guys. But if they had been more focused on the ideology of Conservatism instead of their own positions as “moderate” (that is, fake) Republicans, they would have backed the first truly conservative candidate we have had in decades, and we would now be looking at sweeping the election.
I stand by my position that most of the early Trump supporters were those drawn to either the WWE Raw kind of candidate or to fanboy “oooh, he’s so RICH, and a STAR!” celebrity adulation. There were some people who know Trump and like him personally, like Ann Coulter, who wanted their buddy to be in the White House. But common sense said that even if Donald Trump did turn out the be real deal, the best answer, the guy who could get “it” done, he would still have a steep and rocky road to the White House because of his sordid past and inability/refusal to understand that so much of what he says is just plain toxic. The party is supposedly made up of people who understand politics, who still saddled us with a radioactive candidate who only had to be tolerable to win and who has gone out of his way to be intolerable. Get rid of them on the grounds of their Left-leaning political squishiness, get rid of them because of their utter incompetence, get rid of them because they are sacrificing the entire future of Constitutional governance on the altars of their own greed and egos, whatever. But they need to go.
I don’t know of anyone who has talked about “purging” the party of Trump supporters. True, they need a little scolding, for being sucked into the mob mentality and semi-thuggery that led them to blackmail the party by threatening to boycott the whole election if they didn’t get their way, but they are redeemable. What has me so irked at them is their utter disregard for common sense. It’s one thing to say “I personally don’t care that he has a sordid history of serial adultery, crude and lascivious behavior and statements, questionable business practices, and an ego that will absolutely NOT let him take advice from anyone or believe for a moment that every thought and word of his is not wonderful, just because it is his.” People get to decide what matters to them. What has me so ticked off at them is their determination that none of these things would matter to anyone else or sink the election. What has me feeling diminished respect for them is the fact that they wallowed in their visceral reactions to Trump’s sweeping statements, starting with his promise to deport every single illegal, without ever even considering whether such a promise is even POSSIBLE. That is willful blindness and recklessness, and they need to accept their role in what is happening.
But if we don’t fix the party it won’t matter. At least not for 20 years or so, till a whole new party can be assembled and grown enough to be a player.
“…Since Reagan, however, Conservatism has tried to step away from the people…to argue things out on issues, rather than on underlying philosophy.”
Quite predictably, I am happy to see this recognition spreading. Rush talked about a few days ago. Here in Colorado we have a hard-core Dem Senator, Michael Bennett, cruising to a victory over a good solid conservative Republican, and part of that is because he is running (this time) as Mr. Rogers. He is Mr. Nice Guy, and has a few people talking about how he helped them, including a couple of Republican ranchers, thrilled to their toes because Bennett “listened” to them. Not a clue about the fact that he represents a political system that is in the process of destroying our country, that if he had not been elected last time (with a campaign that even the hard-left Denver Post called “despicable”) we would not have Obamacare, that he is a rubber stamp for his party. No, not a syllable of his campaign is about politics. (Of course, the GOP campaign has been a disaster—the candidate’s NAME was never mentioned till a week or so ago, and he is not talking about political systems either.)
“This has led Conservatism to be a bizarre defense of low corporate taxes while the people lose their jobs and homes…” An odd and almost Progressive juxtaposition of a policy designed to create jobs and economic prosperity with an opposite outcome.
That, I think, is because we don’t tie lower overall taxes into a general thrust to increase the number of low-end jobs available…we all know that, in fact, America’s corporate tax rate is quite high compared to the rest of the world and, so, it is good, Conservative policy to try and get them lowered…but if we can’t win, we can’t do that; and we can’t win if we don’t get people who don’t give a tupenny damn about corporate taxes to vote for us.
A re-industrialization policy is needed – and it would work tremendously well for us because the Progs will blow a gasket at the mere prospect of building new factories and power plants in the United States. It will be Progs out there picketing in front of the proposed new factory/power plant…and good for us, as we can use that to highlight to low and middle income Americans that we’re on their side against elitist Progressives.
What we are up against is the historical animosity of the Left to industry, which of course means to corporations. The very word now sparks an instinctive spasm of negativity in many people. It’s become synonymous with “evil” but that is because it represents everything the Left hates and needs to diminish or conquer for it to succeed.
Corporations, in their purest non-fascist sense, are merely legal entities allowing people to work together under a single identity. If you and Spook and Cluster and Rusty and I were to engage in some endeavor, it would be awkward, as we don’t live near each other, so it would be natural to form a corporation which has a single legal identity, a brand, a single address, its own tax ID number, an officer to represent it, and we would make up the board of directors which would make the decisions. Most corporations in the United States are pretty small, not the big scary bogey-man (cue sinister music…..) CORPORATIONS that have the Left in such a tizzy. (When corporations, particularly large corporations, become linked with government, run for the benefit of government and with government making many of the decisions, we veer into fascism. This is a goal of the Left, as having a massively powerful Central Authority which controls everything is part of its overall political philosophy. In spite of rabid Leftist propaganda, fascism is a Leftist construct, always has been, always will be. It is only its connection with industry that has allowed it to be recast as, somehow, “right wing” as the Left does acknowledge that the Right is responsible for productivity, though they try not to.)
So the Left has mounted some pretty effective anti-corporation campaigns, its most successful being its claim of “corporate welfare”. This is a term guaranteed to get the ignorant all riled up, and it will hinder efforts to get corporate tax rates down to where we can compete with the rest of the world. And, as usual, the mumbling stumbling incoherent leaderless Right simply can’t figure out how to explain it all.
This is the poll that gives me hope.
The IBD poll has been the most accurate over the last few election cycles. I also think Mark’s observation of waiting lines for early voting in NV bodes well. I really hope this country sees the importance of keeping the Clinton Crime family out of the White House.
Well, to give you a downer – analysis of the early vote shows a lot of Democrats showing up and not that many GOPers, at least for the first day. Of course, I live in what should at all events be Hillary Country…but, still a bit disturbing that Dem turnout should be up over 2012 and GOP turnout down.
For the first day in 2012, a total of 49,980 early ballots were cast; in 2016, it was 51,750 – not too big an increase, but the bad news is that in 2012 overall early voting Democrats in Nevada was 45.97% of ballots, GOP 36.34%. So far the respective numbers are 52.44% and 29.86%. OTOH, so far absentee voting by Democrats is a little lower than 2012 and the GOP is so far outpacing Democrats in absentee ballots returned. It is really too soon to tell, of course – we’ve only got 1 full day of data (there was some voting in Clark and Washoe counties today, but most polling places around the State are closed on Sundays). Could be that Hillary’s ground game just got a lot of voters out on the first day and things will even out over the rest of early voting. “Other” early voting is about the same so far – 17.7% of the total. If we start to see a spike in “other” then I think we’ll be seeing Trumpster showing up.
Just a refresher on the Clinton Crime Family’s past:
The Thompson Committee described what happened during the next two years. “The president and his aides demeaned the offices of the president and vice president, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well.” This was business as usual for Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions,” concluded the Thompson Committee, ” much of it from foreign sources.”
Everything in this article has been well documented, yet NONE of it has been part of Trump’s campaign. Not a word.
The Dems researched Trump and had its information organized and ready to launch, and Trump’s campaign seemed to think all it needed was………Trump.
Great post. Weird year indeed. Under normal circumstances both candidates would be toast. Trump would be gone for manufactured reasons, Clinton would be gone for her more serious crimes and misdemeanors. As a recent convert to the dark side I do find the cognitive dissonance of the left amusing. Trump supporters are supposed to be the dumb ones but facts on the ground continue to reveal a flipped script.
Hey Watson, the only one who’s tapped out is you. You’ve banned me when you realized you couldn’t defend your positions. But if you ever grow a pair and feel like debating your ideas rather than just having them reinforced in your own tiny echo chamber allow me to post there and I’ll be happy to eat your lunch again. I won’t be holding my breath though. Enjoy your safe space.
It occurred to me in blinding flash that polls are actual Narrative Drivers…this is not saying they are wrong in the sense of being deliberately wrong so much as saying that they are designed to support a Narrative. Remember, you can adjust the weighting of a poll to pretty much come out with whatever result you want. You can, as the LA Times did, re-weight their only poll showing a 2 point Trump lead (at the time) to a 5 point Hillary lead. Which means it is all in the weighting. And if you do have an agenda – and the MSM has the definite agenda of seeing Hillary elected; no on in possession of their five senses could say otherwise – then you don’t have to fake up a poll, you just have to adjust how you weight the respondents (you can also, of course, word questions in ways to get results you want).
What the right needs is it’s own polls – just in asking the questions as we would like them asked and weighting the responses how we think they should be we’d likely get results at variance with the current raft of polls. And then we’d at least be able to match poll with poll, thus reducing the ability of Progressives to claim massive popular support. And, remember, as long as we’re ok within the margin of error, we’re good. We say that 52% support us and if when the votes counted it’s 49%, then that is accurate as can be with a 3.5 margin of error.
Mark, I have referred to some polls, particularly during the Republican primary, as “herding” polls—that is, figures designed to herd voters in a certain direction.
I have a poll question I know will never be answered: Which would you rather have as president, a jerk or a crook? Or, possibly, which is more acceptable to you in a president, a history of crude behavior or a history of corruption?
Yep – wording is key, especially in polls of public attitudes about particular issues.
But we’re just ceding the ground – we’re taking the Washington Post/ABC poll as gospel when we know full well that both the Washington Post and ABC have a definitive agenda in getting Hillary elected in 2016. It would be folly for us to ignore their poll results – but equally foolish is not to have or own poll ready to go on the same day. Maybe it confirmed WaPo/ABC…but maybe it doesn’t. If we had the National Review/Las Vegas Review-Journal poll, we wouldn’t be going unarmed into the battle…and if it shows a different result, then it’s all up in the air. Over a 48 hour period, we got polls showing Hillary down 2, up 5 and up 12. They all can’t be right, and all of them may be wrong. But we’re living and dying, politically, as if two of the three are definitely right.
I wonder what made you switch sides to the conservative side of the spectrum. Was it donald trump’s policies? or over arching conservative policies? Just curious.
Satakar, while we are waiting for Rusty’s response, perhaps you can tell us which “side” you are on, and more important, why.
Be careful how you use words like Conservative on this blog. For example, I have been a Conservative most of my adult life and, until Trump was affirmed as GOP nominee, I was in agreement with most on this blog. Now, one member considers me some sort of Democrat plant and another will argue it is the moon in the sky if I point out the moon. I am not conservative enough, I suppose…
Life is tough, Bob.
Satakar, be assured that if you ever point out the moon in the sky and identify it as the moon, I will agree that it is the moon.
If you point out the moon in the sky and tell me it is a stagecoach, I will disagree.
I am a democrat.
… perhaps you can tell us which “side” you are on, and more important, why….
OK, so you belong to the Democrat Party. That is an affiliation. Ideally, it represents a belief in a certain political philosophy—that is, a conviction about the best blueprint for governing the country. However, we can see that many if not most Democrats don’t base their affiliation on any kind of objective belief in how best to govern the country, but only on a few personal preferences for how they would like to see some issues handled.
In your question to Rusty you asked about “policies”. Did you mean issues or did you mean policies about how best to govern the nation?
Do you have an opinion or position on the best blueprint for governance, or do you just focus on issues?
Let me flip your question to Rusty: I wonder why you are on the Liberal side of the spectrum. Is it Hillary Clinton’s policies or over arching Liberal policies? Just curious.
Amazona, I asked a simple question to someone else, and you’re interjecting to somehow re-direct the discussion to me. I will oblige this time, but I am only interested in having my question answered by Rusty, and perhaps engaging him.
“I wonder why you are on the Liberal side of the spectrum. Is it Hillary Clinton’s policies or over arching Liberal policies? Just curious.”
I believe in both Hillary’s positions and the over arching liberal positions on governance, and specific issues. I believe that a larger federal government with less powerful states would be best for our country. I believe that eroding state power is key to standardizing various important policies such as education, criminal punishments, etc.
I believe that the second amendment has to be re-evaluated and redefined to ban personal ownership of firearms. Short of that, the best way is to limit gun sales and guns in circulation through legislation.
I think the democratic platform gives our country the best way forward and the best chance at long term survival and growth.
that is exactly why I asked Rusty what I did. Why did he switch, what process did he go through, and what exactly did he see in the GOP candidate that made him switch allegiances, at least in terms of voting this election.
Thank you for your response. I hope you understand that if you want a private, one-on-one, conversation with someone this is not necessarily the place for it. I did not try to answer FOR Rusty, but once you joined the group with a question it was perfectly OK for someone else in the group to follow up on it. If you want a personal dialogue with Rusty you might have to ask him to meet you somewhere else.
However, I appreciate your candor. I believe you are only the second Liberal in more than ten years who has been able and willing to admit to an actual concept of governance.
I know you have stated that will “oblige” me with an answer only “this time” but I am curious—–as your stated preferences for governance are in direct opposition to the intent and wording of our Constitution, which is our rule of law and our current blueprint for governance, what do you think should be done to make your preferences legal?
Do you advocate amending the Constitution to allow for your preferred expansion of federal power and scope, or do you think Congress, or possibly just the President, should just move on with these policies and ignore the Constitution?
Well, at least that is straightforward and honest.
I’m always fascinated by people who think that centralized governance can work – I just don’t grasp how that can be believed. The idea that someone remote from my community can decide what is best for my community is just patently absurd. It never works – because the people at the center simply cannot know all the variables which go into my local community. But, there it is – believed, and believed by a very large number of people, in spite of all human experience demonstrating the opposite.
Have a look at Subsidiarity.
There has never been a nation run by a powerful Central Authority and a socialist model that has resulted in anything but the economic misery and the loss of personal liberty.
There is no direct opposition. It’s a matter of interpretation, which can be adjusted by the supreme court. I believe that with the appointment of judges that interpret the constitution more liberally, this will happen.
“as your stated preferences for governance are in direct opposition to the intent and wording of our Constitution, which is our rule of law and our current blueprint for governance, what do you think should be done to make your preferences legal?”
They aren’t in direct opposition. I never said we have to eliminate state sovereignty, or eliminate any provisions in the bill of rights. We can however interpret them differently, and take some of the power away from States. The interpretation of the constitution by the courts can evolve over time. Where one court sees the constitution one way, another can see it another way. there is perhaps no concrete right or wrong with any interpretation, they are just different. Hence, when a liberal court is on the bench, the interpretation is different than what a conservative court would say. I know you will probably say there is only one correct interpretation of the constitution, but that’s because you’re probably invested heavily in that one “correct” way, and changing that interpretation would go against your belief system. that’s a fair argument, but fortunately, elections can change nations. and that is what is happening here. Once Clinton wins, she will appoint a judge to replace Scalia. This will change the makeup of the court, and therefore give us a better chance at changing the interpretation of the constitution. As they say, elections do have consequences.
“Do you advocate amending the Constitution to allow for your preferred expansion of federal power and scope, or do you think Congress, or possibly just the President, should just move on with these policies and ignore the Constitution?”
No need to amend the constitution. Liberals and Conservatives have been increasing the scope of government over the last 75 years. naturally, the more democrats we have in office, the quicker and easier this process is. Over time, perhaps even in the next Clinton administration, we will have a chance to redefine the 2nd amendment, campaign finance, and various other issues in the supreme court.
Your post is quite fascinating. Please don’t take this as an insult, because it is merely an observation—you appear to know absolutely nothing about the Constitution.
Your use of the word “interpret” is quite interesting, as you seem to use it as a substitute for “change”. Actually, using the word “change” instead of “interpret” is the only way to make your comments make any sense at all.
If I say to you “Hola, amigo. Como estas?” and you don’t speak Spanish, one might interpret for you literally and and say I said “Hello, friend. How are you?” A looser interpretation, taking into consideration the age of the speakers, common usage and so on might tell you I said “Hi there, buddy. How’s it going?” Your version of “interpret” would have my comment restated as “Your mother is ugly and you have a monkey on your head”.
The Constitution was written by people who dedicated their honor, their fortunes and their very lives to the establishment of a nation which would never, could never, be governed by a Central Authority. It specified 17 duties which were enumerated, delegate to the federal government, and nothing else. Then the same people who wrote the Constitution wrote the Bill of Rights, and the 10th Amendment says, to paraphrase but not “interpret”, …if it’s not delegated to the federal government it is forbidden to the federal government and has to be handled by the states.
The Constitution has been eroded and ignored, but it still says what it says. The only way to achieve what you want, which is a very powerful and controlling Central Authority, is to violate it. You can violate it politely, by calling your violations “interpretations” or you can just run roughshod over it and issue regal edicts from the Oval Office as if it does not exist at all, but a violation is a violation, and a few Liberal activists misusing and abusing the authority granted to them does not change anything. The Supreme Court does not MAKE law, in spite of its arrogance and hubris.
So yes, if you want any of your pipe dreams to become reality, to be legal they would have to preceded by amending the Constitution, because no matter what you say what you want IS in direct opposition to what it says, and what its creators told people it means. At least you agree that what you want would mean “redefining” it instead of just “interpreting” it. Big difference.
I wonder what is in your personal history to make tyranny so appealing to you.