Because I’m old and kinda stupid, I can’t figure out how to embed this video in the post – but if you haven’t seen PM-Elect Giorgia Meloni’s speech , it is all you need to know about why the Globalists hate her. More than anyone else I’ve seen, she gets it. She understand that dehumanization is the goal…to make us mere numbers who consume on command (but only what we’re permitted to consume!).
Watch it. Absorb it. Make it part of your worldview.
Blogs For Victory 
What a breath of fresh air. I hope the whole world sits up and takes notice. And she’s right, “that time is now and we are ready.”
Yep – I guess our Progressive friend deleted his comment…but I had already seen that point made by other Progressives: “she thinks financial speculators are bad! Speculators! That means Jews! And that means she’s a Nazi!”. All they’ve done there, of course, is reveal their own ignorance…she’s committed to the worth of the individual and the family against the State. Aside; the Progs making that argument are also revealing their deep-seated anti-Semitism as they apparently think the banks are controlled by the Jews.
I’ve also seen criticism from the right – the biggest allegation is that she favors electronic ID. I haven’t been able to confirm it but I suspect it isn’t true or, if it is, probably a measure she has in mind to control immigration…I don’t particularly want such an ID and I can see why people would object…but if you’re determined to get illegals out of your country, that would be the swiftest means of identifying them. What I really suspect behind the Right criticism is lingering anti-Catholic sentiment. She’s clearly a Distributist at heart and so is likely founded ideologically upon Rerum Novarum…and that would tick off quite a lot of Righties who still haven’t been able to shake themselves free from the concept that a free market equals Bill Gates.
If the Left believes that financial speculators are bad, then it’s time for them to reject Soros and his efforts to use his money to control governments
Erased again LOL
Apparently not permanently.
Fielding, since you’re still here, I have a question for you — actually a three part question. Would you be in favor of the United States reaching a point where 70% of the population thinks we’re headed in the right direction (as opposed to the current 70% who believe we’re headed in the wrong direction?) If so, who in your mind would be a person that could get the country to that point, and what principles would that person have to espouse?
In favor, JJ Watt and empathy, individual autonomy and real honesty.
That’s a start. Could you expand a bit on why you like J.J. Watt, and how those principles could be utilized to get him into a position of power?
Spook, I loved your challenge, and was not the least bit surprised to see fielding weasel out of answering. Because that is all he and forty do—-they lob their little snot-nuggets and then run off when challenged to explain them or support them.
They trivialize politics, making it all a game of gaining points through petty gotchas. They trivialize their votes by basing them on Identity Politics instead of objective analysis of the best blueprint for governing the country. They trivialize human suffering by mouthing platitudes and slogans while ignoring the miseries brought about through the actions of the people they elect.
They are petty, trivial, unserious people and are profoundly unpleasant to be around, even at the distance of just seeing what they choose to dump on the blog. And then they whine because we think they are petty, trivial, unserious people and are profoundly unpleasant to be around. They even drag their victimhood mentality onto blogging.
I have no clue. I am not that smart.
I have no clue.
And this is one of the problems in this country—opinions with no foundation, just random brain farts based on…what? A D after the name? Just feelz?
As for “empathy”—that’s another promise of a short cut to the Higher Moral Ground. If you just FEEL the right way, you think that conveys moral authority. Of course there is no moral authority in using law enforcement to bully and intimidate, to echo the dreaded midnight knock on the door of other authoritarian regimes, to weaponize agencies to advance and ensure political power, but the Identity Politics people who have no clue never look at the outcomes of their spasms of emotion.
So have empathy for illegals dying on their way to the bird feeder border created by your choices for governance, but never stop and take responsibility for their suffering. That’s not necessary for “empathy”. That veers off into moral responsibility, which has nothing to do with empathy. Have empathy for the people who will freeze to death this winter but stop short of admitting that it was YOUR vote that created the energy shortage that will kill them.
Well, that’s disappointing. Maybe your pal Forty could take a stab at it.
“Maybe your pal Forty could take a stab at it.”
Well, the moderator has been busy deleting comments, so why should I think my response would be allowed to stand? With your moderator power here, you surely know who the other moderators are. Maybe you should ask them about that. I mean, it’s cute that you ask for me and fielding to engage with you, knowing full well that our comments will be moderated or edited for no apparent rhyme or reason. Maybe we should email you instead.
In the meantime, maybe answer your own question. You obviously have certain answers in mind. And I bet you it won’t be deleted by another moderator.
our comments will be moderated or edited for no apparent rhyme or reason.
But you’ve been told many times that the “rhyme” and “reason” are posts that contribute nothing to the discourse but are just gotchas or incessant repetition of tired old talking points.
“As for ’empathy’—that’s another promise of a short cut to the Higher Moral Ground.”
Leave it to you to tell us that empathy is a bad quality to have. Good grief. And then you equate it with bullying. By definition a bully is someone devoid of empathy.
See, this is why you are seen as petty and unserious. I did not say empathy is a bad quality to have. You quoted me accurately but then put your cynical spin on it. I went on to say “If you just FEEL the right way, you think that conveys moral authority.” Clearly this points out that merely FEELING empathy for suffering is not enough, and does not convey moral authority.
But thank you for reinforcing my point that you are not here to engage in meaningful dialogue, but merely to snipe, snarl and try for some “gotcha” points.
And BTW I don’t agree with your definition of a bully. Being devoid of empathy is far from the only qualification for being a bully. And no, I did NOT then equate having empathy with bullying. Not even close.
You sure do love bickering, though, don’t you? I think that’s another substitute for real thought and discourse.
“You sure do love bickering, though, don’t you?”
Do you have any self-awareness? Like, at all?
Convenient- forty and company will claim that they had a brilliant and incisive post that addresses EVERYTHING , but it was moderated out of existence!
The Big Lie has even permeated Fox News. Amy Kellogg, FNC’s European correspondent, described Giorgia Meloni as the farthest Right leader since Mussolini.
It’s a sad commentary on our education system that Fascism can continually be passed off as a Right Wing construct.
Dr. Robert Malone has an interesting take on Meloni.
The moderator deleting comments here recently brings to mind a discussion you all had a few days ago regarding Texas HB 50, which prohibits platforms from moderating content on the basis of “viewpoint.” As I understand it, it is restricted to platforms of more than 50 million users. However, my question to you is, aside from the fact there are only a few users at Blogs For Victory, who is B4V materially different from other social media platforms that you claim censor content based on political viewpoints?
Again, I’m not the one censoring anyone’s viewpoint. I’m the one reaching out for your (and Fielding’s) political viewpoint. Neither of you has expressed a political viewpoint that I can recall. Fielding says he’s not intelligent enough to, and I’d tend to agree. In your response preceding this, you went out of your way to avoid expressing a political viewpoint, which largely seems to be your MO. Maybe you don’t even realize you’re doing it, although I suspect you do. I’d bet if you and Fielding joined in the discourse instead of just throwing road apples at us, your comments might not be deleted. BTW, I know pretty much everyone on this blog except JDGE2, and I don’t get the sense that the Moderator is an active participant. I know that’s been the case in the past. Believe what you want though, I don’t really care one way or another.
But all they can do is regurgitate the lies and snarls and spins of the Complicit Agenda Media. We’ve already seen it all, we’ve already compared it to reality, and we really don’t need some smirky know-nothings barging in here to try to rub our noses in their distorted perceptions. Especially when it is so obvious that they have CHOSEN those delusions, because they provide some kind of sick gratification. We don’t need to witness that much less be forced to be a part of it.
If any of their content had any basis other than seething hatred, it might be different. I enjoy learning from other people, seeing how other view things, getting different perspectives. But it has to be honest. It can’t just be a wallowing in irrational loathing for an Invented Other and a wholly misplaced sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
Not one of us here thinks Donald Trump is a god. Not one of us worships him. Not one of us thinks he is without flaws. Not one of us thinks he never makes a mistake, We have discussed, ad infinitum, his defects and his errors in judgment. But we also recognize his skills and his talents and appreciate his successes There is nothing to be gained by seeing haters lovingly stroke and fondle their favorite complaints about him, and no reason to be constantly insulted by claims that we are stupidly, blindly, smitten by the man.
These people are just rude.
Well, you didn’t address my question at all. But to respond to your comment, I’m not claiming you are the one that is doing the censoring. But it is happening, you know who the moderators are, and you could ask why.
As far as your question to fielding above:
“Would you be in favor of the United States reaching a point where 70% of the population thinks we’re headed in the right direction (as opposed to the current 70% who believe we’re headed in the wrong direction?)”
It would depend on which direction the country was headed were that to occur. Wouldn’t it be the same with you?
“If so, who in your mind would be a person that could get the country to that point?”
I have no idea, but I think if it happened it would largely because of circumstances beyond a single person’s—say, the president’s—control. I checked the history of the Gallup “Americans’ Satisfaction With the Way Things Are Going in the U.S.” poll going back to 1979, and the “satisfied” response achieved 70% just twice: One week in Feb. 1999, 71% (Clinton president), and one week in Dec. 2001, 70% (Bush president). I think the country is so polarized at this point that achieving 70% would be exceedingly difficult. Perhaps it could happen if a populist took the presidency following an extreme economic downturn, when the economy was rebounding. Personally, I think the ebbs and flows of the economy are largely outside a president’s control, but I do understand that people in general feel better about the current president and the country when the economy is doing well.
“and what principles would that person have to espouse?”
Since I said a possible scenario could involve a populist president, then it would likely be a conservative populist. Someone who espouses nativism, anti-immigration, nationalism, etc. Actually, someone not unlike a 1930s fascist dictator.
You were doing pretty well, until you realized you had argued yourself into a corner, and had to invent lies to get out. So you had to revert to the Same Old Same Old slogans that suck you people in.
The Left has, in its usual fashion, redefined innocuous words to try to make them seem sinister and negative. So whatever “nativism” is you people seem to think its’ bad. I can’t think of a single conservative, populist or not, who has been anti-immigration—that’s just a catchphrase people like you latch onto because, again, it has a negative feel to it., and lets you feel all warm and fuzzy and “anti-racist”. Of course, you have to conflate illegal entry into the country with legal immigration, but what’s a fact or two when you’re on a roll? And what is wrong with nationalism? What is wrong with loving your nation and feeling it is a great country?
And then, of course, you get to Hitler. Gee, didn’t see that coming. Of course, to get there you have to buy into the lie that Hitler was a right-wing dictator, in spite of being the head of the National Socialist Party, in spite of leading a collectivist government based on a massively powerful Central Authority.
This is why you not only generate lack of respect, it goes deeper than that into overt contempt. The only way to spout such ignorant nonsense is to have chosen to wallow in hate and lies.
Personally, I think the ebbs and flows of the economy are largely outside a president’s control, yet we are living with the effects of a president basically declaring war on a large and important segment of our economy and the immense financial burden of millions of illegal aliens flooding into the country, which is another thing directly attributable to the president.
” In your response preceding this, you went out of your way to avoid expressing a political viewpoint, which largely seems to be your MO. ”
I’ve expressed these viewpoints a few months ago. And yes, I have not seen any reason to do so again. You can see why by the fact that Amazona went on a diatribe about my viewpoint without me even expressing it! So, really, Spook, what is the point other than to supply more fodder to denigrate other posters? I mean, be honest here. And if I do express a viewpoint, I can anticipate your response because we’ve been down this path before: “That’s what I thought you’d say. Now go away.”
Still, I’ll play along.
I support a democratic republic governed by a constitution. Don’t you? Assuming you do, then we probably disagree with some of the details. Such as, I have no problem with a robust federal government. For instance, it would be silly for many reasons to have 50 Social Security administrations. I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that we would be better off without. But those are details in the grand scheme of things.
The United States was founded based on liberal philosophy in which citizens have inalienable rights, and consent of the governed as embodied by the fact that we elect our representatives as opposed to them being appointed for us by a king or some other arbitrary means. This makes the US different from monarchies or hereditary aristocracies. I fully support such a form of government as opposed to monarchies or hereditary aristocracies. Again, don’t you?
Among areas where you and I probably differ is that I support full rights for all Americans, including those who have historically been persecuted and had their rights abridged. I don’t see a reason why a homosexual person, for instance, should not have all of the same rights as any other American, and I think a fundamental purpose of government in a liberal democracy is to ensure that all citizens can not only fully enjoy their rights, but also be free from persecution. That goes for everyone. You might think of as modern liberalism and disagree. Do you?
Historically, I view Democrats and Republicans in the United States as both rooted in liberalism, just with varying degrees in the details. However, I’m less confident of that going forward given the direction that the Republican Party has moved, starting with the election of Barack Obama, and which has dramatically accelerated since Donald Trump ran for the presidency.
I support a democratic republic governed by a constitution.
Just not OUR constitution.
I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that we would be better off without.
This merely illustrates how poorly you understand it and its purpose. Without the Electoral College reinforcing the “republic” part of our government, we would basically be just a democracy, which was a system reviled by the Founders, for good reason. Without the Electoral College most of the country would have no voice in its governance.
Among areas where you and I probably differ is that I support full rights for all Americans, including those who have historically been persecuted and had their rights abridged. I don’t see a reason why a homosexual person, for instance, should not have all of the same rights as any other American, and I think a fundamental purpose of government in a liberal democracy is to ensure that all citizens can not only fully enjoy their rights, but also be free from persecution.
Why do you assume that Spook, or any of the rest of us, would NOT support “full rights for all Americans”? You invent a philosophical difference and then argue against it, when it simply does not exist.
Your final paragraph is vague and platitudinous, without really saying anything. Actually, I think the entire post can be described that way. Long on emotional platitudes, very short on details and deficient in actual structure. You say you don’t like the direction you seem to think the Republican Party has gone, especially since Barack Obama was president, but give no examples of what you think that direction is or why you don’t like it.
A robust federal government”. Define “robust”. Or, if you’d rather, explain why you don’t think the federal government should be restricted as to size, scope and power—if that is, in fact, how you feel.
What is the advantage of a “robust” federal government? How much authority should it have? You accept that the government has a legitimate role in assuming financial security for the older among us, and then explain that this is best handled on a federal basis. In what other areas do you think we should have a Central Authority rather than keeping government closer to the people by keeping most authority in the hands of the states or local governments?
Do you believe that a country has the right to be a sovereign nation, with its own rules and standards? Do you believe that a country has the legal and moral authority to determine who can immigrate and/or become citizens?
“You were doing pretty well, until you realized you had argued yourself into a corner . . . The Left has, in its usual fashion, redefined innocuous words to try to make them seem sinister and negative. So whatever ‘nativism’ is you people seem to think its’ bad. . . . And then, of course, you get to Hitler.”
I was responding to a hypothetical scenario, not anyone currently on the political scene. (I said “I have no idea” who could get the country to this point). But I speculate that one scenario would be someone who could create a level of fanaticism similar to a 1930s dictator because it has already occurred in the past. Anyway, why don’t you engage with Spook. fielding, and I instead of taking every opportunity to criticize everything others say? Why don’t you take a position. Here are the questions Spook has posed:
“Would you be in favor of the United States reaching a point where 70% of the population thinks we’re headed in the right direction (as opposed to the current 70% who believe we’re headed in the wrong direction?)”
“If so, who in your mind would be a person that could get the country to that point?”
“and what principles would that person have to espouse?”
And Spook, since you posed the questions, the least you could do is answer them as well.
Spook and I engage in discourse all the time. In this instance I would need more information—that is, what would it take to get that kind of support? It would come down to what most of the people want. With a large majority of people yearning for the illusion of safety, a tyrannical government might be more acceptable. For people who want personal liberty and the ability to be responsible for their own lives, a whole different kind of characteristics would be important.
“Actually, I think the entire post can be described that way. Long on emotional platitudes, very short on details and deficient in actual structure.”
See? All it was was fodder for you to criticize. Absolutely no attempt to engage. At all.
I tried to engage, but it was so vague and ephemeral there wasn’t anything to engage WITH. It was like trying to grab onto a cloud—it might look solid, but there’s no there there. It was basically “I think people should be nice and fair and everyone should have rights and no one should be mean or have rights abridged because they are gay or have been historically persecuted and the purpose of government is to make sure people can enjoy their rights and not be persecuted”.
Not a lot of substance there. That’s not my fault.
“In this instance I would need more information—that is, what would it take to get that kind of support?”
I agree completely. Did I not say “It would depend on which direction the country was headed were that to occur”?
” It would come down to what most of the people want. With a large majority of people yearning for the illusion of safety, a tyrannical government might be more acceptable. For people who want personal liberty and the ability to be responsible for their own lives, a whole different kind of characteristics would be important.”
Indeed. But the first of the three question was, “Would you be in favor of the United States reaching a point where 70% of the population thinks we’re headed in the right direction?” You gave a couple of possibilities for what people might want in order to get there. Would you be in favor of either of the scenarios you outlined above? That is getting at Spook’s question. Just address the three questions. You dodged them. I invite Spook to do likewise, since he posed the questions after all. Neither fielding nor I are going to respond with ridicule.
“I tried to engage, but it was so vague and ephemeral there wasn’t anything to engage WITH. It was like trying to grab onto a cloud.”
Well, this is a frigging blog after all, not an academic thesis, with comments by multiple posters interspersed and going in different directions. I’m not sure what you expect. But here, just start at the beginning:
“I support a democratic republic governed by a constitution. Don’t you?”
Maybe we have a little more in common than you have been willing to acknowledge.
We don’t have much in common unless we both support a democratic republic governed by OUR Constitution. Do you?
And Spook, since you posed the questions, the least you could do is answer them as well.
I thought Trump was well on his way to achieving a 70% right track. He was opposed 24/7/365 by Congressional Democrats and even moles within his own national security community. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at him, and he was still an immensely successful president. If I could build an effective leader from scratch, I would take equal parts of Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.
As far as principles that would draw the most public support, I’d say (and this is just me) ending foreign entanglements, particularly military conflicts would be a winning strategy. The American people are tired of endless wars. I think Americans would respond in an overwhelmingly positive way to a leader who will guide the country in a direction that provides the greatest amount of security, individual freedom, and prosperity to the largest number of citizens and apply the rule of law equally across all demographics. Trump did that, and I suspect there are a handful of Republicans who could also do that. I can’t think of a single person on the Democrat side who would or could do that.
“This merely illustrates how poorly you understand it and its purpose. Without the Electoral College reinforcing the ‘republic’ part of our government, we would basically be just a democracy, which was a system reviled by the Founders, for good reason. Without the Electoral College most of the country would have no voice in its governance.”
That’s not true at all. We have Representatives, each of which is elected by popular vote, who represent us in Congress. That is the “republic” part of our government. We also have senators, also elected by a popular vote, also representing the “republic” part of our government. Every state has the same number of senators, thereby giving each state the same representation as the others in the Senate, no matter how large or small their population.
We only have one president. Since there is only one, the president must represent the entire country. The question then becomes how best to determine who the person should be to represent us all. I claim the Electoral College is not the best way, that it was invented when the circumstances of the country were very different. And in fact, the original Electoral College scheme defined by the founders has since been amended, and the way in which States determine their electors has also changed over time into the system we have now in which nearly all states determine all of their electors by popular vote.
“Without the Electoral College most of the country would have no voice in its governance.”
Not true. Every citizen in the country has a voice in governance directly through their elected Representatives and Senators. As for the Electoral College protecting some voters from the supposed tyranny of others, it doesn’t even do that. For instance, in California, 6,006,429 people voted for Donald Trump, and yet their State electors all went to Joe Biden. That’s more votes than the State totals for all but six States. So how were these 6,006,429 Californians represented by the Electoral College?
“Why do you assume that Spook, or any of the rest of us, would NOT support ‘full rights for all Americans’?”
Because as I see it, the people you seem to support do not support “full rights for all Americans.”
Because as I see it, the people you seem to support do not support “full rights for all Americans.”
It’s been obvious all along that you don’t see things the way most people do, or the way they are, but just the way you are told they are. Name a right Americans are denied.
There is a move from the Left to deny several rights, including the rights to free speech and assembly. Is this what you mean?
“What is the advantage of a ‘robust’ federal government? How much authority should it have? You accept that the government has a legitimate role in assuming financial security for the older among us, and then explain that this is best handled on a federal basis. In what other areas do you think we should have a Central Authority rather than keeping government closer to the people by keeping most authority in the hands of the states or local governments?”
I actually only said that it would be silly to have 50 Social Security Administrations instead of one. Whether “the government” (you didn’t specify if you meant the federal government) “has a legitimate role in assuming financial security for the older among us” is indeed an interesting question. I think it is a legitimate role for the United States government is to further the general welfare of its citizens (it’s in the Constitution, after all). Seniors are citizens, and the reason Social Security was invented was because so many senior citizens did not have financial security and actually wound up destitute. When a nation gets rich enough, then I think it can afford to be more generous in looking after the welfare of its citizens, especially when its own Constitution says it can do just that.
“Do you believe that a country has the right to be a sovereign nation, with its own rules and standards?”
Of course.
“Do you believe that a country has the legal and moral authority to determine who can immigrate and/or become citizens?”
Yes.
“What is the advantage of a ‘robust’ federal government?”
It can do things that a less robust federal government cannot, like a space program. Or winning World War II.
“How much authority should it have?”
It obviously has to be constrained by the Constitution.
it’s (the general welfare) in the Constitution, after all
Do some studying. Read the contemporaneous writings of the Founders. The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the citizens, and is only about the general welfare of the Constitution and the government.
As you appear, in this post, to be supporting the basic tenets of the Right, I don’t understand why you are attacking conservatives, which is usually done to support the opposition to conservatism.
You seem unaware that Social Security was a scheme presented by a Leftist president, and that it received a great deal of opposition on the grounds that it violated the Tenth Amendment. There was a ruling that said no, it doesn’t—yet a simple reading of the Constitution shows that it does. This entire scheme, which is now so deeply embedded in the American psyche, is another example of judicial activism—-the imposition of a law by unelected political appointees, who have applied political interpretations to the Constitution to advance political agendas.
I think it can afford to be more generous in looking after the welfare of its citizens, especially when its own Constitution says it can do just that.
Except it doesn’t say that at all. It doesn’t say that, and when some people (like Hamilton) claimed it did, they were met with strong contradiction by the man who actually wrote most of the Constitution. This is just another example of the insidious expansion of federal power.
it can do things that a less robust federal government cannot, like a space program. Or winning World War II.
Did I miss something? I thought fighting WW II was considered national defense. And, just like the national Interstate Highway program, the space program has also been considered part of our national defense planning. As opposed to federal funding of, or control of, the contracts between citizens and health insurance companies, misleadingly called “health care”.
“Do you believe that a country has the legal and moral authority to determine who can immigrate and/or become citizens?”
Yes.
Then clearly a president, or Congress, or political party, that agrees with this and wants to establish and honor laws regarding who can enter the country and who can become citizens are not, in fact, “anti-immigration”.
I see your response, Spook. Just to be clear, Trump never got anywhere close to 70%. The highest he achieved according to Gallup was 38%. 70% is an extremely high bar, which is why I think it might well require extreme circumstances leading to some sort of populist figure. When it happened for one week under George Bush, the country was just a few months removed from 9/11 and there was a lot of patriotic fervor; as well, we hadn’t begun the endless wars.
On the other hand, it happened twice under Clinton, so maybe the stars just need to align right. But it has never happened in a sustained way for any president since Gallup started polling this question in 1979. (If they polled the question earlier than that, it is not on their website so far as I can tell.)
Trump never got anywhere close to 70%. The highest he achieved according to Gallup was 38%.
Actually he got to 45% and was in the 40s for 3 straight polls early in the Pandemic (Jan. – Mar. 2020) I said I thought he was well on his way. It’s clear looking back that Democrats were never going to let him get there, and you’ve got to ask yourself why. The majority of Americans liked his policies.
“Actually he got to 45% and was in the 40s for 3 straight polls early in the Pandemic (Jan. – Mar. 2020) I said I thought he was well on his way. It’s clear looking back that Democrats were never going to let him get there, and you’ve got to ask yourself why. The majority of Americans liked his policies.”
You’re right, he did get to 45% and achieved over 40% for three consecutive polls. But that’s still a long way from 70%, don’t you think? And I already said, “I think the country is so polarized at this point that achieving 70% would be exceedingly difficult.” That goes both ways.
So now you are the arbiter of what might be considered “well on his way”?
How convenient.
“You seem unaware that Social Security was a scheme presented by a Leftist president, and that it received a great deal of opposition on the grounds that it violated the Tenth Amendment.”
I’m aware of its history. I already acknowledged that whether the government “has a legitimate role in assuming financial security for the older among us” is indeed an interesting question—as in controversial and not clear cut. But for reasons I cited, I come down on the side that it is a legitimate role of government. And obviously the courts have agreed.
“So now you are the arbiter of what might be considered ‘well on his way’?”
No. But three polls in the mid-forties is a long way from ever getting to 70%. Given the history—that no president has achieved that threshold in the history of the Gallup poll–it takes some fantastical thinking to project that Trump would have done it if only it wasn’t for the pandemic, especially considering how polarizing he is. Actually, if he had treated the pandemic seriously he could have rallied much more support, but then Trump isn’t capable of doing something like that.
See, there you go again. Instead of merely discussing your perception of what Trump did or didn’t do, you have to insert your typical snarl and snark.
How do you think Trump could have treated the virus more seriously? He stopped travel from China, he put vax research on a fast track, he supported Fauci and whatever the CDC said. The claim that he didn’t “do enough” is common in some circles, but there is never anything substantive about what else he could have or should have done.
However, as more information has come out about the virus, it turns out that he did make two very big, very important mistakes. One was to trust Fauci, and one was to let himself be led into focusing more on vaxxing and less on immediate therapeutic treatments. What we have learned is that if the doctors who had had such success in early treatment had been given respect, and their ideas had been implemented, many lives would have been saved.
Also, when talking about Trump and the virus, we need to remember that untold hundreds or thousands of lives were lost because, purely for political reasons, any possible treatment Trump mentioned was immediately scorned, reviled, even banned. Therapeutics which had been approved half a century ago and safely used by millions of people were falsely claimed to be dangerous, scaring people from using them even if they could get them. We had governors banning certain drugs from sale in their states. We had pharmacists refusing to honor legal prescriptions. Prompt and proper use of steroids, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have all saved lives, now that the hysteria has died down and people are able to get these life-saving drugs. The only reason they were ever unavailable is because if they were successful it might have reflected well on Trump, so the cynical calculation was made to let people die rather than give him that credit.
As far as whining about Trump being “polarizing” we need to look at why this has been true. He’s brash and blunt and can be obnoxious, but what has turned so many people so vehemently against him has been the incessant drumbeat of the Agenda Media telling the public how awful he is. The hypocrisy of the Left creating and then demonizing a false Trump and then piously murmuring about how “polarizing” he is is just disgusting.
Since you brought up Trump/virus, this list of important questions in a recent article about the president of the Italian party Fratelli d’Italia is quite relevant both to the handling of the virus and the topic of Leftist consolidation of power to impose its will on the people.
Were many of the deaths that plagued these two and a half years of pandemic avoidable?
Why did the political and health authorities substantially inhibit the use, especially at home, of drugs that, evidence in hand as early as April 2020, cured the disease, saving lives and also avoiding hospitalizations?
Why was the vaccine injected in the absence of genuine informed consent? Why has the state never assumed legal and legal responsibility for the mass inoculation that it was more or less imposing on citizens?
Why have the data on the efficacy (or ineffectiveness) of vaccines not yet been made public?
Or maybe that data hasn’t even been scientifically collected?
Why have vaccinating doctors systematically, stubbornly and a priori denied (with superficiality, arrogance and violence befitting bureaucrats and not doctors) the exemption from vaccination to people with health problems who advised against it?
Why did the political-health institutions literally demonize those who, for clinical or other reasons, did not want to take this pseudovaccines?
Why did those same institutions go so far as to impose – Italy as the unique case among Western countries – indiscriminate vaccination by law, and not only by type of work activity?
And then, how much are the economic damage caused by the closures that have been imposed on entrepreneurs?
What interests lie behind the exclusion of any early (and therefore home) therapy that did not provide for the useless “watchful wait” and the inevitable consequent hospitalization?
And so why, if the main problem seemed to be the clogging of hospitals, did the state not favor any therapeutic attempt at home, rather than relying on the sequence that led to resuscitation and intubation?
And again: how much will it cost the health system to treat the negative side effects caused by vaccines?
I suggest that the government and many companies will face extensive lawsuits for vax damages after forcible vaxxing and that an investigation is warranted to look into the ethics (or legality) of our own government forcing people to inject experimental drugs while at the same time providing legal cover to protect the drug companies from liability for damages from these drugs.
“How do you think Trump could have treated the virus more seriously?”
Are you serious? Trump’s handling of the virus will go down as one of the greatest presidential fuck-ups in history. Start with the early days when he kept telling us all things were “totally under control,” that it would disappear “like a miracle.” If he had demonstrated any ability to deal with a crisis, any empathy for those suffering, he could have rallied Americans around him and sailed to re-election. But of course he could not, and so he lost.
As I expected, you are incapable of saying what could have been done, focusing as you always do on your pathological conviction that something COULD have been done and Trump just didn’t do it.
How did an effort to keep things calm contribute to the virus’s spread? Trump followed “expert” advice regarding masking and that silly “social distancing” and so on, and it proved ineffective. So what else could he have done? Oh, yes, according to you he should not have SAID some things.
Oh, and expressed EMPATHY—-the Left’s substitute for actually doing anything. Just what do you think he should have done to demonstrate EMPATHY? And why would that have changed the course of the virus? Thanks for pointing out how important shallow symbolic gestures are to you people, and how much you let them control you.
You inadvertently touch on one of the many differences between Left and Right attitudes toward how to govern. The Right wants to maintain confidence, while the Left wants to emphasize dangers and keep people terrified, so it can use this to impose itself.
Trump remained calm, assured the nation that this was not the end of the world, reminded us that this virus (like all those that came before it) would wane and eventually disappear, that there was no need to panic, and in general acted like a leader, reassuring the nation while working feverishly to find solutions.
Biden, on the other hand, subscribing to the belief that you should never let a good crisis go to waste, stirred up as much hysteria as he could, to provide the foundation for the most Draconian overreactions imaginable—ongoing shutdowns of schools and businesses, threatening to block even interstate travel, asking Americans to report neighbors who had too many guests on Thanksgiving, and most important of all using the might and power of the government to force people into taking dangerous experimental drugs they didn’t want to take, or lose their livelihoods. And, in a very important BTW, engage in one of the most blatant examples of federal corruption ever seen, as his administration not only violated the Geneva Conventions by forcing people to take experimental drugs without an iota of informed consent, it allowed drug companies to continue pushing untested drugs on the public, while paying them billions to do so, while at the same time providing legal protection for them so they could not be held liable for the damages their drugs were causing.
The ramifications of these actions go far beyond those of illness due to the virus or even to the damages due to the drugs. Biden’s approach destroyed businesses, as they were forced to close. It put millions out of work, and then proceeded to pay them not to work, undercutting the workforce. Even now this badly damaged workforce is struggling to rebuild, while he takes victory laps for every person who goes back to work, claiming to have “created jobs”, when in fact all that has happened so far is that some companies have been able to haul themselves out of Biden Hell enough to start hiring again.
The Biden approach to dealing with airline problems due to having to fire so many employees, including pilots. for refusing to bend the knee to Biden tyranny, has been to send out its Howdy Doody hand puppet to explain that the answer to this is to have the government flex its muscles again and force the airlines to just hire more people. (This would not only result in more inexperienced pilots being put in cockpits, it would be influenced by the demand—not legislative, you understand, but just another presidential edict—-that the hiring process must include rigid proportions of various demographics, regardless of qualifications.)
Then there is the damage to our children, as many will never catch up in their education, thanks to the wholly unnecessary and damaging school shutdowns. That doesn’t even touch on the illnesses and psychological damages from the whole masking disaster.
While much of the damage done to our military, meaning of course our military readiness and ability to defend the country, is due to the woke policies of the Left, the military also lost seasoned and essential personnel who left or were driven out due to the determination to force these experimental drugs on them.
The whole vaxx problem is a ticking time bomb with Biden’s fingerprints all over it, as vaxx injuries continue to be documented—but his minions are still lying to people and telling them these drugs are not only going to protect them, they are SAFE. As we learn that many of the damaging and even lethal effects of these drugs show up a year or so later, this administration is trying its best to injure or even kill even more of us.
Naturally you are going to admire the Biden approach while seething in hate and fury about the Trump approach. Nothing could tell us more about you than this.
Naturally you are going to admire the Biden approach
He/she’s cautiously avoided that so far, which begs the question (we know what he/she opposes) just what exactly does he/she support?
This writer is obviously a skillful writer, but too dominated by personal pathology and ideology to break free long enough to maintain an illusion of objectivity for more than a few hundred words before the true persona takes over again. For most of us, the objective is to have enough of an exchange of ideas to come to conclusions that satisfy us regarding our perception of their validity. For this person, it is obvious that the objective is to just keep the bickering going as long as possible.
I, personally, have learned a lot in the various discourses we have had here. I’ve had new ideas presented and explained and sometimes even defended, I’ve had my own ideas bruised a little and sometimes updated, and I’ve had to do a lot of research in the process. But my goal was always to find facts, to burrow down to truths, to establish a firm foundation for my beliefs and then move on. The sparring has always been to develop ideas by having to defend or modify them, and has never been the goal in and of itself. It has never been just a need to quibble, bicker, argue, attack or carry on endless discussions. It’s this narcissistic focus on self that I think is so well described by Kurt Schlichter’s comment on political onanism, because that is what it is.
And that’s why at some point I always have to pull back from any effort to participate in these sham discussions, because it starts to feel like enabling what seems like, to be blunter than Schlichter, emotional masturbation, and being part of it is creepy. Even with someone as verbally skilled as forty, the ick factor keeps building.
My perception, and this is speculation but based on observation, is that this person has a deeply ingrained bias which is, on the surface, political but which is really just emotional dependence on a particularly toxic pseudo-ideology. I say “pseudo-ideology” because it doesn’t seem to be based on an actual political structure, just animus toward people who represent a political structure and are therefore targets for unlimited spite and malice. There’s a thin veneer of political thought, but it’s only window dressing for the underlying pathology.
So when you mix in the underlying pathology of seething rage and hate with the superficial disguise of political conviction to make it seem less…..crazy……and add a hefty dose of narcissism and a need to dominate you get a forty. That is, someone compelled to express what we used to identify as personality disorders in a strident bullying persona, under the pretense of actually just “discussing politics”. It’s a disguise that wears thin very quickly, as challenges to the stated political intent shred the pretense and we very quickly see the malignance behind it..
It’s worth noting that this is the kind of personality that resonates with tyranny—the personal need to impose ones’ beliefs on others is quite consistent with the desire to impose behaviors on them as well. It comes down to various forms of YOU WILL BE MADE TO BELIEVE. It’s the foundation for Thought Police.
Oh, you claim to have political viewpoints? Funny—I’ve never seen one. All I ever see is obsessive wallowing in hatred, spite and malice.
Politics is about how to govern the nation. You people refuse to discuss your ideas about how best to do this. Politics is not just spiteful gossip, it is serious stuff. We’ve tried dragging you into discussions of political viewpoints, and you scurry away like roaches when the lights come on.
I must say, I’m a bit disappointed by the brevity of your responses to my posts last night. You asked many questions. I answered them. You have insisted that you want a dialog about ideas, yet you don’t seem willing to follow through. You have insisted that I have no political philosophy, or am unwilling to state it, yet I have. You have insisted that only one so-called liberal has ever come on this blog and describe his political philosophy, and he was a Marxist. That is clearly not true.
“We don’t have much in common unless we both support a democratic republic governed by OUR Constitution. Do you?”
I already said that my political philosophy supports “a democratic republic governed by a constitution.” The United States is a democratic republic, ergo my philosophy would imply that it is governed by its own Constitution.
“It’s been obvious all along that you don’t see things the way most people do, or the way they are, but just the way you are told they are. Name a right Americans are denied.”
The right to vote would be one. You may recall in 2016 when a federal court struck down several portions of a 2013 North Carolina elections law that included a voter ID mandate, saying GOP lawmakers had written them with “almost surgical precision” to discourage voting by Black voters, who tend to support Democrats.
“Do some studying. Read the contemporaneous writings of the Founders. The general welfare clause has nothing to do with the citizens, and is only about the general welfare of the Constitution and the government.”
The nation is governed by its legal documents, i.e., its Constitution, state constitutions, and laws, and not by the contemporaneous writings of the Founders, or what the Founders thought, or what you think the Founders thought. Furthermore, as you undoubtedly know, the Founders themselves disagreed on the meaning and scope of the General Welfare clause in the Constitution. If you don’t know this, then you need to do some reading.
Gee, I didn’t know you were in charge of acceptable length of responses. I usually get grief from you people for being too verbose.
I have yet to see a voter ID law that targets in any way to any degree, much less “with surgical precision”, any demographic. So I would need to know more about the court that came up with this ruling. After so many years of judicial activism, in which jurists try to make or modify laws from the bench instead of letting elected legislators do their job, I am pretty suspicious of this kind of ruling. Do you have an example of how any requirement for voter ID targets black voters?
While the nation IS governed by the Constitution, it is the Constitution as it is written, which often requires examination of the discussions and explanations of the Founders when there is a question regarding syntax or semantics. Too bad you can’t engage in discussion about this without the inevitable sneer and snark.
General Welfare Clause The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The contemporaneous explanation of this clause was that it linked defense and the general welfare. This is where punctuation is important. There is no comma separating common defense and general welfare, meaning that they are basically one and the same—defense of the United States and of the general welfare of the United States. Not the general welfare of the people living in the United States, but of the entity that IS the United States.
To take the clause as a general grant of power for the federal government to do anything that promotes the general welfare would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. James Madison
“a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators.”
Hamilton, on the other hand, was much more of a big-government guy, who wanted a central bank and advocated for far more authority for the federal government than the rest of the Founders. He argued ” “General Welfare necessarily embraces a variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specifications nor of definition.” But his arguments did not prevail, because they were so obviously a blank check for unlimited federal power.
Another perspective is: The Founders clearly understood the “general welfare” to mean the good of all citizens, not an open-ended mandate for Congress. The only good that applies to all citizens is freedom, and government’s proper role is the protection of that freedom. That was the meaning intended by the Founders.
I’m pretty sure I’ve done far more reading on the subjects of the founding of the country, the arguments of the Founders and the reasons for the structures they created than you have.
I already said that my political philosophy supports “a democratic republic governed by a constitution.” The United States is a democratic republic, ergo my philosophy would imply that it is governed by its own Constitution.
That looks like semantic tap dancing to me. You say your preference for a ““a democratic republic governed by A constitution” and then try to claim that this means you support the governance of the United States by ITS Constitution. That’s not what you said, in either statement. And your other statements, such as favoring a “robust” federal government and wanting to get rid of the Electoral College, seem to indicate a reluctance to wholly support Constitutional governance. You argue, that the General Welfare Clause does not just apply to the general welfare of the entity of the United States but to the overall welfare of its citizens. Actually, nothing about anything you have ever posted has indicated a strong affinity for our Constitution, until challenged on a detail, and then you appear to be trying to evade strong unambiguous declarative sentences.
And your continued hostility to conservatives and conservative actions and polices does not lend itself to commitment to conservative governing values. You sound like someone who professes to be a vegetarian, while admitting to eating meat.
“I have yet to see a voter ID law that targets in any way to any degree, much less ‘with surgical precision’, any demographic.”
You could read the court’s decision in which the judge said exactly that.
“While the nation IS governed by the Constitution, it is the Constitution as it is written, which often requires examination of the discussions and explanations of the Founders when there is a question regarding syntax or semantics.”
So we agree that the nation IS governed by the Constitution and it is the Constitution as it is written. Sure, the writings of the Founders can be consulted when interpreting the Constitution, but those writings don’t rule the country and are only part of what can or should be considered when interpreting the Constitution.
“I’m pretty sure I’ve done far more reading on the subjects of the founding of the country, the arguments of the Founders and the reasons for the structures they created than you have. ”
Great. So you know as well as I do that the Founders did not agree on the General Welfare clause, nor did they agree on the scope of the federal government.
It seems to really irk you that Social Security is handled by the federal government.
You could read the court’s decision in which the judge said exactly that.
I could, but I won't, because the statement itself is so clearly nothing but race-baiting judicial activist bullshit. There is no way that demanding voter ID to vote can be focused on any race or other demographic.
Sure, the writings of the Founders can be consulted when interpreting the Constitution, but those writings don’t rule the country
No, and I never said they do. What you are so studiously avoiding is the fact that common usage of some words, phrases and even punctuation have changed over the decades. So when there is debate over the intent of the Founders because of this kind of evolution of language or usage it is important to go back and look not just at the words themselves but the arguments made for and against words and phrases. That doesn’t mean the contemporaneous writings “rule the country”. That is simply silly. No, it means that the INTENT of the words and phrases used is paramount, and the best way to discern that intent is to look at what they said.
the Founders did not agree on the General Welfare clause, nor did they agree on the scope of the federal government. True. So what? Are you now arbitrarily imposing some kind of criterion of unanimity for something to be accepted? So what if Hamilton, while finally accepting the opinion of the actual writer of the Constitution about what it meant, had his fingers crossed behind his back and never really agreed at all? Who else, among the Founders, thought the General Welfare Clause was a blank check for Congress to expand federal authority at will?
Do you know why some of the Founders thought the Tenth Amendment was unnecessary? Because they thought the original wording of the Constitution was so clear in delegating ONLY certain duties to the federal government it was not needed, was even redundant, to restate the limitations on federal powers. Those who insisted on including the Tenth Amendment said no, there would always be people trying to expand the scope of federal authority, so it was important to emphasize that it just could not be done.
The Leftist interpretation of the General Welfare Clause bumps right up against the Tenth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment was written to short-circuit any effort to use some spin on the General Welfare Clause to add federal authority to the few specifically delegated federal duties.
And here’s a hint: When I am truly “irked” you don’t have to smugly declare that I “seem to be”. This crystal ball tactic of declaring what people “really” think is another of those annoying Leftist games.
“That looks like semantic tap dancing to me. You say your preference for ‘a democratic republic governed by A constitution’ and then try to claim that this means you support the governance of the United States by ITS Constitution.”
This is because your original demand was that I offer a political philosophy. Such a philosophy transcends a specific country or specific implementation, don’t you think? The US is an example of a “democratic republic governed by a constitution,” which adheres to my philosophy. Therefore—as I have already stated—the US as governed by its own constitution.
Whenever you espouse your political philosophy, it starts and ends with the Tenth Amendment. (And of late you have put yourself on shaky ground there.) You have never actually articulated a political philosophy from which you based that on. There’s a difference. You are to a political philosopher what a building inspector is to an architect.
You are to a political philosopher what a building inspector is to an architect.
Meow
Such a philosophy transcends a specific country or specific implementation, don’t you think?
Well, if you want to avoid specifics about American politics by “transcending” into the ethereal sphere of vague abstractions, this might make a little sense. But no, it doesn’t. It’s just silly pomposity, posturing and evasiveness.
You have never actually articulated a political philosophy from which you based that on (sic).
Of course I have. You just need to try to find a way to ridicule or discredit it so you misstate it and distort it. Of course, this does allow you to continue your love of bickering.
“And your continued hostility to conservatives and conservative actions and polices does not lend itself to commitment to conservative governing values. You sound like someone who professes to be a vegetarian, while admitting to eating meat.”
The problem you have is that you have created a stereotype of anyone you perceived to be a “leftist,” all of whom you lump together. It seems you are incapable of dealing with someone who doesn’t fit that stereotype and yet isn’t a rabid conservative like you are.
Actually, I base my concept of the Left on objective analysis of Leftist political models, philosophy, policies and history. Call it a “stereotype” if that soothes you, but it is what it is. And what it is, is a collectivist political model based on a powerful Central Authority. And in the context of American politics, that means wanting to abandon the Constitutional restraints on federal power to consolidate power in that Central Authority.
It is the opposite of the American Constitutional model, which is based on rejection of central authority in favor of restricting federal power to a few specifically delegated duties, and keeping most authority in the states, or with the people. In terms of American politics, this is “the Right” or, to add a sneer to this, “rabid conservatism”.
Clearly I am quite capable of dealing with Leftists no matter where they fall on the political spectrum to the left of center.
“I could, but I won’t, because the statement itself is so clearly nothing but race-baiting judicial activist bullshit.”
Of course you won’t read it. No one is surprised.
” What you are so studiously avoiding is the fact that common usage of some words, phrases and even punctuation have changed over the decades.”
Have you heard of the Second Amendment?
“Well, if you want to avoid specifics about American politics by ‘transcending’ into the ethereal sphere of vague abstractions, this might make a little sense. But no, it doesn’t. It’s just silly pomposity, posturing and evasiveness.”
I’ve given you tons of specifics. How about you articulate your political philosophy. This would be a good place to do it. You wouldn’t accept me telling you that I had previously done so. That works both ways. State your political philosophy for us.
“Actually, I base my concept of the Left on objective analysis of Leftist political models, philosophy, policies and history.”
And here we go again. You seem completely flummoxed at having to converse with someone who doesn’t conform to your made-up stereotypes.
“Clearly I am quite capable of dealing with Leftists no matter where they fall on the political spectrum to the left of center.”
Do carry on…
Thank you for illustrating my original point, which is that you are so obsessed with anti-Trump, anti-conservative, loathing that you are compelled to come here and scold us and bicker and try to hammer us with your distorted perspectives. Oh, and sneer at and insult anyone who does not agree.
I’ve gone through your little temper tantrum, above, and realize that even if I try to respond all I will be doing will be feeding your pathological need to bicker. There is not a hint of serious interest in exchanging ideas, just a quest for gotchas and an effort to keep your bickerfest going.
Because moderation had decided to let you continue, at least for a while, I played along. But I knew all along that this is where it would end up—you running out of room and the ability to keep pretending you were here for actual discourse, and snapping back to your default position of merely being obsessive, ill-tempered and determined to impose your feelings on us no matter what.
My Internet was out all day yesterday until late last night, so I missed much of the conversation. Let me back up to my original question about what kind of individual espousing what principles could get the right track number to 70%. Looking back, I should have researched the historic right track number before asking that question. I didn’t realize 70 was a nearly unachievable number, and I only used it because the current wrong track number is around 70%. My bad.
So, let’s start over. (this is to Forty since Fielding has admitted he’s not intelligent enough to answer) What federal policies (rather than principles) would lead to the greatest level of satisfaction by the largest percentage of the population, and who is/are the person/persons you think would be most likely to pull it off? You’re clearly not going to please everyone, but a simple majority would be nice. What would it take to get to that point?
Spook, I’ve kind of reached the end of the line with this thread, which will soon be two threads back in time. I suggest that you move your question to the most current open thread and we can carry on there.
However, fair warning: I’m going to ask you to first respond to my question above about the Texas bill, which no one ever responded to. I have responded to all of your questions, so I think you all should be willing to do the same in return.