RBG, where are you?
NATO will increase defense spending by $100 billion. Amazing what you can get when you have a President who asks.
The former Starbucks CEO (some rich dude; could care less who he really is) is rumored to be planning an Independent, moderate liberal campaign for President. And this, naturally, scares the bejabbers out of the Democrats. Can you imagine their tears if Trump wins New Jersey with 43% of the vote? Anyways, typical for modern liberal fascism, they are trying to intimidate him into not running.
Meanwhile, to make liberals even happier: rumors persist that Hillary may yet run again.
Don Surber gives you some idea about what a loss to journalism the death of Buzzfeed would be.
RSM goes over a recent murder case: poor, little girl is killed in a drive by. She’s black and, in the initial confusion, her family says the suspect is a white man. Cue the MSM to scream “hate crime” all over the place. The case quietly dropped out of the news when two black men were arrested for the crime. The family appears mortified by what happened – and, I would be, too. Not only the unbearable pain of losing a family member, but also being made the focus of a false MSM Narrative. This sort of thing is getting out of hand – liberals (and Never Trump, but I repeat myself) are ginning up hatred and division for mere partisan advantage…but when you feed hate, hate is what you’ll get.
Victor Davis Hanson goes over this sort of thing in relation to the Covington boys. What must be kept in mind is that racism – real racism – is almost non-existent in America in 2019. So, too, with homophobia and sexism. This is why the left insists there are “dog whistles” and “white privilege”. You can’t find anything remotely approaching Bull Connor, so you have to make up things to fill the role. And part of making up things is to make up racial incidents. And, so, they make them up – the more I hear about the Convington case, the more convinced I am that people went there to do it…and merely looked around until they found targets they thought they could frame (with the help of an MSM which would accept the Narrative and try to suppress the facts). The problem is that if you treat people like dirt – and the Convington boys were treated like dirt – then eventually the people you spit on are going to strike back. Hard.
Blogs For Victory 
So Kamala Harris has established the progressive baseline for POTUS candidates and now it will be fun to watch the others try to outflank her on the left. And it wont be easy because Kamala’s positions of universal healthcare, free education, open borders, and bans on guns are about as full socialist as you can go, but that wont stop Pocahontas or crazy Bernie from going the extra progressive mile and guaranteeing more rights like maybe housing? Or food?
In fact Pocahontas proposal of a “wealth tax” which taxes assets and not income is borderline communist but still well received within the Democrat ranks. It is also an embarrassing admission that she really doesn’t understand economics. Democrats seem to think that wealth is a zero sum game and they possess very little understanding of the velocity of money.
The Democrat primary will be a spectacle of poorly educated authoritarians promising to protect their over emotional base from manufactured crisis’s. That is the current adolescent state of one this countries major political parties and a sad admission of how low this country has sunk.
I’m actually looking forward to the spectacle of the Left’s best and brightest elbowing each other out of the way to claim territory closest to the Leftist cliff. Let them outdo each other in their declarations of Leftism. Let them attack each other for not being far enough to the Left. Let them each try to top the others’ Leftist plans and proposed policies.
In other words, let them build their own traps.
Then, and only then, when they have chosen their poison, should we start to inundate the airwaves with information on the fatal flaws of Leftist governance, with historical references and details. We would be foolish to start doing that now, though I am sure we will, because the Right is incapable of not shooting itself in the foot. So I am sure there will be plenty of conservatives eager to explain what is wrong with what the Dems are talking about, giving them plenty of chances to phrase their claims and promises a little better. We have no concept of strategy.
then eventually the people you spit on are going to strike back. Hard.
On numerous occasions I’ve applauded the patience of Conservatives in the wake of constant taunting and goading by various elements of the Left, especially given the fact that patience has historically been a hallmark of the Left. If you look at a county level of the red/blue electoral map, Conservatism is spread pretty evenly across the country, unlike the deep blue cysts of Liberalism concentrated almost exclusively in larger cities. There is a large enough segment of well armed Conservatives to simply kill every Liberal in this country 100 times over. According to the Left, those 100 million individuals with 300 million firearms and 8-12 trillion rounds of ammunition are the real danger to this country. If that were the case, we would be completely rid of Liberals by now. I would hope when we “strike back. Hard” it will be because of blatant, widespread and unquestionable provocation, but either way we will eventually strike back. Everyone has a line in the sand drawn in his/her mind. I happen to think that most have drawn the line in about the same place — you hurt me, my family or my friends; I’m going to hurt you.
I’ve been watching on social media as Democrats, clearly thinking 2020 in the bag, are fapping to the idea of using the US Army to attack the American people. Am I exaggerating? No. They really think they’ve already won…and as they are the winners, the losers have to give up all they have. They want the guns, they want the religion, they want the family, they want the property…they are determined to take it all and are convinced that (a) the Army would obey such orders and (b) that we wouldn’t fight.
They are really dumb.
I agree that an armed confrontation is remote but have you noticed that the progressive movement has ramped up the hate and threat level in the last year? I don’t think they will act on it, nor is there any chance the military and police will join them but their bravado is interesting, and I know some well armed conservatives here in AZ who would welcome the opportunity.
I think the majority of well armed Conservatives would welcome the opportunity. And over confidence on the Left’s part is a good thing. But the Leftist mindset that Mark describes doesn’t surprise me a bit. It’s become a nearly universal trait of the Left. They are in for a rude awakening and a huge disappointment.
I think many conservatives are waiting for some yet unknown decisive moment that will trigger a response from the right in large enough numbers providing their cue to join in and fight back, similar to France’s “yellow vest” group. That kind of event is rare, especially when many are looking at the prospect of an all-out, no holds bar, physical confrontation to right a wrong or number of wrongs. The left (and right) are really composed of many different segments. From behind the scenes I see a few individuals who are more or less far enough in front of the fray directing traffic of action and response, often creating the conditions for a planned response trying to make it look like it happened all on its own, similar to what Mark has suggested with regard to the Covington kids. It is with this manipulation that they can mostly create the desired effects of emotional & physical responses that give them the tools they need to implement more control. Such is what we’re seeing play out daily with gun control. They have no need for truth and logic, they make up their own rules which also change with the wind as needed. However, I don’t know if they are smart enough to really understand all of the elements of human emotion, individual conditions, changing tides of thought, and various other components that produce outcomes not of their design. They typically want the snowball rolling down the hill just enough to produce a limited response, not an out of control avalanche.
Many on the right are thoroughly disgusted with government and politics and have been for some time. It wasn’t until Trump stepped in and started swinging back where they felt any kind of connection with a leadership figure to feel continuity to the cause. Trump has given hope where many were losing it. The momentum has slowed or even reversed some with the election of the majority in the House of Congress falling back into the hands of those who work outwardly against our interest (even though the true right never held the majority with all the rinos). In New York for example, the left finally has control of both houses and the governorship and is pushing through as much crap as they possibly can. Will this play out in courts where little is ever really done and then only with significant cost and long timeframes?
I don’t really know how this will play out. As with many others, I’m really disgusted with where we’re at and the direction it seems we’re going. While there are signs of hope, it often seems little and late. Do we keep moving forward trying to play the long game, trying to win enough the hearts and minds of those who will ultimately become our allies? Or do we dig in taking the bold step of being in the front line of action against a truly tyrannical behemoth government. What do we stand to win / lose? Those are questions we’ll need to answer.
They typically want the snowball rolling down the hill just enough to produce a limited response, not an out of control avalanche.
Incrementalism has always been a tactic of the Left, and for exactly the reason you note — limited response. Or often no response at all.
Like you, I don’t know how it will play out. I’ve got some educated guesses based on history, but the history in this country is completely different than the history in any other country taken over by Socialists or Communists.
I will say this; any effort by the Left to take over the country by force will almost surely require some sort of national emergency as a cover — think Katrina on a national scale. I just don’t see them starting an insurgency out of thin air. They don’t have the arms, they don’t have the people, and quite frankly, I don’t think they have the guts. And anything other than a natural disaster or terrorist attack would require a conspiracy of massive proportions going all the way to the top of the Democrat Party, which would require complete control of the government, White House, House of Representatives and Senate, as well as complete control of the Pentagon, Intelligence Agencies and federal law enforcement. That’s a tall order.
Well, I think it is clear that we already have proof of a massive conspiracy that goes all the way to the top of the Democrat Party which had as its goal complete control of the government, White House, House of Representatives and Senate, as well as complete control of the Pentagon, Intelligence Agencies and federal law enforcement with significant progress on all fronts. They came uncomfortably close to the White House, they took the House of Representatives and have a few lickspittle putative Republicans in their pockets as well which weakens the Senate, we have seen their advances in control in the Pentagon and intelligence agencies with the FBI acting as both puppet and enforcer for the Left and federal law enforcement looking the other way regarding crimes of the Left while persecuting political opponents with Thought Crimes, manufactured process crimes and blatant intimidation bully-boy tactics such as sending in fully armed SWAT teams to arrest someone who would have responded to a simply notice to his attorney to appear.
We have military leaders using their power to erode the might of our military by imposing radical Leftist agendas such as women in infantry deployments and the whole host of gender-related nonsense, including using taxpayer dollars to implement gender reassignments. We have mayors, governors and chiefs of police openly and blatantly refusing to enforce our laws and impeding the efforts of those who try to enforce them, aiding and abetting criminals. We have our own intelligence agencies, or at least one of them, using its powers to spy on American citizens because they represent the political opposition. We have a law enforcement and judicial system that protects criminals in one political party while persecuting those in the other.
I think we’re pretty darned close to a serious upheaval, more like a bloodless coup than an actual armed uprising but one can lead to another. I also think it can be headed off if we can rein in Mueller, prosecute him and those he is trying to protect and all agency heads who abused their power and broke the law, and do some major housecleaning. That will mean reelecting Trump and taking back the House, and adding enough Senators to make the spineless and the RINOS less significant.
There’s no question that the Deep State bureaucracy is firmly entrenched, not just inside the D.C. swamp, but in regional offices across the country. But those people are not warriors in the traditional sense. They still have to rely on others to implement their agenda, and there just aren’t enough others to really make a dent in a society as large and widespread as ours. Persecuting a handful of people like Roger Stone would have to be multiplied by many multiple orders of magnitude before it would make a difference.
I’m not saying I’m not concerned; I am. But my concern won’t reach an alarm level until we start seeing monthly or weekly replays of events like Waco and Ruby Ridge. We aren’t remotely close to that yet.
We aren’t remotely close to that yet. From your lips to God’s ears…….
I just keep remembering the militarization of the BLM in Nevada and the sight of a man being gunned down for what was essentially a process crime after being terrorized and threatened, along with his family and friends, by our own federal government agencies.
My thing: if you start hearing me talk about how much ammunition I’ve bought lately, the revolution starts the following week. I’m still of the belief that we’ve got a balance of power which will allow us to win free and fair elections. This is especially true as, now, GOP eyes are opened to the extent of Democrat voter fraud (the GOPe let it slide when it was just Democrats making sure their strongholds remained Dem…but by trying to steal the FL races, the GOPe now realizes that if they want any power, they’d better start defending their own strongholds). But, we’ll see: lot of liberal talk these days about gun confiscation and how the Army would easily defeat the people. This talk is based on ignorance, but if they gain Executive power, I think they’ll try it.
Interesting perspective from a fellow correspondent.
Funny thing, turns out there is no way to enforce a DA to use a required law. Not even personal integrity or legal responsibility can motivate some lawyers toward “justice”. DA’s and their lawyers never have to be held accountable for prosecuting outside the intent of justice. There is, evidently, no “judicial” system in the US, only a “legal” system. It never was really used to find, even look for, “justice” (although it occasionally finds it anyway), that’s just the heart-warming misnomer it works under. Time has shown there are so many ways for the “system” to be manipulated into a process of finding guilt wherever and whenever the “authorities” want to. Is this a function of the system or of immoral, unethical people? Sure, both. Could a tighter system create less abuse? Only to the extent people are motivated to have moral and ethical outcomes toward justice. So any steps (training and enforcement) that do not include – require – such intent and actions from our lawyers, will, by the force of greed, move toward the process of “more money for those who win cases” instead of any semblance of a system of “justice”.
This is why I would like to see a law making the oath of office binding. That would kick violations out of the criminal arena into the civil courts, and anyone who has made such an oath has his own rear end on the line when he decides to violate it.
I’ve seen fretting about this idea—-it could be abused, who would make the final decision, etc. Of course it could be abused. Just look at how our laws are being abused now for proof that any law can be abused. The fact that Mueller is doing what he is doing is proof of abuse of the Special Counsel law, as he was appointed in violation of the conditions for appointment. Who would decide? Some sort of panel or jury, of course. And that comparison would be pretty simple and straightforward because usually the evidence is right there in front of us. The law says THIS, the official did THAT and did not follow or enforce the law..
Don’t get me wrong—I am not a fan of juries. Based on my experience, a jury is too often just proof of the saying “None of us is as dumb as all of us”. BUT—-the very existence of a panel in place to compare the actions of an office-holder to the demands of his oath of office would have a chilling effect on many, if not most, of the violations of that oath.
So if an oath includes the commitment to uphold the law, and a DA for example ignores this and does not act to uphold the law—-such as refusing to prosecute a crime—-this refusal is a matter of record. It can be held up to the law and easily evaluated. Did he or didn’t he?
I think it would have more effect on other office-holders, though, such as sheriffs and mayors and governors. And it would protect those who DO respect and honor their oaths, such as Donald Trump.
So if a mayor refuses to allow his police chief to work with any other law enforcement agency, such as ICE, he is violating his oath of office. It wouldn’t take a lot of investigation or production of evidence to prove this—-it would be in his directive to the police chief. Ditto for a police chief refusing to enforce a law because he just doesn’t happen to like it, whether it be a law against drug possession or immigration law or driving while impaired. Suddenly his own job and pension are on the line, and if he wants to be chief of police he HAS to follow and uphold the law.
This law would hit judges the hardest, because I think they are the most flagrant violators of the law and the Constitution. They get away with it because they can’t be held responsible for their judicial acts and decisions. They are, except in the most egregious cases, immune from any liability for what they do. I understand and even agree with the intent to keep judges free to make decisions without outside pressures or fears but I think this has gone too far. Yes, a judge SHOULD be immune from penalty for his decisions—-AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.
When I looked into judicial misconduct in my state I found a web site filled with anguished examples of judges violating the law in cases of child custody, ignoring evidence and proof of things like child molestation and abuse to give custody to the parent proved guilty of these things. I found extensive proof of judicial misconduct, of simply ignoring the laws in place to protect children.
I know of a civil case in which the plaintiff planted a statement in a brief that one of the defendants had once “threatened” an elderly judge. There were no details of how this supposedly happened, or when, or how. It was just a free-standing statement. This apparently enraged the judge, who reversed every one of many rulings in favor of the defense the night before the trial began and rigged a two week trial to benefit the plaintiff, including allowing a full day of testimony accusing the defendant of literally dozens of things totally unrelated to the case, such as being mean to dogs and children and making fun of a mentally challenged boy, and taking half of the defense time and allotting it to the plaintiff—-and then throwing out nearly all of the defenses and instructing the jury on how to vote. He then told the attorneys in private that if the jury did not rule the way it was instructed he would reject the verdict and impose his own.
The behavior of the judge was so egregious that attorneys from several firms would stop in to watch this sham trial because they needed to see for themselves how corrupt it was. The defense finally agreed to an outrageous settlement just to get away from the judge, as even when they won an appeal (which was guaranteed, given the number and nature of the judge’s offenses) they would just have another trial, in front of the same judge.
It was a blatant abuse of power in which the abuser was immune to any action against him. But the list of his offenses was clear, and no one doubted that he would have been much more restrained in his efforts to punish someone for an alleged insult to a frail old judge if he had any skin in the game himself.
A law without a penalty for violating it is pretty much the same thing as no law at all, and that is what we have now. We have thousands of laws that are, essentially, meaningless because they depend on the whims of those charged with applying them, enforcing them and punishing those who break them.
I think it is not only reasonable but essential to have a way to force those with this much responsibility and power to also have accountability.
That’s it – which is why I came up with the idea of a Citizen’s Review Board. Having a process outside the system which can punish will limit official misconduct quite a bit.
Greg Gutfiled had an excellent observation yesterday saying that the reason the media and Democrats are attacking Howard Schultz so much is because he exposes just how far left the party has gone. Schultz is a traditional Democrat but that party no longer belongs to traditionalists. That party now belongs to radicals.
Schultz is on MSNBC this morning and skewering the socialist progressive Democrats. It’s fantastic. I think a POTUS campaign between Donald Trump and Howard Schultz would be fascinating.
I would prefer a three way fight, with Schultz running as an Independent against Trump and a hard-core Leftist. I don’t think Schultz has a chance against the entrenched radicals in his party. I haven’t seen what he actually DOES represent, politically—it’s one thing to say he represents the “traditional Democrat” but what does that mean? It probably means lots and lots of social engineering schemes using taxpayer money and a very lenient if not enabling view of illegal immigration, but falling short of overt Socialism and hopefully lacking the various elements of the New Radical Democrat Party, such as elimination of gender and dependence on racism.
Oh Schultz is still a Democrat and full of bad ideas, but he is not nearly as radical as the current party is. He is more of a 1990’s Bill Clinton, and that right there shows you how far left the Democrats have gone in the last 20 years.
And my point is that the Hate Trump As A Person campaign has been so successful that someone who appears rational and reasonable would have a chance of defeating Trump but who would then still fight to implement Leftist economic and social theories, just maybe not quite as extreme as the farther-Left radicals would like.
The Left and most of the center depend on Identity Politics, and it is up to us to look beyond that to the underlying POLITICAL structure represented by each party. And the Dem Party represents—-no matter how friendly and moderate its representative might be—–a government based up on a powerful Central Authority with little power left to the states or to the people, and a vast expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.
Any conservative who ends up promoting Schultz as the Dem candidate would be fighting against Constitutional governance. Promoting him as a third party candidate to erode the voting base of the party would be great.
And they HATE Schultz…and not just because he might peel off Democrat votes and hand it to Trump (though, there is that). They hate him because he isn’t kneeling before the SJW Shrine of the Day. They have become increasingly radicalized, hate filled and determined to enforce ideological purity. Even a died in the wool liberal like Gabbard is despised because way back when, she was tied to a group opposed to SSM (most liberals don’t realize that Hawaiians are rather socially Conservative; that on Sundays, most of Hawaii is Alabama with palm trees).
Personally, I think Trump is going to be well-positioned for next year. All the Democrats bring is Orange Man Bad. As long as Trump gets a Wall by hook or by crook, 95% (at least) of his 2016 votes stay with him…and in a two person race, the radicalized Dems will keep moderates at home, or voting for Trump…while a three way race has Schultz picking up far more Dem-leaning moderates than GOP-leaning moderates.
And the Dem Party represents—-no matter how friendly and moderate its representative might be—–a government based up on a powerful Central Authority with little power left to the states or to the people, and a vast expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.
That just can’t be emphasized enough. In all the discussions I’ve had with Democrats, I can’t recall a single one that was a Constitutional originalist. They either want to just ignore the Constitution or change it to suit their agenda.
Interesting thing today. On my flight from DC to visit my daughter in Phoenix Az. I was talking to a gentleman sitting next to me prior to takeoff. I asked him what he did to which he responded that he was a politician, a freshman congressman from AZ. Without asking his party affiliation it became rather obvious when during the flight as he was wadding through a pile of papers. Most were paperclipped 2-4 pages, each with a title and detail. Some of the titles were; “Presidential Obstruction of the Justice System, the Case of Donald J Trump”, “Can the President Pardon Himself?”, “Does the President have to Answer to Mueller?”, “If Trump Were to Forgive Paul Manafort Would it Be Obstruction of Justice”, and so on. It was rather obvious from these titles he was a Democrat (which I later looked up to confirm – Greg Stanton, former mayor of Phoenix).
It occurred to me a few things. First, it’s likely both Congress critters and Senators probably get a pile of such memos (marching orders) each weekly, especially freshmen. This does (at least) 2 things – 1.) Feeds the lower ranking people the narrative & agendas being strived for by the leadership and provides whatever slant necessary to push that narrative, 2.) Indirectly / Directly represents a warning to toe the party line. It made me think that this type of persuasion makes it difficult to speak your individual voice for any topic that may be in opposition to the party leadership, or even bother researching more detail on any given subject when you’re already hand fed the stuff you’re supposed to know about. That’s not to say everyone blindly follows the leadership, but by-in-large, this is exactly what seems to happen, especially with regard to key issues the left is engulfed in such as abortion, gun control, stripping religious and family freedoms, etc. It becomes even clearer that to stray from the approved script is to subject yourself to the wrath of the leadership and every segment of that political mindset. It sure didn’t leave me with a feeling that the country will find much in the line of positive answers & change from our Congress / Senate, but rather indoctrination at the highest level of government.
Welcome to Phoenix. You got out of DC just in time ….
The panel on MSNBC this morning is really struggling with MLK’s dream. Joe Scarborough just proclaimed that he as a white man with no experience, would most likely win the job over a more experienced female applicant or black applicant simply because of his skin color … and Mika’s anguished facial expression was priceless. The entire panel agreed.
If it wasn’t for race and Russia, what would Democrats talk about?
Question – if I have so much privilege, could I get the Hispanic family next door to clean my house today?
What’s funny about Joe’s comment is that it is so wrong. He’s not wrong in saying race and gender play strong roles, but he has it upside down and backwards. These days any woman or any black (and especially a black woman) has a huge advantage over any white man, no matter how experienced he is or how little the other person knows. Not if the narrative is “it’s time to have a woman/black/black woman in this position”.
That’s all Kamala Harris has going for her—her gender and race check off the two most important boxes this year. She’d be better off if her gender was surgically acquired, but they can’t have everything.
Thanks. Actually, I left from the Syracuse, NY area with a stop over in DC. Fortunately it was calm but cold when I left. Then winds picked up considerably (30 – 50 mph) bringing wind chill factors in the -20 to -40 range. Plus, just north of us they were expected to get pounded with snow, measured in feet. Welcome sunshine. Cluster, I know you live in AZ. Any chance you’re in the Phoenix area?
Amazona is certainly correct about how wrong the media portrays the so called dominance of white privilege. My brother is a contractor who happens to have both a black friend and an Indian friend who have contractor licenses who are easily at the front of the line for getting contract bids accepted from local municipalities because of their minority status. Sometimes these municipalities beg these 2 individuals to bid on jobs so they meet mandated law requirements with regards to fulfilling minority status… REGARDLESS of the bid. I also find it humorous how many of the media personalities play this tune about white privilege, when they themselves are often white and / or have a pretty face. If they’re so concerned about unfair race privilege, they’re welcome to give up their jobs for some of the poor minorities. Didn’t think so.
I do live in the Phoenix area and would welcome a meet and greet. Unfortunately I am jumping on a plane this afternoon and wont be back until Monday …. enjoy the warm weather
I just got home from Boston; delayed one day on arrival because of the storm (January 21st) spent that night in DC, delayed one day coming home because of the deep-freeze. I used my White Privilege Gold-Card to secure an extra night at the Lenox. I never even asked what happened to the people-of-color that were kicked out of the suite to make room for me.
Now that’s funny.
I think it’s time to check in with Casper and Fielding to bring us up to date on the progressive efforts to get the sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh off of the Supreme Court. I know all progressives must be working diligently to rid this country of such a menace knowing what staunch defenders they are of women … especially women of color (the blue women being the most vulnerable)
So where do we stand Casper? Are you going to allow a white sexual predator to remain on the Supreme Court?
I think it’s dumb. Elections have consequences and Kavanaugh is one of them. It’s just sour grapes by dopes.
The problem Fielding is that Democrats spent huge amounts of energy and time trying to convince America that Kavanuagh was a serial rapist … so were those concerns genuine? And if not, why are there no consequences? People need to be held to account for maliciously trying to destroy a mans life and reputation.
Talk to Lindsey Graham about what he wants to do about the consequences of those allegations. I think then a full investigation would have to occur. Compelled testimony and such of other witnesses. I’m fine with that. You?
Not really. I am tired of “investigations”. I just wish people would be decent. I guess that’s too much to ask.
agreed
The Democrat Party has drifted left for a couple decades or more, but turned hard left in the last year or two. Anyone else have the gut feeling that this is not an accident? Two years ago we were ridiculing Democrats for not having any bench, and suddenly they’ve gone from having no bench to having close to 3 dozen mostly young, mostly hard-core Leftists vying for the top spot. I’ve not heard anyone speculate on this, but it seems to me that what could be driving this sudden and massive lurch to the Left is the fact that they think America has finally reached the tipping point that many of them have longed for their whole lives, where over half the population is on their side.
Any thoughts?
Democrats have definitely gone hard left the last few years. Remember debating Obamacare just 10 years ago when we were concerned that their intent was to go single payer, to which they mocked up for being “paranoid”. Well …… today Democrats are pushing single payer hard. Coincidence? The left succeeds by incremental gains, distraction, and appealing to emotions. We really haven’t figured out a way to combat that yet.
Our main problem is that conservatism is hard. It requires personal responsibility, selflessness, and a work ethic – three character traits not found in a lot of people. Being progressive is easy, it requires very little personal effort.
it requires very little personal effort.
Oh come on — caring is reeeeeeallly hard work.//sarc