But how do they even know what they don't like? As I said, they contradict themselves.
They don't like big government? Fine. Then how do they simultaneously decide that government should determine everyone's religion, which the First Amendment says it shouldn't, and that people shouldn't get abortions? (The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the likeliest reason to oppose it is PERSONAL religious belief, to which the First Amendment says everyone is welcome, as long as they don't try to impose it on anyone else.)
It’s all internally inconsistent. They want government involved with abortion, they don’t want taxes. Some if them want social security and Medicare others don’t. They come different places. What they have in common is that they hate Democrats.
What an empty and pathetic agenda. That's why people like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger take friendly fire. The people who are shooting don't know what they're shooting at.
I don't object to their not wanting to pay taxes. If they're that immature and selfish, that's fine with me. They should just move to some country that doesn't need tax revenue to support it. I'm pretty sure these people are chronological adults, so I can't expect them to grow up.
Mark, I have to say I don't actually know what the Rep/con theory or agenda is. It seemed like in the old days that it had to do with low taxes and little government interference. What used to be Dems, especially southern Dems, but are now Reps, were also racist. Although I think of that as selfish and immature, at least it seemed like a theory or agenda. And it seemed very many Americans talked like they agreed about "exporting democracy."
The "Tea Party," and now its deformed caricature, "MAGA," have gone in directions that are hard to track, and are actually contradictory to theories like small government. Now, they seem to have added the idea that all Americans should be religious, especially Christian, and no one should have an abortion. Where the anti-IVF theme came from is a head-scratcher, especially since many of the same people who oppose IVF also advocate for more children.
And somehow, xenophobia, in the form of opposition to immigration, came into it. This makes no sense for at least two reasons. One is that every one of us, or our forebears, except the Native Americans, is an immigrant (and all for precisely the same reasons: things weren't good in the old country, and immigrants wanted more opportunity), and the other is that the people who think there should be more children should warmly welcome ready-made children. It also turns out to be true that every immigrant group has gone through the same nonsense: they're lazy, dirty, criminal, etc. That was said of the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, and every other group. Today, Reps/cons sing that same old song about Central and South Americans. And Asians, if Reps/cons can think of some other reason to remember to be mad at Asians, like there's a world-wide pandemic that appeared to have started in China.
But the point is that Reps/cons are sort of all over the place, philosophically running into each other and themselves like the Keystone Kops.
And of course, there's the focus on the "Second Amendment," which no longer exists, and the contradictory positions/betrayals about free speech. That and the idea that this was always, and was always intended to be, a Christian country are the great betrayals of the First Amendment. They're also subtly starting to oppose the 19th Amendment.
Mostly, I don't think they have a theory or an agenda, apart from disagreeing with whatever Dems/libs say. It's pretty pathetic.
Agree. I think the central 'red thread' has to be 'We care about you. Trump cares about himself.' Bill Clinton poked at this at the DNC with "Don't count the lies. Count the I's".
All the individual topics ladder up to that theme:
- Immigration/border - he scuppered the most conservative bill in history because it would be bad for HIM politically. WE want to completely reform the asylum/immigration system in partnership with
- Economy/Inflation - he wants tax cuts for the uber wealthy, including himself. He's quite happy to sacrifice working people for HIS and his friends' own benefit. - He wants to make tariffs our central fiscal policy. Because he'd rather anyone else pay up (including you) than HIMSELF and his cronies. WE want to make those people pay their fair share so we can invest in working families, childcare, and small businesses/startups.
- Reproductive rights - he doesn't believe any of what he says, but it's a bone he'll throw to reward those who praise HIM. WE believe in individual rights.
- Foreign policy - he will sell out any democracy for the people HE looks up to most - strongmen and dictators. We will stand steadfast with our allies.
- Civil right/government - he wants to turn the government and military into a private force that supports HIM. WE want to eliminate partisanship and lack of fairness from government at all levels and ensure the norms of American government endure.
If she can fuse together contrast messages on each topic under that simple, singular banner of 'him vs us', I think the narrative of the race crystallizes and everything gets a bit tighter/more consistent.
Agreed! Re: The 6 Corrupt sociopaths in black robes on SCOTUS, one thing that must be done (assuming Blue tsunami hits DC) is getting those same 6 crowns those 5 kings & 1 queen think they wear by getting rid of them Day 1.
Just having ethics rules means nothing if congress can't/won't enforce it. That also means we, The People, the masses, can never let our guard down and must vote like our lives depend on it every chance we get.
THAT is what I don't have any faith in--fellow Americans voting from now like we all should as good citizens.
It's a tricky business about SCOTUS. They have essentially no ethical mandates, and they have lifetime appointments. So "getting rid of them Day 1" is not straightforward.
One possibility is to note that Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all said in Senate confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law, and then they overturned it. Of course they could argue Dobbs was a different case, and they judged it by a different standard. But still, they did, in a sense, lie to the Senate. It could be pursued, but it is, as I say, tricky. Separately, Kavanaugh lied about a couple of things in his Senate hearing. So there may be room to impeach all of them. Since there are no enforceable ethical requirements, Thomas can probably not be impeached. He might just owe back taxes and penalties. If that happened, at his age, he might give up in disgust, and quit.
Our lives very much depend on how we vote. Remember how many more people voted when Trump ran for re-election against Biden? And even someone like Taylor Swift stimulated very many more people to register. Don't be too quick to give up.
When I say Day 1, BTW, that's not literal. There's much business even a blue majority senate needs to do, but you get my point. It should be done ASAP.
I think Garland should also be fired.
I don't understand why you said for me not to “give up.” I never said I would. Are you kidding?! I love my Social Security and Medicare. There's waaaay too much at stake to give up on anything.
66% of eligible voters came out in 2020. We got to out-do that this November. We just might…
You haven't addressed your complaints about Garland, so I have no response about him.
I apologize if I took "that ain't gonna happen... sad and angry to say" to have meant you had given up. At the very least, it sounds pretty pessimistic.
What's also sad to say, but true, is that in this country, a 66% turnout is very good. I agree with your optimism that we might -- we're likely to -- do better this year. See you at the polls.
Not to me. One president nominated Garland to be a SCOTUS justice, and a different president made Garland the Attorney General. Whatever is obvious to you is undetectable to other people. You're welcome to enlighten at least me.
There is zero chance she keeps Garland.
And yes, they outright lied to the Senate.
I agree with you Andrea. There are ways to get rid of Thomas and Alito-retroactive term limits.
It is Fred. They just want take over and blow up anything they don’t like.
But how do they even know what they don't like? As I said, they contradict themselves.
They don't like big government? Fine. Then how do they simultaneously decide that government should determine everyone's religion, which the First Amendment says it shouldn't, and that people shouldn't get abortions? (The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the likeliest reason to oppose it is PERSONAL religious belief, to which the First Amendment says everyone is welcome, as long as they don't try to impose it on anyone else.)
It’s all internally inconsistent. They want government involved with abortion, they don’t want taxes. Some if them want social security and Medicare others don’t. They come different places. What they have in common is that they hate Democrats.
They won’t grow up. I fear if anybody leaves the country it will be a lot of us.
What an empty and pathetic agenda. That's why people like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger take friendly fire. The people who are shooting don't know what they're shooting at.
I don't object to their not wanting to pay taxes. If they're that immature and selfish, that's fine with me. They should just move to some country that doesn't need tax revenue to support it. I'm pretty sure these people are chronological adults, so I can't expect them to grow up.
That is a great assessment of what needs to be done. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you so much!
Mark, I have to say I don't actually know what the Rep/con theory or agenda is. It seemed like in the old days that it had to do with low taxes and little government interference. What used to be Dems, especially southern Dems, but are now Reps, were also racist. Although I think of that as selfish and immature, at least it seemed like a theory or agenda. And it seemed very many Americans talked like they agreed about "exporting democracy."
The "Tea Party," and now its deformed caricature, "MAGA," have gone in directions that are hard to track, and are actually contradictory to theories like small government. Now, they seem to have added the idea that all Americans should be religious, especially Christian, and no one should have an abortion. Where the anti-IVF theme came from is a head-scratcher, especially since many of the same people who oppose IVF also advocate for more children.
And somehow, xenophobia, in the form of opposition to immigration, came into it. This makes no sense for at least two reasons. One is that every one of us, or our forebears, except the Native Americans, is an immigrant (and all for precisely the same reasons: things weren't good in the old country, and immigrants wanted more opportunity), and the other is that the people who think there should be more children should warmly welcome ready-made children. It also turns out to be true that every immigrant group has gone through the same nonsense: they're lazy, dirty, criminal, etc. That was said of the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, and every other group. Today, Reps/cons sing that same old song about Central and South Americans. And Asians, if Reps/cons can think of some other reason to remember to be mad at Asians, like there's a world-wide pandemic that appeared to have started in China.
But the point is that Reps/cons are sort of all over the place, philosophically running into each other and themselves like the Keystone Kops.
And of course, there's the focus on the "Second Amendment," which no longer exists, and the contradictory positions/betrayals about free speech. That and the idea that this was always, and was always intended to be, a Christian country are the great betrayals of the First Amendment. They're also subtly starting to oppose the 19th Amendment.
Mostly, I don't think they have a theory or an agenda, apart from disagreeing with whatever Dems/libs say. It's pretty pathetic.
Agree. I think the central 'red thread' has to be 'We care about you. Trump cares about himself.' Bill Clinton poked at this at the DNC with "Don't count the lies. Count the I's".
All the individual topics ladder up to that theme:
- Immigration/border - he scuppered the most conservative bill in history because it would be bad for HIM politically. WE want to completely reform the asylum/immigration system in partnership with
- Economy/Inflation - he wants tax cuts for the uber wealthy, including himself. He's quite happy to sacrifice working people for HIS and his friends' own benefit. - He wants to make tariffs our central fiscal policy. Because he'd rather anyone else pay up (including you) than HIMSELF and his cronies. WE want to make those people pay their fair share so we can invest in working families, childcare, and small businesses/startups.
- Reproductive rights - he doesn't believe any of what he says, but it's a bone he'll throw to reward those who praise HIM. WE believe in individual rights.
- Foreign policy - he will sell out any democracy for the people HE looks up to most - strongmen and dictators. We will stand steadfast with our allies.
- Civil right/government - he wants to turn the government and military into a private force that supports HIM. WE want to eliminate partisanship and lack of fairness from government at all levels and ensure the norms of American government endure.
If she can fuse together contrast messages on each topic under that simple, singular banner of 'him vs us', I think the narrative of the race crystallizes and everything gets a bit tighter/more consistent.
Agreed! Re: The 6 Corrupt sociopaths in black robes on SCOTUS, one thing that must be done (assuming Blue tsunami hits DC) is getting those same 6 crowns those 5 kings & 1 queen think they wear by getting rid of them Day 1.
Just having ethics rules means nothing if congress can't/won't enforce it. That also means we, The People, the masses, can never let our guard down and must vote like our lives depend on it every chance we get.
THAT is what I don't have any faith in--fellow Americans voting from now like we all should as good citizens.
That ain't gonna happen... sad & angry to say.
It's a tricky business about SCOTUS. They have essentially no ethical mandates, and they have lifetime appointments. So "getting rid of them Day 1" is not straightforward.
One possibility is to note that Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all said in Senate confirmation hearings that Roe was settled law, and then they overturned it. Of course they could argue Dobbs was a different case, and they judged it by a different standard. But still, they did, in a sense, lie to the Senate. It could be pursued, but it is, as I say, tricky. Separately, Kavanaugh lied about a couple of things in his Senate hearing. So there may be room to impeach all of them. Since there are no enforceable ethical requirements, Thomas can probably not be impeached. He might just owe back taxes and penalties. If that happened, at his age, he might give up in disgust, and quit.
Our lives very much depend on how we vote. Remember how many more people voted when Trump ran for re-election against Biden? And even someone like Taylor Swift stimulated very many more people to register. Don't be too quick to give up.
What do you mean when you say “tricky”?
When I say Day 1, BTW, that's not literal. There's much business even a blue majority senate needs to do, but you get my point. It should be done ASAP.
I think Garland should also be fired.
I don't understand why you said for me not to “give up.” I never said I would. Are you kidding?! I love my Social Security and Medicare. There's waaaay too much at stake to give up on anything.
66% of eligible voters came out in 2020. We got to out-do that this November. We just might…
I explained what I meant by "tricky."
Understood. You didn't mean that literally.
You haven't addressed your complaints about Garland, so I have no response about him.
I apologize if I took "that ain't gonna happen... sad and angry to say" to have meant you had given up. At the very least, it sounds pretty pessimistic.
What's also sad to say, but true, is that in this country, a 66% turnout is very good. I agree with your optimism that we might -- we're likely to -- do better this year. See you at the polls.
Re: Garland. It's obvious.
Not to me. One president nominated Garland to be a SCOTUS justice, and a different president made Garland the Attorney General. Whatever is obvious to you is undetectable to other people. You're welcome to enlighten at least me.
Absolutely!!