Yeah, I Guess I’m a Revolutionary

I got into a slight Twitter tiff with a friend – and no hard feelings, at all. Just a short exchange which made me realize something: we need to have a Revolution.

It had to do with a discussion surrounding Prince Andrew’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein – which seem rather extensive and continued long after Epstein’s first conviction. Andrew, of course, being the second son of Queen Elizabeth…which means you can’t get more social or economic elite than he is. As the discussion went on, I blurted out (as it were) a desire to confiscate the wealth of people like Andrew and distribute it (via lottery) among the people. This rather upset my friend – being as we’re both Conservative and thus defenders of Property. And I do defend Property…but I also despise a traitor. And that is, first and foremost, what Prince Andrew is: a traitor. A traitor to civilization.

And he’s not alone: he is legion among the Ruling Class. Think of all the people who had connections with Epstein for decades, and continued after his conviction. There is a story in the Daily Mail – British papers still engaging in actual journalism from time to time – about a party at Epstein’s after his conviction which included among the guests Prince Andrew, Woody Allen, Katie Couric, Chelsea Handler and the daughter of a former Australian Prime Minister. This was, as I said, after Epstein’s conviction. From the story, it seems that Epstein has pornographic pictures on the wall and liked to blurt out astonishing sexual crudities during conversation. And this is where the son of the Queen of Great Britain said, “hey, bro, cool place to hang out”.

Prince Andrew lives a life of extreme luxury. He’s worth an estimated 75 million dollars and he’s never had to earn a penny of it – and, remember, he’s the second son of the Queen. As soon as Diana pushed out William in 1982, the chances that Andrew or anyone descended from him would ever sit on the British throne became nil. He’s a biological dead end, as far as royalty goes. But, he’s got 75 million dollars…and all of it, ultimately, because a distant ancestor built a castle in Milan in the 11th century and so became the founder of a dynasty which eventually produced George I. Now, one should never fuss about the good fortune of others – envy is a sin, after all. But you’d think that someone sitting on a vast fortune of unearned wealth who has no particular purpose in life would at least try to sustain the civilization which provided and protects his gigantic privileges. But, no: he’s hanging around with the Pimp to the Stars. And so were lots of other people just as rich and privileged (but most not having the lineage).

And I think that is what has been gnawing at me, unspoken, for many years, now: that those who are in charge of our civilization are traitors to it. Not all of them, of course. There are rich people who do try to live decent lives – even some of the old noble houses (the Hapsburgs, long dethroned, do seem to keep their act together); the Koch family (whom I mostly disagree with, politically) seem to be upstanding as well as generous. But time and again we find that the rich are living lives of gross immorality – and if not directly participating in it, keeping their mouths shut about it. They defend nothing which the common people hold dear – not God; not family; nothing…except their own wealth and position, of course; they are fierce in defense of their money…and their private, secluded, heavily guarded playgrounds where, it would seem, quite a lot of the sons and daughters of the poor are brought in to be abused by the layabout sons and daughters of the rich.

But here’s the thing – if they were just destroying themselves, it wouldn’t be any concern of ours. But people with vast fortunes and social prestige have a gigantic effect on everything and everyone else. If I drop $10 into a collection plate, it is only a ripple…a rich person dropping a million dollars is a tidal wave. And if the money is dropped into the plate of a group out to destroy us (you and me, I mean), then it is horribly destructive. That its dropped to keep the anti-Civilization dogs off the backs of the rich just makes such things an insult on top of an injury. What this tells me is that we can’t just let matters be: we’ve got our billionaire on our side in Donald Trump and he’s one heck of a fighter for us…but he’s one guy, and no later than January of 2025, he’s gone. Meanwhile, these malefactors of great wealth (Teddy Roosevelt’s exquisite phrasing) will still be around…being nauseating and still providing money and prestige for interests which want us destroyed. What do we do? Just let it keep on going?

I can’t say that I agree with that – I can’t say, that is, that my defense of private property extends to the defense of private property being used to destroy what I hold dear (which includes property…it isn’t poor people demanding that zoning laws be changed and property seized by government for transfer to rich developers). It is, in short, time for a Revolution – and kicking over the tables and a chasing of the money-changers out of the Temple. We can no longer endure a Ruling Class which is working directly against our interests…they either have to get on board with us, or be removed. And we won’t get rid of the current Ruling Class if they are able to retain their money…money is power; it is, really, the ultimate power, in any form of government. Whomever commands it has absolute power, unless there’s an equally large sum of money opposed…but we see it that, in general, our entire Ruling Class is on the same side, even if they call themselves variously Liberal or Conservative; all of them are at war with us…with what we want. Which is things like common decency; the Rule of Law; equality under the Law; a defense of faith, family and property.

I can’t see how we win the battle if we leave the Ruling Class in possession of their money. If you’ve got a way to leave Soros and his heirs with billions of dollars without their being able to wreck us, then I’m all ears…but unless someone has a way to do just that, then self defense requires us to relieve quite a large number of rich people of their wealth.

132 thoughts on “Yeah, I Guess I’m a Revolutionary

  1. JeremiahTMM August 26, 2019 / 3:44 am

    Yes, I agree. We do need a revolution. Like Hong Kong. The only protesters we see in America are those who want communism to be America’s political setup.

    It amazes me how much energy is being harvested, yet it largely does not benefit the United States, only the CEOs of the companies that harness the energy and resources. I think if companies should be allowed to harvest energy, they should be broken up into smaller companies, and 80% of the energy should benefit American consumers. Rather than leaving the U.S.
    The same goes for all other types, such as manufacturing companies.

    As far as the George Soros types go, he has never done anything good for the United States, and we don’t need him. He has done far more harm to the United States than most political leaders. He supports and funds anti-American activities, anarchist movements, abortion, homosexuality in education, liberal feminism, etc, etc, etc. So yeah, we don’t need him. So we need to find a way to defund him.

    Obama fears the oceans are going to rise and wipe out humanity, but builds an $80 million or whatever beach front home. How hilarious is that?

    In all seriousness though, the enemy is in the United States, and people who cherish their freedom need to leave their day to day lives behind for a while, and start standing for freedom’s sake, or we will lose our freedom. There is no if, but when. That “when” I think, is not too far away.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 9:04 am

      That is quite the stark contrast isn’t Jeremiah? Hong Kong protestors waving the US flag in face of tyranny, while the US protestors wear Che Guevera shirts during their manufactured drama routines.

      • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 3:15 pm

        That contrast pretty much says it all. That any American would condemn the first and praise the latter is one of the main reasons I think we’ll eventually have to fight it out in the streets.

  2. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 9:16 am

    Welcome to the revolution, and Mark you know I am with you on that.. I am not quite with you in stripping the wealthy of their riches though My opinion is that the wealthy would first abandon their position of power rather then their position of wealth. It’s pretty hard to leave the 75′ yacht, so I say we first propose to them to back off and enjoy the rest of their lives, or continue and face the risk of losing everything.

    There is a definitely a concerted effort, if not a panic, in the media, Deep State, and with the elite members of the respective political parties and we watch that every day. They are doing their level best to destroy this President precisely because his interests lie with the proletariat and not them. In fact, I am surprised his ratings are still as high as they are after 3 years of constant attacks. The American people see right through the elites though, and fortunately have more common sense and gray matter than our resident liberals, so I do predict another 4 years of Trump and another 4 years of getting constructive things done for this country.

    If liberals continue to try a muzzle and ignore the people in fly over country, and continue to try and take their guns away – there will be a revolution. And it will end quickly. I don’t think liberals understand that. I don’t think RG understands that.

    • ricorun August 26, 2019 / 6:56 pm

      Cluster: They are doing their level best to destroy this President precisely because his interests lie with the proletariat and not them.

      There is precious little evidence that this president’s interests lie with the proletariat. Rather, there is abundant evidence that his interests lie with himself. Occasionally the two may coincide to a certain degree, but if you really think about it, that’s kind of hard to avoid without looking absolutely brazen. But the bottom line is that much of what Trump has actually done (rather than said, which can’t be relied on) is to benefit the rich rather than the proletariat — and to particularly benefit people like Trump (and myself, to be honest) who no longer have to pay the alternative minimum tax and get to pay a modest flat tax on pass-through business income, no matter how much it is. Then of course there’s the lower marginal rate on the highest margin. It’s a very good time to be rich. And then there are his trade wars. Sure, something has to be done about unfair trade practices, especially with regard to China, but tariffs hurt the proletariat of this country far more than the country they are aimed at.

  3. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 9:50 am

    The powerful are already starting the revolution and we best get on board. Everyone needs to read this because it is coming here and worldwide. :

    In fact there are already signs of it. My wife smokes and when I go to Walgreens now to buy her smokes, I am required to give them my drivers license of which is scanned. I am in the “system” now as a smoker and that can eventually effect my insurance rates, etc. Look at what’s happening in social media … conservatives and others having their voices silenced. Artificial Intelligence is a powerful tool for the elite and it will change this world, probably not for the better.

    You know funny enough, liberals and Democrats use to be vehemently opposed to authoritarian rule … now they embrace it. Why is that RG?

    • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 11:17 am

      Those deemed trustworthy can get discounts on energy bills and better interest rates at banks, while those considered untrustworthy can reportedly be stopped from buying property and even high-speed internet.

      The importance of the Second Amendment just grew by several orders of magnitude.

  4. ricorun August 26, 2019 / 10:35 am

    Mark: And we won’t get rid of the current Ruling Class if they are able to retain their money…money is power; it is, really, the ultimate power, in any form of government. Whomever commands it has absolute power, unless there’s an equally large sum of money opposed…

    I actually totally agree with your point here, especially with the idea that whomever commands the money commands the power. That’s why I think that wealth should be churned from generation to generation, not accumulated over many. For one thing, I never understood the attraction of royalty. I think it more of an aberration — designating “betters” according to the accident of birth? That’s pretty whacked. I am not a fan of royalty. More to the point, one of the foundations of true democracy is that the society in which it is attempted be a true meritocracy, not an aristocracy. Obviously, I’m not a big fan of the British system, which is a weird hybrid.

    The meritocracy part is really the key, I think. Those who get ahead should be the people who deserve it. And what better way to ensure that, first and foremost, is to provide every child with the opportunity for a good education? The quality of one’s educational opportunities should not be dependent upon the wealth of one’s parents, or even one’s neighborhood. Education should be funded equally, for everyone, rich or poor, black or white or green. Granted, in practice, that would be very difficult to achieve completely (and heaven knows what it would look like), but I strongly believe it should be the goal. Education is very important in our society, so it stands to reason that equal opportunity in education is important to equal opportunity in general. And note that I am suggesting that equal opportunity is important. Equal outcome is definitely not. Equal opportunity in education probably wouldn’t be enough to ensure the long-term churning of wealth over the period of generations, but it’s an important start.

    Second, getting back to the absurd idea of designating “betters” according to the accident of birth, that happens to the extent that an individual benefits from the wealth of their parents. That’s how aristocracies get established and, more importantly, get perpetuated. So it stands to reason that in order to prevent the establishment of a Ruling Class is to prevent wealth without merit from being perpetuated from one generation to the next. There are other ways to do that (like Mark’s idea of making people with money give up their money if they are accused of having very bad friends or something), but one obvious way is to establish a considerable inheritance tax. It’s not an either/or choice, of course, but I find Mark’s idea very arbitrary — and very open to abuse.

    I’ve got lots of ideas on the subject of the generational accumulation of wealth, its effects on society, and how to prevent them, but I’ll throw those out for now.

    • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 11:13 am

      but one obvious way is to establish a considerable inheritance tax.

      The problem with a “considerable” inheritance tax is that it’s a one-size-fits-all dynamic, unless it exempts small businesses and family farms. It’s not dissimilar to taking guns away from law abiding citizens as a means of stopping gun violence. Sure you’d get the money from people like Soros and Epstein, but you’d also take it away from people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers who give away billions to worthwhile causes. Then the only way good things get funded is through larger and larger government.

      • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 3:33 pm

        And I might add, the government then gets to decide what’s good and what’s bad.

      • ricorun August 26, 2019 / 7:04 pm

        Spook: The problem with a “considerable” inheritance tax is that it’s a one-size-fits-all dynamic, unless it exempts small businesses and family farms.I might add, the government then gets to decide what’s good and what’s bad.

        You pick. But in principle I guess I’m fine either way. And just keep in mind that no matter which way you choose — even if it’s to do nothing — you’re choosing what’s good and what’s bad. There’s no way around it.

        But the fact of the matter is that if you want wealth to “churn” (that is to change hands on the basis of merit rather than inheritance), then something like that has to be done. More importantly, I think it would be much better for the free enterprise system, and thus for the nation as a whole, if we were to emphasize merit instead of inheritance. Remember, you can’t have a meritocracy to the extent that you preserve aristocracy. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a mixture, but at their heart the two are fundamentally opposed.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 11:13 am

      Wow, Rico we actually agree on something. I do think it’s not the access to the education, but the content of the education. I think every American has access to public schools, and many many more also have access to higher education via community colleges, grants, student loans, etc. It’s the content that has failed our country. We need to teach our kids in elementary and middle schools how to manage money, how to budget, how to financially plan, the impact of interest rates on debt, the impact of having children to early, etc., etc.

      We need to teach accurate history, the good and the bad. We need to teach them about a democracy vs a representative republic which SO many people do not understand.

      Re: wealth, I am not a supporter of inheritance taxes nor do I support draconian measures of stripping the wealth away. I am a firm believer that a “fool and his money are soon parted”, I do believe though that we need to limit their power and influence solely because they are rich. How to accomplish that … I am not sure.

  5. rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 12:43 pm

    This is an interesting post by Mark. And I agree with Rico’s response.

    Spook said:

    The problem with a “considerable” inheritance tax is that it’s a one-size-fits-all dynamic.

    The beauty of a “considerable” inheritance tax is that it’s a one-size-fits-all dynamic. In reading Mark’s post, while it seems that he despises the accumulation of wealth, he’s really opposed to the accumulation of wealth in the wrong hands. That is, in the hands of the “traitors,” as he puts it. (Traitors to what? Mark mentions God and family.) Hence, he is able to say that there are the good rich people–the Kochs and Donald Trump (“we’ve got our billionaire on our side in Donald Trump and he’s one heck of a fighter for us”)–and then there are the bad rich people, of whom he cites Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, and George Soros. (“If you’ve got a way to leave Soros and his heirs with billions of dollars without their being able to wreck us, then I’m all ears.”)

    As Rico pointed out, Mark’s idea that only the bad people should be parted from their money is rife with abuse. Who would determine the bad people? Mark has very stringent notions of morality that most Americans likely don’t agree with. I certainly wouldn’t want Mark to decide. And heaven forbid that Donald Trump or his minions get to decide. So who should decide? A system that treats wealth the same regardless of who owns it eliminates that problem.

    Cluster said:

    I do believe though that we need to limit their power and influence solely because they are rich. How to accomplish that … … I am not sure.”

    To coin a phrase, Cluster, this is an outcome. How about you propose some ways for how to achieve it. Hint: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have some ideas…

  6. Ryan Murphy August 26, 2019 / 1:24 pm

    I’m not sure what to ‘do’ about the ‘abusive wealthy’ but I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t be the government deciding that they aren’t allowed to decide where their wealth goes when they die and that the government gets to take it. I’m definitely certain it shouldn’t be that.

  7. Amazona August 26, 2019 / 2:01 pm

    What the whole concept of confiscation of private property for redistribution by the state, when supported by someone who also claims to be “conservative” is “I believe in this……EXCEPT” And it is the “EXCEPT” that is so destructive.

    You can’t just change the rules when you disagree with the outcome. If you do, you end up like rgrg2, adrift in a featureless political wasteland where you veer from one desired outcome to another with no serious rule book or even permanent signposts.

    When we start imposing rules, restrictions or penalties based on what we think people DESERVE to have, we are lurching onto the slippery slope that ends in tyranny. When we start launching words—important words like “traitor” at people we run the risk of going even farther into semantic anarchy, like today’s Left trivializing words like “rape” because it is a dramatic word.

    Yes, our system can be messy. Yes, often bad people get really good outcomes and yes, it often feels unfair. But once we start deciding what is “fair” and then trying to legislate what is “fair” and then imposing that onto everyone else we are falling into the same trap that sucks in so many who end up heedlessly enabling and supporting brutal and oppressive political systems—they think they are really trying to make the world a better place.

    Humanity cannot be perfected, society cannot be perfected, and instead of looking for tyrannical ways to impose a personal concept of “perfect” or at least “better” I think we need to worry less about what other people are doing and more about what we are doing.

    I think this is the absolute worst thread post I have ever seen from Mark.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 2:23 pm

      I think this is the absolute worst thread post I have ever seen from Mark.

      Oh I have seen worse lol

    • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 2:28 pm

      You can’t just change the rules when you disagree with the outcome. If you do, you end up like rgrg2…

      Or like Mark Noonan. lol. You know, Amazona, Mark doesn’t make it a secret that he’s a distributionist.

      • Amazona August 26, 2019 / 2:45 pm

        The thing is, lurker, Mark is open about being a distributionist, and has engaged in many discussions about it. He isn’t coy about it, he doesn’t try to hide it, and he doesn’t play childish word games about it.

        You seem to pay a lot of attention to this blog, rg. You even cite long-ago comments. You clearly don’t want to be part of the group, as all you do when we let you in for a while is insult us and throw stink bombs. So why are you here?

        We all know what the howling Lunatic Fringe says about Trump. We know where to find this kind of mindless hate-driven garbage if any of us feels a need to check it out. Cluster keeps us posted on the latest insanity he sees, because of his odd and inexplicable fascination with it.

        There is literally not a single slur or attack or lie about Trump posted by you that we were not already aware of. And there is literally not a single slur or attack or lie about Trump we have not looked into, investigated, and found to be false. You know none of is stupid enough to buy into even a few syllables of your screeds, yet you persist in ranting on and on and on. When asked if you can support your claims, you follow up with quotes from others of the lunatic fringe, and their own twisted perspectives and lies, never with a fact.

        I challenged you to outline your political philosophy, and explained mine, and you lied and said I had not done so. Then you ignored what I said, and instead of explaining what parts of it you do not agree with you snapped to your default mode of whining about how I was not nice to you.

        So this is the information you have given us in prior visits and in this one.
        1.) You are a very negative, hateful and spiteful person who revels in every opportunity to spout hatred and vicious lies
        2.) You troll the internet looking for sites like this where you can try to deposit your mental excrement
        3.) When not immediately kicked off a blog, you escalate your unpleasantness, possibly to test how far we will let you go and possibly just because you have expended your arsenal of lies and don’t have anything else to say
        4.) You are a fake, a phony, and an empty shell with no personality other than spite and malice
        5.) You are a troll
        6.) You are a blog vandal.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 3:02 pm

        The thing is, lurker, Mark is open about being a distributionist, and has engaged in many discussions about it. He isn’t coy about it, he doesn’t try to hide it, and he doesn’t play childish word games about it.

        Um, that was my point when I said he makes no secret that he is a distributionist. Was I not clear?

        As for the rest, yes, I was mistaken in having not seen the post in which you challenged me to explain my political philosophy. There were a lot of posts hurled my way yesterday between you and Cluster. In addition, I have already explained my political philosophy to you in the past, so I’m not sure why you require me to do that again. Either you legitimately forgot, or conveniently forgot in order to get me to say it again so that you could attack it. I think the latter was actually your intent, but only you would truly know.

      • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 3:37 pm

        Actually, Mark is a distributist, not a distributionist.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 5:23 pm

        Actually, Mark is a distributist, not a distributionist.

        Yes, you are correct, Spook. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

  8. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 2:20 pm

    I am not at all interested in a big government approach like Bernie or Liz offer, but I am interested in looking at lobbyist reform which may go a long way in resolving this. I don’t care for deep pockets like Soros, Steyer, even the Koch’s having so much influence simply because of their bank accounts. I would like the people in fly over country to have lease equal influence.

    • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 2:30 pm

      I am not at all interested in a big government approach like Bernie or Liz offer, but I am interested in looking at lobbyist reform which may go a long way in resolving this.

      You’d have to go a lot further than that, Cluster, starting with campaign finance reform. Funny, pretty much all of the Democrats support such reform. But you know that because you are a regular watcher of MSNBC.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 4:04 pm

        I do know that, but I also know that Obama quickly eschewed campaign finance reform when his 2012 campaign was projected to haul in a billion dollars !! The first candidate ever with a billion dollar campaign and the media LOVED IT. And so did many Democrats and liberals. So please forgive me if I question Democrats sincerity and commitment …

  9. casper3031 August 26, 2019 / 2:53 pm

    Wow Mark. This is the kind of post that scares members of the ruling class on both sides. The last thing they want is for us to start agreeing on something like this rather than engage in fighting over social issues they promote. Very brave of you and I’m sure you will get a lot more heat over it.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 4:11 pm

      While the elite (financial, political, etc.) want us to stay focused on taxes, healthcare, etc. Our entire societal structure is collapsing around us due 100% to the far left. The far left overlooks inner city crimes (6 people were shot and killed in Chicago this weekend – where are the protests??), they are intentionally soft on criminals, advocate open borders, overlook the abysmal educational system, and want to impose draconian “climate change” policies to the detriment of the American people. George Soros doesn’t give a F**K about this country or the people and he should never have a say in our politics but every Democrat is beholden to him.

      Stop supporting the Democrat Party because the far left now owns them.

  10. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 4:18 pm

    Here is a comment on the previous thread from one our resident liberals. I bring it here because this is just raw uninformed ignorance:

    Yes, I think the president of the United States should be elected by all of the citizens of the United States, using a popular vote in which each and every citizen of the United States gets the same vote as any other

    This is what I meant when I refer to an abysmal educational system. Sadly, there are a lot of Americans though walking around with this same idea.

    If you don’t know why this is a bad idea … then you really don’t understand political structures, as Amazona constantly refers to.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 4:47 pm

      I will even add that I think there should be a basic competency test that anyone who wants to vote must pass. If you can’t name the three branches of government, or who the current Vice President is, etc. You shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Absent a basic understanding of our government, elections just become an American Idol contest and that’s how we lose the Republic.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 5:22 pm

        I will even add that I think there should be a basic competency test that anyone who wants to vote must pass.

        What next, Cluster? A literacy test? Maybe a means test? Only people with property–that is, skin in the game–should be allowed to vote? I think we’ve been down that path before…

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 5:46 pm

        I like means testing but only for safety nets. My grandfather would always tell me that he should not receive social security because he had the means and he would have preferred that it went to someone who needed it. I agree with that position. BTW, he donated his social security every month.

        Competency tests are applied to driving, to being promoted in school, to obtaining any type of state or federal licensing, etc.. that;s how we make sure our society functions at a high level. The same should be applied to voting. Basic common sense.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 6:25 pm

        Competency tests are applied to driving, to being promoted in school, to obtaining any type of state or federal licensing, etc.. that;s how we make sure our society functions at a high level. The same should be applied to voting. Basic common sense.

        And it is so rife with the potential for abuse that it is a nonstarter. Kinda like Mark’s suggestion that only bad rich people not get to keep their money.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 6:45 pm

        Well if anybody knows abuse, it’s a democrat. Are you afraid you won’t pass the test?

    • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 5:21 pm

      If you don’t know why this is a bad idea … then you really don’t understand political structures, as Amazona constantly refers to.

      By all means, Cluster, please explain to us why it is a bad idea to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president of the United States via popular vote. If the idea is informed by “raw uninformed ignorance,” it should be no problem for you to explain why it is so bad.

      In the meantime, since you brought it up here, I’ll take that as an invitation to expand on why the Electoral College is an anachronism that should be done away it.

      Firstly, Cluster claimed in the previous thread that “the electoral college is simply a compilation of the individual State’s popular vote.” This is not true. As I stated before, there is no Constitutional requirement that a state’s electors honor the popular vote in their states. In fact, last week the United States Court of Appeals affirmed that electors may vote for whomever they like, regardless of who the state’s citizens voted for in the general election. The court concluded, “The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president and vice president.”

      Nor are states Constitutionally required to appoint electors by a state-wide general election. So your initial premise is just wrong. Some might say it is based on “raw uninformed ignorance.”

      Second, some argue that without the Electoral College, only a handful of the most populous states will determine the presidency. This is also wrong. It is the Electoral College itself that puts the primacy on states as opposed to the voters. With the Electoral College, presidential candidates campaign in only a handful of so-called battleground states. They don’t campaign in California. They don’t campaign in Nebraska. They campaign in the battleground states and ignore the rest of the country. Suppose we did not have the Electoral College. There are millions more rural voters up for grabs in California than in most of the other so-called rural states combined. Candidates would want to campaign for their votes instead of ignoring them like they do now.

      Along the same lines, some argue that the Electoral College provides fairness for rural Americans over coastal elites. This is also wrong because the Electoral College does not provide said fairness to the millions of rural Americans who live in California, for example.

      Lastly, no one can offer a rational explanation for why a citizen in, say, Wyoming, should have more of a say in determining the president than a citizen in California.

      Fortunately, many people agree with me that the Electoral College should go, which is why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact exists. So far, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have signed on. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College, or 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to put the compact into effect.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 5:36 pm

        Lastly, no one can offer a rational explanation for why a citizen in, say, Wyoming, should have more of a say in determining the president than a citizen in California.

        I should probably clarify this because when I pointed it out in the other thread, Cluster had no idea what I was talking about.

        The number of Electoral College electors in each state is equal to the combined total of the state’s membership in the Senate and House of Representatives. Because each state has two senators, right away we see that the least populous states have a disproportionate number of electors as compared to the most populous states. Furthermore, a state like Wyoming has fewer residents than the size of a Congressional district in California, further skewing the Electoral College in favor of less populous states.

        For instance, Wyoming, the least populous state with approximately 586,000 residents, gets three electoral college votes. California, the most populous state with approximately 39 million residents, gets 55 electoral college votes. In Wyoming, that’s one elector for every 195,000 residents. In California, it’s one elector for every 709,000 residents. That means that each vote in Wyoming counts about 3.6 times more than each vote in California when it comes to determining electors to the Electoral College.

      • Amazona August 26, 2019 / 10:04 pm

        The reason Cluster, and everyone else, had no idea what you are talking about is because it is so stupid it’s hard to believe anyone could present it as an argument. But then we have to remember you are the guy who has repeatedly presented a completely inane, cockamamie theory of political theory, summed up by the moronic comment “pragmatism is antithetical to ideology” so at least you are consistent in your idiocy and penchant for “explaining ” the most obtuse, distorted, convoluted mishmash of pseudo ideas imaginable.

        The thing is, the more you say the less credible you become.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 5:56 pm

        By all means, Cluster, please explain to us why it is a bad idea to do away with the Electoral College and elect the president of the United States via popular vote.


        For Christ’s sake how often does that have to be pointed out to you?? We are a representative republic and the Founding Fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you will ever be so I will defer to their wisdom.

        The US is suppose to be 50 (or more) independent laboratories of “democracy” (yes that is where democracy is legitimate) ie; states under the protection of a federal government. The Constitution is designed to put the controls of government closest to the people ie; states and counties. The popular vote in each state matters, the popular vote of the country does not. Government is operated best when it’s closest to the people who hold it accountable. Federalism. That’s why Amazona preaches the 10th amendment. And again, you don’t hold an intellectual candle to the framers of this country so I would suggest you defer to them as well.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 5:59 pm

        Actually RG, I think the Constitution is just too complex for you to understand. You don’t grasp all the nuances and moving parts of a decentralized political structure. You can comprehend that 3 is greater than 2 – and that’s the end of your political philosophy.

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 6:22 pm


        For Christ’s sake how often does that have to be pointed out to you?? We are a representative republic and the Founding Fathers were a hell of a lot smarter than you will ever be so I will defer to their wisdom.

        So still no explanation for why it is a bad idea to do away with the Electoral College.

        You know, Cluster, I get that we are a representative republic. Guess how your Congressman is chosen? By popular vote. He is elected to represent YOU in Congress by a popular vote in your district. Get it? Guess how your senators are chosen? By popular vote. They are elected to represent YOU in the Senate.

        Guess what? There is only one president to represent all of us dear citizens in the entire country of the United States of America. Only one. To represent us all. The question is how best to choose the one and only president who represents each and every one of us.

        As to the Founding Fathers being a hell of a lot smarter than I will ever be, let’s just stipulate for sake of argument that they are the smartest political thinkers who ever walked the face of the earth. Assuming they were that smart, do you really and truly think that if they were asked to construct a form of government for our country right now in 2019 that they would choose the Electoral College in the form that they defined it in the eighteenth century? When there were slaves? And thirteen states? Good Lord. I give them more credit than that.

      • Amazona August 26, 2019 / 9:57 pm

        rgrg2, are you actually trying to pretend you do not know the rationale for the Electoral College? Seriously? This coy act of yours is really unpleasant. You know the argument, we have gone over it here, it has been covered in print and in every form of electronic media, it has been explained so often that even you have to be able to grasp at least the basics.

        Your “arguments” are so circular, irrational and nonsensical they are obviously made just for you to be able to strive for more “gotchas”. When you started digging this hole, obviously someone handed you a shovel.

      • Amazona August 26, 2019 / 10:06 pm

        Yet not a single alternative promoted by the Left has been even remotely possibly an improvement on the alleged defects of the Constitution.

        The popular vote is merely a slightly different name for the mob rule the Left depends on.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 6:42 pm

        No moron, Most people agree with me and that will be a painful truth you will again realize in November 2020. The Founders created a political structure that has performed extremely well for almost 250 years. Democrats can’t even govern a large metropolis. NY, SF, LA, Chicago are all collapsing … spectacularly. And these are the people you want to govern the country ???

        You will never have the ability to amend the Constitution as you desire long as people like myself are still armed. We are more than ready, trust me. But I wish you luck

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 6:44 pm

        You know, Cluster, I get that we are a representative republic. Guess how your Congressman is chosen? By popular vote. He is elected to represent YOU in Congress by a popular vote in your district. Get it?

        At the risk of making you sound more stupid than you are, yes I do get it. I pointed that out to you. States do operate as a democracy, the nation does not. Get it?

      • rgrg2 August 26, 2019 / 6:49 pm

        b>No moron…

        So I see you’ve resorted to the Amazona school of debate by insult.

        You will never have the ability to amend the Constitution as you desire long as people like myself are still armed. We are more than ready, trust me. But I wish you luck

        It has been amended 27 times. The Founders, in their wisdom, realized that they needed to provide a mechanism in which the Constitution could be changed so that it could be adapted to the changing conditions of the country.

        I see that you are such an ardent believer in the rule of law that you are willing to take up arms against other Americans should they deign to make use of the Constitutionally-defined mechanism for amending it, simply because you might not agree with them. That’s showing your true colors.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 6:57 pm

        ….. you are willing to take up arms against other Americans should they deign to make use of the Constitutionally-defined mechanism for amending it

        I sure am. Changing the most basic foundational component of the Constitution, the electoral college, is worth dying for. That’s when we lose the republic so that’s a decision you and your side will have to make because it will come to that. We have already made our decision and we are more than ready. Just ask Spook. And just look at the Trump rallies. Those are the people you will have to fight.

      • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 7:09 pm

        Elected by popular vote. Give it up RG … you lost

  11. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 6:53 pm

    Just a note to Amazona. I liked your comment that “I inexplicably feel the need to watch MSNBC” LOL but it’s true. First of all this is a sport to me and I have fun with it. Secondly, it’s a good distraction from the barrage of incoming problems I confront daily with life, kids, and the business. And I can tell you that the left has gone more bat shit insane than I ever thought possible. It’s like watching a slow moving train wreck … it’s hard to look away

  12. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 7:08 pm

    I don’t think the left understands how ready Conservatives are to fight. They keep pushing from behind their keyboards and their lofty ivory towers and bastions of bureaucratic sanctuaries, but soon they will push to far and will face the unforgiving end of a common sense American populace that has had enough.

    • Cluster August 26, 2019 / 7:40 pm

      I don’t think the left understands how ready Conservatives are to fight.

      Case in point:

      Over the weekend the New York Times reported on a new effort being undertaken by conservative activists against leftist members of the “mainstream” media.

      I love this

      • Retired Spook August 26, 2019 / 7:51 pm

        Right now it’s just a war of words. You think the Left will just lick their wounds and crawl back under their rock? Maybe, but I doubt it.

  13. Cluster August 26, 2019 / 7:47 pm

    I am wondering now if RG is AOC:

    ICYMI: Ocasio-Cortez Tried To Lecture Us On The Electoral College Again…It Was A Total Disaster

    The author made the argument for the electoral college better than I did.

    we elect our president based on geographic diversity. Trump won the Rust Belt. He won white working-class voters, the middle class, and secured enough support in key areas, like Buck County, PA, to win the presidency. Millions of Democrats crossed over because he had a message of job creation, economic growth, stronger national defense, support for law enforcement, and better trade deals.

  14. Amazona August 26, 2019 / 9:50 pm

    Wow. Even from casper, the old record-holder for stupidity on this blog, this is a new low in IQ Anyone who truly believes that the Electoral College means one vote in Wyoming is over three times the value of one vote in California is so astoundingly dense it is hard to believe he can tie his own shoes.

    casper gives us the same alternatives rg does—-is he really that stupid, or just that dishonest? The purpose of the Electoral College has been explained over and over, so they can’t claim they haven’t heard the rationale behind it, or why it is essential to keep this nation from devolving into a democracy. So they either lack the intellect to understand it or they are so inherently dishonest they prefer to pretend there is none, so they can spew their stupidity.

    In any case, this kind of ignorant dreck is what you get when you let the rats under the door. Happy, Cluster? Got enough data yet to help you “strategize”?

    • Amazona August 26, 2019 / 10:25 pm

      Once again, rg is “proving” a point by citing the opinions—in this case, the way data are massaged and then assigned arbitrary meaning—put together by a Leftist media outlet.

      What it comes down to is that the Left wants our presidents to be elected only by votes from Leftist population centers. Looking at the electoral map of the 2016 election shows that most of the nation would not be represented if the presidency were to be decided only by a handful of Leftist states.

      BTW, we all know that if Trump gets the popular vote in 2020, which is a distinct possibility, the entire movement to decide elections by popular vote will evaporate.

    • M. Noonan August 27, 2019 / 2:04 am

      California is the microcosm of what you want: everyone’s vote is perfectly equal and the votes of everyone outside LA and the Bay Area don’t matter at all. No one in California’s government needs to pay the least attention to the desires of anyone outside LA and the Bay Area. As long as they please the Bay Area and LA, the votes of 100% of the people outside LA and the Bay Area can go against them and it won’t matter in the least. This is why rural roads in CA are crumbling and farmers are denied their water rights but California will provide free health care and college for illegal immigrants.

      Of course, the real reason you want to abolish the EC isn’t the cause of fairness: you just want to win and are convinced that Hillary’s showing in the 2016 popular vote shows you’ll win, forever. But, that is just a Progressive fantasy – Trump would have got millions of more votes out of California and New York if those votes had mattered. They didn’t – and in CA, especially, there wasn’t even a State-level race where the GOP had a competitive candidate. It was a snooze fest, as far as that goes, and zero reason for a GOPer or GOP-leaning independent to show up. If 2016 were a purely popular vote contest, the GOP would have poured money into NY and CA…and GOP voters there, knowing their vote would matter, would have turned out.

      A purely popular vote system is a hideous conspiracy against liberty – it means that the transient majority gets to do whatever it wants. You think that majority will always be you – but, it won’t be: and when the time comes when my side wins a majority, you’ll suddenly be glad of the Senate and the EC and the rest of it.

    • M. Noonan August 27, 2019 / 1:55 am

      The concept that Trump is a dictator wanna-be is simply absurd – he’s, in fact, the first fully law-abiding President we’ve had since Coolidge.

    • Retired Spook August 27, 2019 / 10:17 am

      Amazona, I know those of us who are politically active Conservatives have those principles firmly fixed in our minds, but it doesn’t hurt to see them spelled out every once in a while.

  15. Cluster August 27, 2019 / 8:47 am

    Amazona, we are in a FIGHT that we had better win, or we will begin to lose the republic so whatever mindless Democrat I have to confront, I am more than prepared. The Complicit Agenda Media is now working overtime attacking US AND TRUMP, lying through their teeth and doing their best to undermine this country. Look at RG and Casper, two ignorant and malleable minds all set to toss out the electoral college because their betters have convinced them that this is what needs to happen to protect them from “white nationalists” or something equally ridiculous. So hell yes this is a fight we either engage in or not, I choose to engage.

    We are dealing with a wholly dishonest and dishonorable political foe aided and abetted by Soros, Steyer, and the global elite who would like nothing more than to control the American populace and production and what better way than to get rid of the electoral college? In my opinion, we no longer have the luxury of discussing the nuances of federalism or conservative principles, we had better acknowledge the evil that is right in front of us –

    People who support post birth abortion; people who support open borders leading to chaos, rape, and death; people who blur the lines of biology for political benefit, people who release criminals from prison for political purposes; people who manufacture crisis when convenient; people who allow the homeless to defecate in the streets endangering the general population, and people who are trying to convince their electorate that the planet only has 12 years unless they are in charge.

    We can’t just ignore this. These are not honorable people and they deserve no place in a civil society. Instead of wishing them to go away, confront them, get in their face and make them question their very existence. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to protect this country from their evil intentions and so are millions of other Americans.

    • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 1:14 pm

      So we are in a fight. No news here. The question is, do we have a general who can lead the battle?

      I don’t mean a Commander in Chief. We have that. But he has no generals who can put together a coherent battle plan. The job of the president is huge, and he shouldn’t also have to be the only one on the front lines fighting for conservatism and the Constitution.

      He has a lot of people talking about it, he has a lot of people worried about the situation, he has a lot of people fretting “something must be done” but he has no one in the field assembling a tactical force to deal with it.

      We don’t even have a voice, a voice that is there day in and day out tasked solely with addressing and debunking the flood of Liberal lies and attacks.

      Cluster, you talk about needing to monitor the lunacy of the Left to know how to strategize. Well, you’ve been saying that for years, and I still haven’t seen a strategy from you.

      I don’t need to study the 2019 American Left to know what kind of strategy we need, because I have studied the tactics of the Left as they have been employed for a century now and what this newest group of Useful Idiots is doing is just the same old same old. But we for some reason simply cannot figure out how to deal with it.

      So step back a little and analyze: What is the main strength of the Left? That is, what is their most effective weapon? It is not ideology—the ideology of Leftism is so fatally flawed that it convinces very very few once it is laid out. That is why it is always hidden behind screens of deception, so people think they are voting for gay marriage or women’s rights or equality or whatever. So we know the core ideology of the Left is not only not a strength, it is a weakness when it comes to recruiting. It is certainly not the quality of its followers—they are, nearly without exception, from the bottom of the barrel. Pick a barrel—-intelligence, integrity, sanity, whichever barrel you choose the Left has to scrounge around at its bottom for foot soldiers to go out and promote the cause.

      The only powerful weapon the Left has, as it gains power and influence, is propaganda. That’s it. It is the power of a torrent of words, pouring over people in an unending stream of lies and incitement to violent reaction to the lies. It is the power of an infinite volume of disinformation.

      And the Right is so clueless about this that we often play along, picking up the lies and folding them into our own narratives. So we make excuses for Trump “bragging about grabbing a woman’s genitals” instead of pointing out that he never said any such thing. We adopt the phrase “abortion rights” and in so doing cement the perception in the clueless that it is, really, a right.

      The tactics of propaganda are the same, whether used in Russia or Cuba or here. They include the basic foundation, which is not to develop passion for the political structure of the Left but to create, develop, feed and promote hatred and fear of the opposition. This is the core of Leftist support—hate of a wholly Invented Other. Yes, the most important ingredient in this toxic recipe is lies, but the goal of the lies is to generate fear and hate, hate so deep and powerful that it can easily be escalated into violence.

      People who are infected with this are lost, and will probably never be able to come on the other side. This has become their reality and their comfort zone and no amount or degree of proof that their loathing is based on their being deceived and used will be strong enough for them to abandon this emotional drug to which they are so addicted.

      But a coherent and appealing counter-propaganda campaign, with a clear and specific agenda and strategy, consistently and repeatedly applied, can change the tide of recruitment to the Left. The popular terms for the imagined muddle of unaffiliated, uncommitted, unaware people who have not aligned themselves with either the Right or the Left are “moderates” or “independents”. This is the target demographic for Leftist propaganda, and this is the arena in which intelligent counter-propaganda tactics can work.

      BTW, it is my opinion that a majority of people in that middle ground tend to have basic Constitutional values regarding the best blueprint for governing the nation. Part of that if not most of it is that our Constitutional model is basic common sense to anyone with the mental ambition to think things out instead of just respond to emotional stimuli and part of it awareness on some level of the outcome of every other Leftist government in the history of man and being rightfully leery of it. So adrift without a political compass, they wander from one party to another, voting for PEOPLE instead of ideas, victims of Identity Politics.

      These are the people we can reach by giving them a palatable, reliable, source of information devoid of emotion but just presenting facts. But we can’t only not figure out how to do it, I’m not sure there is enough awareness of the need to do it.

      I have a visual mind, so here is my visual concept, my analogy to the creeping Left and its effect on our nation–forest fires. We have recently had a series of terrible fires, destroying lives and property and millions of acres of forests and their animals. We used to be proactive in forest management, but thanks to the efforts of the Left this was abandoned, leaving forests with ground piled high with flammable material and millions of acres of standing dead trees because the Left has opposed forestry, which used to remove old and diseased trees and would have cleaned up the blow-down of millions of trees a few decades ago that provided the vast all-you-can-eat buffet for pine borer beetles which then spread across the nation. All of this contributed, over the decades, to millions of acres of highly flammable material and conditions in which fires, once started, would rage out of control and be more destructive than in our past because they had so much material at ground level that they would stay near the ground and burn hotter and longer, killing the trees and the seeds that would have survived the old “crowning” fires which leaped from treetop to treetop, often leaving most of the tree below the crown alive.

      We haven’t yet been able to overcome the infiltration of our forest management by the Left to the point of returning to thinning, clearing forest floors, etc. Now it often a moot point, as the forests have been destroyed, and we have time to figure this out over the next few decades as they slowly start to come back. But in the meantime people who live near forests are encouraged and sometimes even mandated by local laws to mitigate their risks by clearing trees and bushes from near their homes, keeping their property free from piles of flammable materials and in general being proactive and trying to head off fires that can destroy their homes.

      We have experienced the human equivalent of raging forest fires, as millions of Americans have been mentally and emotionally so damaged by out of control Leftist propaganda that they are the human equivalent of the millions of acres of standing dead trees. They are flammable in the human sense of being volatile, easily aroused to various kinds of violence ranging from vicious online postings to harassing people in restaurants to openly violent Leftist groups like Antifa. They are so destroyed that they feel quite justified in saying things like Bill Maher said about the death of a man he hated solely because of his political views, snarling that he was glad the man died and he hoped the death was painful. This kind of rhetoric is verbal violence, just as is the foul and profane post recently about a Representative who lost an eye in combat.

      In other words, the Left has carefully and methodically created the conditions which will make a violent explosion, a human forest fire, much more possible and even likely that it could have been in our past when our society did the equivalent of clearing forest floors and removing dead and diseased trees—-we properly identified certain psychological conditions as aberrant and unacceptable in our society and we had societal pressures restraining a lot of negative, hateful and violent behaviors.

      So now I think we have to take actions to mitigate further destruction. That is, to identify propagandic lies AS THEY SURFACE and address them immediately, firmly and resolutely, publicly and in a way that reaches the most people. Think of it as putting out little sparks before they blow up into conflagrations. And at the same time have an arm of the anti-propaganda brigade clearing away the old debris littering our political landscape, so it can’t be dragged back in to fuel a new fire.

      Ignore the rgrg2 and ricorun and casper elements, the Bill Mahers and Steven Colbers, the Joy Reids and so on. They are the standing dead trees of our society, no longer salvageable, no longer of any use except as fuel for a Leftist firestorm. Ignore them. Pay attention to the people who want to know the truth, want to make rational decisions, but don’t have enough input from the Right, and the right kinds of input. to help them choose a side.

      • Cluster August 27, 2019 / 1:58 pm

        Well, you’ve been saying that for years, and I still haven’t seen a strategy from you.

        Strategies evolve as conditions on the ground change and wow, things have changed dramatically over the last 10 years. No longer are we able to simply argue for conservative principles as was our strategy 10 years ago. Now we must put out the fires because while we immersed ourselves in debating tax rates, right to life issues, etc. the left was busy taking over the educational system and immersing themselves into the bureaucratic deep state to the countries detriment. I really liked your forest fire analogy – spot on and I think we are in agreement with our current strategy and that is to take control of the narrative and confront them on every level. We must, as a united group, dismiss the myths of climate change and gender fluidity, and put a stop to the open borders insanity. In other words, we need to completely reject Democrats entire premise on every issue everyday. As you said, we can not give any credibility to any of their definitions.

        But I am a firm believer in the premise that you need to know your enemy to defeat them. We can not let any of their thoughts go unchallenged. Challenge their thoughts and challenge their existence every single day. Conservatives need to be LOUD and PROUD. I want them to wake up everyday being confronted by conservatives who reject their entire world view and challenge them into submission. We need to OUT them. Whoever the Dem candidate is, they will desperately try to paint themselves as a moderate and that can not happen. We must strip them of their masks and expose the evil that lurks behind.

      • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 6:29 pm

        ISSUES nearly killed the conservative movement, because it evolved into a club where everyone had to agree on social and cultural ideas to belong. I remember making the argument that politically speaking, you could be a Wiccan high priestess who ran an abortion clinic and wanted to marry her girlfriend and still be a conservative if you agreed that all legal matters on those issues were beyond the scope of federal authority and had to be decided by the states, only to have a couple “conservatives” who used to post here—a lot—have a fit and screech “I don’t want people like that in my party”.

        One problem with the label “conservative” is that it can apply to so many areas. You can be fashionably conservative by never wearing stripes with plaid and not following fashion trends. You can be religiously conservative by sticking with the more traditional religions such as Catholicism or Judaism. You can be conservative regarding education, or literature or architecture. When I use the word it is always in the context of 21st Century United States politics. Period.

        Today I was waiting for a tire to be mounted at WalMart so I started to read a book I had ordered, which was still in my truck. It had gotten good reviews but I barely made it through the forward, as it appeared to be just more Identity Conservatism than pure political conservatism. I got that impression by reading statements such as “conservatism is the negation of ideology” and “(conservatives) are much more interested in conserving and extending the career of certain ideological principles than in conserving and perpetuating the complex web of social arrangements and practices that have proved their worth through the generations.” Arrrgghh!!

        He is rambling on about CULTURAL conservatism, and at the same time scorning the concept of “ideology”.

        Anyway, my point is that having so many definitions of the word and not understanding that they refer to different things makes it hard if not impossible to have a rational discussion of it, much less have a rational approach to its enemies.

        I contend that the conservative movement is or at least should be a POLITICAL movement, and as such have room in it for social, financial, cultural, religious, and every other kind of non-conservative ideas. To me, they would qualify as POLITICAL conservatives if they believe that our country must be governed according to its Constitution, and that the various issues that join, or separate, them have to decided at the state or local level.

        The GOP used to be known as the Party of the Big Tent and I think that is because it did not demand purity in thought or belief in anything but Constitutional government. We have let it become the Party of the Confused but Judgmental, with doormen to keep out the nonconforming.

        Think about what an election night tally would look like if we were to welcome with open arms and absolute acceptance, from a POLITICAL perspective, everyone who believed in the 10th Amendment and all it stands for, no matter what they think or believe in any other aspect of life.

        I believe we could do this, if we would stop being distracted by all the other forms of “conservative” out there and focus, and appeal, solely on the basis of governance. No identity, no personality, nothing but that. Not to deny those other areas of conservatism, or to dismiss them, just to say that beyond the agreement that they don’t belong in the arena of federal authority they don’t matter.

        And I believe we could accomplish a huge shift in the political allegiances of America by (1) doing this and (2) instantly, firmly and with total conviction address each and every lie told by the Left, in no uncertain terms, the moment it has raised its ugly head and at every opportunity afterward.

        I think the president should take the lead on (1) and find a general to head up the battles on (2). The president should not have to be putting out fires as they erupt, he should be being the president, and part of that should be explaining to the country and the world when necessary why he is doing what he doing and why it is necessary.

        So the president, in my perspective, should not just say “I have acted to slash the size of many federal agencies” but should go on to say “this country functioned at its best when it was governed by its Constitution, and that includes the limitation of federal power and keeping most authority close to home, in the states, where the people can have more input into what is important in that state and also have more oversight”. Something like that. Every statement he makes should be focused on what he is doing and WHY, and not in general terms but related to the need to follow the rules and start to bring the nation back closer to its foundational governing principles.

        The rest should be addressed by someone else, or several someone elses, but all working together to deal with the brushfires as they erupt. I understand Trump thinking HE has to respond to the goadings and the lies and so on, and to some extent he does because no one else will (though Sarah Sanders did a lot of it) but I think he would come across as more “presidential” and balanced if he were to leave the defensive measures needed by his office and the movement to a force dedicated to that.

        Squelch the propaganda, inhibit its growth and success, and we have won the battle and much of the war.

        So my strategy would be to find/create an agency of some sort specifically to put out those fires. Specifically to address the propaganda, to debunk the lies. to head off the attacks before they become embedded in the national consciousness. AND TO HALT SEMANTIC INFILTRATION. When I hear “conservatives” parroting Liberal lies because they have heard them so often they just kinda seem true, somehow, I want to scream.

        As Barney Fife would say, “Nip it! Nip it in the bud!”

      • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 6:32 pm

        One thing we need to start doing is addressing the use of the word “moderate” and pointing out that it really just means not accepting total rejection of the Constitution, just inconvenient parts of it.

        It, and its halfwit cousin “Independent” have been presented as kind of noble, or at least thoughtful, but in fact they mean without a clear concept of what the country is, should be, or how it should be governed. In reality it means going whichever way the wind is blowing, or for whoever is the most charismatic: It means the opposite of thoughtful.

        They both mean “I can’t make up my mind and don’t feel like doing the research to inform me of the right decision, so, well, it’s like, you know…..whatever….”

      • Cluster August 27, 2019 / 3:31 pm

        Pay attention to the people who want to know the truth, want to make rational decisions, but don’t have enough input from the Right, and the right kinds of input. to help them choose a side.

        I think this has been a long standing strategy and still valid, but at this point I think it’s a little like bringing a knife to a gun fight. My opinion is that we are in the 4th quarter down by two touchdowns with no time outs left … and that’s how we have to approach this battle. It’s an “all above” strategy.

      • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 8:02 pm

        Cluster, you will never get anywhere simply by going after something. You have to also, at the same time, provide an alternative. If you don’t, people feel backed into a corner, and just hunker down in a hardened defensive posture or start to fight back.

        An “all of the above” strategy is to defang the Left by debunking its lies, to make staying with the Left even after it has been proved to be lying feel foolish by getting across the messages “don’t you even CARE that these people are lying to you?” and “surely you realize that they are lying because the truth won’t get them what they want, don’t you?”

        But we have to remember that the Left has done a great job of demonizing the Right, so while the propaganda of the Left is being exposed the demonization of the Right has to be undone, so there is an alternative to the Left and its lies. That means debunking the lies about what it means to be a conservative, replacing the silliness of “believing in the Constitution is the same thing as hating dark skinned people” with a simple explanation of what it really means. It means pointing out the silliness of hating people, disqualifying people for office, punishing people in various ways FOR THINGS THEY DID NOT DO. When faced with the question of how many generations after someone has done something objectionable should his ancestors have to be punished for it, the answer will be “none” because when it is put that baldly the stupidity of generational guilt is revealed.

        We have to send the message that moving to the Right is moving toward freedom—freedom to have opinions that are not in lockstep with a rigid social and cultural dogma demanding absolute fealty to various social engineering concepts, freedom to choose schools for their children that do not indoctrinate but simply teach, freedom to be successful and not be punished for it. We have to get it across that socialism is not just a benign little moving around of other peoples’ money but is a POLITICAL system that is rigid, oppressive and often brutal. We have to point out the inherent flaws in a system that punishes people for what they think and believe, not just for what they do, or what some ancestor or relative or friend or boss did.

        You seem to be focused on the stick, while I am also convinced that a carrot is a good idea, and also that when the obstacles of Leftist lies and demonization of the Right are removed a lot of people will naturally gravitate toward the Right, because it is the system of liberty and common sense and as much fairness as the human condition can find. We have to point out that nothing in Scripture is about collective salvation, that we are all responsible for our own redemption and society cannot assume that responsibility for us.

        There is certainly room for, and call for, a fighting attitude, but I am saying there are different ways to fight. Personally, while I do support the president and will defend him, simply supporting him is a small part of what we have to do.

      • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 6:42 pm

        We haven’t paid attention to these people. We haven’t ever approached them with the idea that they ARE conservatives even if they are gay, or have had abortions, or are atheists, etc. if their core POLITICAL concept is that of a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the people. We haven’t appealed to them on a calm intellectual level.

        We are completely reactive, and we have let the cultural conservatives speak for the political movement, as if they are one and the same.

  16. Cluster August 27, 2019 / 8:53 am

    It doesn’t matter who she quotes RG, like she said you are all interchangeable. You promote death and chaos and have abandoned all sense of decency. I do not consider you to be an American or even human for that matter and you will rue the day you are confronted by true Americans. That day is coming.

  17. Cluster August 27, 2019 / 9:03 am

    Like Mark said, California is the perfect example of what RG and Casper are advocating. A true democracy that results in the “have and have not’s” and chaos. The middle class in California is disappearing:

    The giant tech monopolies in the State are taking up communist practices:

    All because the checks and balances have all but disappeared. Conservative voices have been silenced in California and now the desires of people outside the large cities mean nothing and there is zero political consequence for ignoring their concerns. Illegal immigrants are killing Californians, people are urinating and defecating in the streets, drug abusers get free needles that become a waste hazard, homeless people blight the beaches and sidewalks of the downtown, etc., etc. In other words, California is a dystopian liberal bastion and that is what they want for the country. As Charlton Heston once said …. “over my dead body”

  18. Retired Spook August 27, 2019 / 12:40 pm

    Quote of the Day:

    “If guns kill people, then: pencils miss spel words; cars make people drive drunk, and spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat.” – Gun Owners of America T-shirt

  19. Cluster August 27, 2019 / 2:10 pm

    Well just another day for the political elite:

    Joe Biden’s younger brother told potential business partners that the former vice president would help their firm land business with court systems and would incorporate their health care model into his 2020 presidential campaign, according to new allegations made in a court filing in Tennessee.

    The allegations are consistent with others made over the years that relatives of Biden have sought to enrich themselves off of his public service. But they go further, representing the first explicit claims that James Biden offered to have the former vice president use his clout to further private business interests.

    Harry Reid’s boys enriched themselves fabulously during Reid’s tenure. Bernie Sanders has never held a private sector job, and is now a multi millionaire. Barack Obama had nothing but a Senate salary in 2006 … today he is a multi millionaire.

    This graft and corruption must stop. We need a revolution and those protecting the King will need to choose their side.

  20. Cluster August 27, 2019 / 2:56 pm

    Not only is Ilhan Omar a pathetic symbol of male muslim oppression … she’s now a home wrecker.

    We need to be loud about our opposition to the Left. Be an open supporter of Trump and everyone else who is willing to pick up the conservative mantle and fight. Let your community know exactly which side of this battle your are on and defend it regardless of the consequences.

    • Amazona August 27, 2019 / 6:45 pm

      If your position is that a solution is to be an open supporter of Trump, you should add that this has to be accompanied by the support being called for because of what he has done.

      If your side of the battle is that you support Trump, you are not going to be very effective, as you are going to come across as just another fanboi caught up in Trumpmania.

      I think it is important to first identify the battle and only then explain that your support of Trump is because he is fighting that battle.

      • Cluster August 27, 2019 / 8:34 pm

        Oh I get that completely and I really think the majority of strong Trump supporters do too. My support for him is not because who is, it’s because what he’s done and honestly I’m shocked at how much progress he’s made on several fronts that’s why we have to get behind him. If Trump has 4 more years we can set the agenda for the next decade or two. We can’t lose this one.

  21. Cluster August 28, 2019 / 9:23 am

    I don’t know if y’all saw this but it is too funny not to post. Never Trumper Brett Stephens was called a “bedbug” by a GWU Professor. Brett did not like it:

    Stephens found the tweet and decided to email Karpf and Karpf’s boss, asserting, “I would welcome the opportunity to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face.”

    Karpf posted the email on Twitter, prompting Stephens to deactivate his Twitter account and complain on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the insult was “dehumanizing.”

    DEHUMANIZING!! Evidently leveling personal attacks against Trump and his supporters are perfectly acceptable but attacking Brett is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    They can dish it, but can not take it and I will be more than happy to meet his family and call him a bedbug. Either before or after dinner, whichever he prefers. I am flexible that way.

    • rgrg2 August 28, 2019 / 10:58 am

      Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist, is just another example of someone who was comfortable working within a bubble of like-minded people, but as soon as he stepped into the real world, he failed. Rush Limbaugh, Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson have similarly failed. It is why your attempts at devising a communication outreach strategy as outlined in this thread will also fail–you don’t know how to communicate with people outside your bubble.

      They can dish it, but can not take it

      And Amazona will delete this post in 3, 2, 1… lol

      • Retired Spook August 28, 2019 / 11:14 am

        Then I guess I’d better get my response in quickly.

        Rush Limbaugh, Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson have similarly failed.

        .333 would be a great baseball batting average. Listing people who have been failures, not so much.

      • rgrg2 August 28, 2019 / 11:19 am

        Yeah, it will go away soon. So let me just say, Spook, that you are more of a standup guy than most here. You very rarely resort to insults and name calling, unlike some others. I suspect that we could actually carry on a civil conversation in another context, but apparently this isn’t it! Cheers.

      • Cluster August 28, 2019 / 11:26 am

        RG is lecturing us on civility hahahahaha I love the lack of self awareness with liberals

        Rush Limbaugh is a failure ?? I sure wish I would fail like Limbaugh. This reminds me of the late Mitch who would constantly post that “this was the beginning of the end” of Limbaugh.

        Again the problem with liberals is that they know so much that isn’t true

      • rgrg2 August 28, 2019 / 11:36 am

        Rush Limbaugh is a failure ??

        Failure in the sense that each time he has attempted to broaden his audience beyond his like-minded followers, he has failed. His stint on Monday Night Football and his television show come to mind. Generally, those I cited as examples, including Bret Stephens, are unable to take being criticized; hence they find success only in venues in which they are not.

      • Amazona August 28, 2019 / 1:07 pm

        As a Lefty, rg has to focus on the negatives and pretend they are the whole story.

        Rush is an amazing success story because he has had the courage to try out different things that interest him. As for “failing” on Monday Night Football, he didn’t fail, he just got the PC crowd’s panties all bunched up and the mob formed to punish him for lack of PC purity. I don’t know if his television show was a “failure”. I do know that radio and TV are very different experiences for hosts, and that TV is far more demanding than radio. For example, he can do his radio show from his home or from any of many radio stations across the country (and probably the world) whereas he couldn’t do this with TV. So please stop projecting your own sourness on a decision made by someone you don’t know based on criteria you don’t know.

        And don’t bother to rummage around to find some statistics to post here to keep trying for a “gotcha” because I don’t care. I wouldn’t care if the TV show was such a failure it could only be compared to Air America—which reminds me of the time a Lib accused me of being a Dittohead and I said it was better than being an Airhead.

        Ahh, good times…….

      • Retired Spook August 28, 2019 / 11:40 am

        I suspect that we could actually carry on a civil conversation in another context, but apparently this isn’t it! Cheers.

        Perhaps, if you had shown some sign of an open mind, but you haven’t. I would have to agree with Amazona’s assessment of you as a blog vandal. Ricorun and I attempted to carry on an off-blog dialogue several years ago. Just like you, his favorite tactic was the circular argument. He dwelled a lot on abstracts and hypotheticals and it often seemed that he just liked to argue for the sake of argument. I eventually came to see our communications as a total waste of time. And at my age (74) time is something I don’t have an abundance of.

      • Retired Spook August 28, 2019 / 12:17 pm

        Of course, the response was to make such comments go away (not from you, specifically, because you probably didn’t even see it before it was gone).

        You’re right, I didn’t. I was purposefully avoiding the “conversation.”

        But I’ve seen you comment before that you feel unable to communicate with people with whom you perceived to be “on the other side,” including, I think, some of your own family members. Too bad.

        Not so much unable as unwilling. We still talk, just not about politics. It wasn’t always that way. We used to have the same basic goals and aspirations, just differing on the solutions, and we could almost always agree to disagree. And we could disagree without being disagreeable. That’s all changed in the last decade or so. We no longer agree on goals, which makes meaningful dialogue next to impossible.

      • Amazona August 28, 2019 / 1:11 pm

        Spook, re: We used to have the same basic goals and aspirations, just differing on the solutions….. One of the biggest successes of the Leftist hate propaganda is that Leftists no longer believe that conservatives want the same things they do. They have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking (to use the term loosely) that if we don’t agree with their methods we don’t care about solving the problem.

        It’s a horrible and sinister tactic, and probably more responsible for the widening gulf between sides than anything else.

      • Amazona August 28, 2019 / 12:58 pm

        Oh, I see we are back to blaming me for your level of obnoxiousness that has always limited the amount of time the blog has been willing to tolerate you. Wahhhhh wahhhhhh wahhhhhh.

        As Rush and Tucker are doing very well, thank you, in spite of not being in what you so foolishly call the real world, your comment is just silly and spiteful. Meghan failed because she was not a true conservative and was pulling a Kasich and trying to pander to whichever audience she thought would give her the most admiration.

        I communicate very well with people who are not conservatives, though they tend to be in that moderate/independent category as I have learned from experience that trying to communicate with a hard-core Lib is like trying to bring one of those standing dead trees back to life. I do this because I don’t attack their ISSUES but just point out that I think it is perfectly fine to vote for those issues, it’s just that the Constitution says they have to addressed at the state level because they are not part of federal authority. And most of them, if not all (I haven’t’ kept a record) simply did not know that. But that calm, respectful comment has led to some very good discussions about whether it is better to have programs administered from DC instead of closer to home. And you know what? They have all arrived, on their own, at the conclusion that it makes a lot more sense to keep DC out of most of what goes on. And we have discussed, calmly and respectfully, reasons for this:

        1.) Corruption follows power. When all the power is concentrated in one place (Washington, DC) it is easier to have all the corruption follow. But if most decisions that are now made in DC were to be made in the states, those who want to corrupt the system in some way would have to decide which state capital would be the most productive, and the corruption would be diluted as it was spread around.
        2. ) One size does not fit all. What is good for the citizens of New Hampshire might not be the best solution to problems in Utah. Any program should be specifically tailored to meet the needs of the people it will be servicing, and that means it should be researched, presented and voted on by the people in that location.
        3.) This puts the people closer to the legislation and the power, which is the concept upon which the nation was founded—“By the people” as well as “for the people”.
        4.) It makes no sense to create a large agency to administer programs for the states, as this really just adds to the power/corruption calculation and also bleeds off a large amount of the program’s budget. By eliminating the federal agency and keeping the entire program within the state is supposed to service, a huge amount of money can be saved, both by eliminating the redundant federal agency but also by allowing more oversight into how money is spent.

        I have been able to have very good, very productive, conversations with people by never discussing any individual person, by never getting into personalities or Identity Politics, and by sticking to objective ideas people are comfortable talking about because they are not personal and don’t generate a sense of defensiveness.

        So if I have a “bubble” it is a very large one, with a big door in it.

      • Cluster August 28, 2019 / 1:05 pm

        That is so true. As someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice, I don’t even recognize the Democrat party anymore.

      • ricorun August 30, 2019 / 3:30 am

        Spook: Ricorun and I attempted to carry on an off-blog dialogue several years ago. Just like you, his favorite tactic was the circular argument. He dwelled a lot on abstracts and hypotheticals and it often seemed that he just liked to argue for the sake of argument.

        Probably needless to say I recall our interchange very differently. I don’t recall my favorite tactic as being the circular argument. Rather, I always attempted to bring logic and reason to our exchanges. If abstractions and hypotheticals figured into it, so it was, I suppose. But more than anything I do credit Spook with turning me onto the existential danger that climate change represents. That certainly wasn’t intentional on his part — far from it — but it has certainly left an enduring impression on me. Moreover, the GOP’s incredibly monolithic, spuriously founded, decades-long rejection of climate change has inclined me more than any other single thing to reject the party I once embraced. That’s way too simplistic, but there’s an element of truth in it. Put that in your abstract hypothetical pipe and smoke it. Haha!

      • Amazona August 30, 2019 / 11:52 am

        I guess it’s a matter of potayto-potahto.

        What Spook got ME thinking about was the utter stupidity of trying to control nature, especially when there is no metric to tell us if our climate is off the rails or just approaching its natural balance, of hysteria over rising temperatures when we don’t even know what the “normal” temperature is or should be. What I have gotten from his observations is that, given the lack of real information like this that would be necessary to form an actual opinion rather than an emotion-fueled guess, we would be better off putting our energies and resources into adapting to the changes.

        And I am intrigued by your claim that the GOP is identified by an incredibly monolithic, spuriously founded, decades-long rejection of climate change when in fact no such thing has occurred. The truth is that few if any deny that the climate has undergone some changes in the past few years. The conflicts lie in (1) the reasons for this, and (2) the implications of this regarding the future of the sustainability of mankind.

        Both of those, if approached objectively and unemotionally, are not only valid but essential topics of serious discussion and debate if we are going to consider and address the subject intelligently. And both of those are rejected by the emotionally driven AGW hysterics for whom AGW is a religion not to be questioned or challenged.

        Also, the GOP is a political party, and the strange concept that it is a vast monolithic ideology that goes beyond political principles of government is simply silly. It sounds like part of the insanity that accepts the wackadoo idea that when people believe our nation should be governed according to its own Constitution that means they assign negative characteristics to whole demographics based on the amount of pigment in their skin. This makes as much sense as saying all Bronco fans are united not just by their allegiance to a football team but by their politics, food preferences, status and attitudes toward race, religion and the best kinds of cars to drive.

        So no, rico, there is not even a scintilla of an iota of an element of truth in your strange Leftist paranoid musings. I would describe them as goofy. When I am trying to be kind.

    • Amazona August 28, 2019 / 12:40 pm

      One good thing about global warming—it might get rid of a lot of the snowflakes.

  22. Retired Spook August 28, 2019 / 10:21 am

    Quote of the Day:

    “Experience is not what happens to you. Experience is what you do with what happens to you” — Aldous Huxley

    • Cluster August 28, 2019 / 11:33 am

      This phrase is how I have lived my life, but I know it as this

      Life isn’t what happens to you, it’s how you react to what happens to you

      • Retired Spook August 28, 2019 / 11:47 am

        Same concept — slightly different words. And I think it highlights one of the basic differences between Conservatives and Liberals. It’s probably an over-generalization, but I think we simply react differently to what life hands us than them do. Conservatives generally (at least the ones I know) tend to treat failure as a learning experience. Liberals tend to look for someone to blame. I’m sure there are numerous factors, but the way our brains are wired is, IMO, a major element.

Comments are closed.