While we’re talking about Dave Smith, he had a couple of eye-opening dives into the history of Israel’s founding that cured me of my ignorant, lazy, reflexive pro-Israel stance. I searched for the videos, but have only come up with audio links:
As someone trying to be better informed about politics, could you refer me to more info regarding your comment, “And that should tell you all you need to know about the danger of allowing libertarians like Gorsuch into critical decision making positions.”
From what I understand, their policies would be useful for combatting high home prices (less red tape for building in Texas vs California) so I’m interesting in understanding why many don’t take them seriously. Thank you!
Thanks. Yes, libertarians affirm the sovereignty of the individual. Period. That may seem like a "conservative" position, but it effectively denies a key foundation of human nature--the organic nature of human society based on the family. In fact, in its philosophical underpinnings, libertarianism denies human nature entirely, substituting human choice of what they want to be. As such, libertarianism is destructive of normal healthy human being.
So the Republican Is rude and/or selfish? That is hardly a great starting point for attracting undecided voters, ESPECIALLY in the key Midwestern states.
Although Mark alludes to it in his comments about Gorsuch, I thought it might be worthwhile to explicitly remind everyone that Gorsuch’s previous notorious decision, Bostock v Clayton County, also advanced the LGBT agenda. Mark is right, very weird indeed.
I believe that fundamentally, Trump was elected in 2016 because Americans felt that the political system and the Federal Government had failed them. It did not represent their interests and did not act in ways consistent with its Constitutional purpose. Reagan said the worst thing anyone could hear was "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Well, nowadays the government doesn't even purport to help anyone except corporations and large donors. Trump won because he was an outsider, a non-politician who spoke to issues the demos cared about and at the same time projected that he cared about them.
Many of us wanted someone who could be enough of a shock to the system to reconstitute it in a way that better served our views and needs. We may have been naïve to think a President could do this alone. Nevertheless, the appeal of Trump remains the same now as it was then. People don't want someone who will bend to the monied interests that are already amply represented in DC. They want a hero.
Exactly right! But U.S. political leaders must play the game of politics and are hopelessly inept when it comes to dealing with real issues and how to correct a failing political system; they not only can't handle the truth, they have to depend on voters who continually exhibit collective stupidity and being brain-dead, especially during election years (see Canada as another example of a country of inept politicians and a stupidly gullible electorate).
Trump keeps making unforced errors. He needs to act like a former president and stop wallowing in the mud. His inane comments about Jon Tester’s big stomach and his stupid comparison of the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Presidential Medal of Freedom are unworthy of a serious man. Yes Harris is an airhead and Walz is an authoritarian of the rankest kind. But why provide them with ammunition? Trump had the perfect opportunity to show that he’s a new candidate after the assassination attempt but he’s blown that. He can’t stop tripping over himself and he’s going to lose despite his feeble opponents. If he debates Harris like he debated Biden in the first 2020 debate he’s through. Harris will play the woman card with Trump as the male aggressor.
A positive of Trump is he learns, listens, and is willing to change.
While we’re talking about Dave Smith, he had a couple of eye-opening dives into the history of Israel’s founding that cured me of my ignorant, lazy, reflexive pro-Israel stance. I searched for the videos, but have only come up with audio links:
https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/part-of-the-problem-30317/episodes/a-brief-history-of-israel-part-192343064
https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/part-of-the-problem-30317/episodes/a-brief-history-of-israel-pt2-193199269
Mark thank you as always for the wonderful posts.
As someone trying to be better informed about politics, could you refer me to more info regarding your comment, “And that should tell you all you need to know about the danger of allowing libertarians like Gorsuch into critical decision making positions.”
From what I understand, their policies would be useful for combatting high home prices (less red tape for building in Texas vs California) so I’m interesting in understanding why many don’t take them seriously. Thank you!
See below re: the Bostock decison.
Thanks. Yes, libertarians affirm the sovereignty of the individual. Period. That may seem like a "conservative" position, but it effectively denies a key foundation of human nature--the organic nature of human society based on the family. In fact, in its philosophical underpinnings, libertarianism denies human nature entirely, substituting human choice of what they want to be. As such, libertarianism is destructive of normal healthy human being.
So the Republican Is rude and/or selfish? That is hardly a great starting point for attracting undecided voters, ESPECIALLY in the key Midwestern states.
Well said!
Jerk free zone.
Although Mark alludes to it in his comments about Gorsuch, I thought it might be worthwhile to explicitly remind everyone that Gorsuch’s previous notorious decision, Bostock v Clayton County, also advanced the LGBT agenda. Mark is right, very weird indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County
Regarding Gorsuch recently joining the libs in support of the T agenda, the Gateway pundit:
“Why Gorsuch went to the dark side on this ruling is unclear.”
Gotta love the understatement. Again, weird, weird, weird.
I couldn't agree more with your points, Mark.
I believe that fundamentally, Trump was elected in 2016 because Americans felt that the political system and the Federal Government had failed them. It did not represent their interests and did not act in ways consistent with its Constitutional purpose. Reagan said the worst thing anyone could hear was "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Well, nowadays the government doesn't even purport to help anyone except corporations and large donors. Trump won because he was an outsider, a non-politician who spoke to issues the demos cared about and at the same time projected that he cared about them.
Many of us wanted someone who could be enough of a shock to the system to reconstitute it in a way that better served our views and needs. We may have been naïve to think a President could do this alone. Nevertheless, the appeal of Trump remains the same now as it was then. People don't want someone who will bend to the monied interests that are already amply represented in DC. They want a hero.
Exactly right! But U.S. political leaders must play the game of politics and are hopelessly inept when it comes to dealing with real issues and how to correct a failing political system; they not only can't handle the truth, they have to depend on voters who continually exhibit collective stupidity and being brain-dead, especially during election years (see Canada as another example of a country of inept politicians and a stupidly gullible electorate).
Yes. Most of us were aware of his shortcomings but made a calculated choice that worked out in many ways. But ...
Trump keeps making unforced errors. He needs to act like a former president and stop wallowing in the mud. His inane comments about Jon Tester’s big stomach and his stupid comparison of the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Presidential Medal of Freedom are unworthy of a serious man. Yes Harris is an airhead and Walz is an authoritarian of the rankest kind. But why provide them with ammunition? Trump had the perfect opportunity to show that he’s a new candidate after the assassination attempt but he’s blown that. He can’t stop tripping over himself and he’s going to lose despite his feeble opponents. If he debates Harris like he debated Biden in the first 2020 debate he’s through. Harris will play the woman card with Trump as the male aggressor.
Yes. Unforced errors.
No
Moron free zone.
Tulsi's checkered past?
Huh? What checkers?
I thought she was supposed to be all red, white, and blue...