Much of the population that some consider to be under-represented consists in large cities, often filled with ghettos and leeches. The populous blue states are the locales where the crony-commie axis (NY values) has been most successful.
If we prefer a free-enterprise model over the crony-commie model, then we need to find ways to stop over-representing the populous blue states. When we locate the central capital in the East and give two senators and two extra delegates to each tiny state, then we give the crony-commie model the leverage it needs to keep piling up its ghetto populations, all the while whining that it is "under-represented."
What do we want to pursue in "fairness"? The establishment of a free-enterprise model, or the establishment of a crony-commie NWO model?
As far as contributions to the general welfare, I would not confine my view behind green eye shades. I would also consider which part of the country provides the men and materials that actually soldier and defend the nation so that the fiat money managers can play their people-farming games.
I have seen general charts that show that Red States tend to get proportionally more in central gov redistributions. But I suspect Red States also provide most of the military manpower and bases. What are they getting in return for the sacrifices of their vets? Whines about BLM and claims by crony corporatists to rights to deal away the resources of their States. How much land in the Western States does the central apparatus keep its grip on, so it can reserve that Fed land for financial favors for its game of corrupt kickbacks? Who benefits most from the DC apparatus of control over Western lands: DC cronies or ordinary Westerners?
The proof is in the results. Every institution throughout the nation has been polluted with the moral corruption and insanity of the Eastern Crony-Commie model. To say the philosophies and wannas of Blue Staters has not been adequately fulfilled is plain nuts.
*********************
I do not know that you are wrong. I do know that I wouid feel less like I was being asked to buy a pig in a poke if I had a chance to appraise Trump and Cruz one-on-one.
Part of the reason Trump looks so good to his base is because they have been so worn down by the evil that has covered the land for so long that they have listened only to the parts about Trump that they like. They don't even consider the possibility that Trump is canny enough to sell them a bill of goods.
I don't think they tend to have much idea about how Trump plays to people who make it a point to read and see other information that is put out about Trump. Rather, they have made up their minds on a few important points and then sealed off further consideration based on a notion that I believe is plain bonkers: That Cruz is ineligible.
It is scary that their Birther reasoning has so easily waylaid them by vapid logic and uninformed nonsense. Between Progs and Birthers, it's an open question regarding which is most easily waylaid by nonsensical "reasoning." Maybe a psi interview with the spirit of Issac Azimov could shed light on the psychohistory of it?
*****************
I wouid feel less like I was being asked to buy a pig in a poke if I had a chance to appraise Trump and Cruz one-on-one.
Part of the reason Trump looks so good to his base is because they have been so worn down by the evil that has covered the land for so long that they have listened only to the parts about Trump that they like. They don't even consider the possibility that Trump is canny enough to sell them a bill of goods.
I don't think they tend to have much idea about how Trump plays to people who make it a point to read and see other information that is put out about Trump. Rather, they have made up their minds on a few important points and then sealed off further consideration based on a notion that I believe is plain bonkers: That Cruz is ineligible.
It is scary that their Birther reasoning has so easily waylaid them by vapid logic and uninformed nonsense. Between Progs and Birthers, it's an open question regarding which is most easily waylaid by nonsensical "reasoning." Maybe a psi interview with the spirit of Issac Azimov could shed light on the psychohistory of it?
**********************
I watched the Reagan-Mondale debate. O'Reilly says Roger Ailes gave Reagan his gotcha line. To his dismay, Mondale had "misunderestimated" Reagan. I instantly knew Mondale had taken a direct hit by a high powered shot. I'm not sure if Mondale immediately appreciated how hard he had been hit.
However, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984#General_election:
"If TV can tell the truth, as you say it can, you'll see that I was smiling. But I think if you come in close, you'll see some tears coming down because I knew he had gotten me there. That was really the end of my campaign that night, I think. [I told my wife] the campaign was over, and it was."
Notice that Reagan debated Mondale at a time when Reagan was the incumbent President. He did not play safe or stall. (I wonder how many contests have been lost because the leader tried to stall out a victory? Even if Trump gets 1237, does he really improve his chances if the price he pays, for playing only name-calling games that are safe for his base, is loss of mainstream support?)
Politics is not bean bag. I would agree that our electorate is less meritorious now than ever. However, if we are to have a representative republic, we have to set up a system and have faith in it. Otherwise, we are simply surrendering to a different variation on elitism.
Your concern would be mitigated by requiring several one-on-one debates. We ought not unnecessarily choose someone who is afraid to get into the arena. I would rather that Hillary be confronted by the best candidate between Trump and Cruz than that she be tossed a weak and untested challenger.
************************
Given how much free coverage Trump has gotten, one may legitimately consider this: Among Trump's most ardent supporters, how many have gotten that way on account of careful weighing of factors as opposed to emotional stirring of pots? Have they been made more rabid by reasoning or more irrational by emotion?
Unless Trump consents to a one on one debate against Cruz, how can we guess how he will do when a majority of votes is required instead of a mere plurality? If Cruz is such damaged goods, why fear a one-on-one debate? If Trump cannot dispose of Cruz in a one-on-one contest, how will he dispose of Hillary (who will be backed by monstrous media and frothy volleys of Dem trained zombies)?
Will Trump be able to convert more of those who view Hillary negatively than Hillary will be able to convert of those who view Trump negatively?
To weigh that determination, would a sensible, empirical-minded person want a one-on-one test, or would he be content to guess while a number of unaccounted for free variables pollute his test? Well, if he's looking for an exciting and emotional bet, he would prefer that his bet not first be vetted. He would want a free for all melee. Not a series of vetting, one-on-one contests. Maybe Trump should choose Vince McMahon as running mate while Hillary chooses Don King.
*****************
If we prefer a free-enterprise model over the crony-commie model, then we need to find ways to stop over-representing the populous blue states. When we locate the central capital in the East and give two senators and two extra delegates to each tiny state, then we give the crony-commie model the leverage it needs to keep piling up its ghetto populations, all the while whining that it is "under-represented."
What do we want to pursue in "fairness"? The establishment of a free-enterprise model, or the establishment of a crony-commie NWO model?
As far as contributions to the general welfare, I would not confine my view behind green eye shades. I would also consider which part of the country provides the men and materials that actually soldier and defend the nation so that the fiat money managers can play their people-farming games.
I have seen general charts that show that Red States tend to get proportionally more in central gov redistributions. But I suspect Red States also provide most of the military manpower and bases. What are they getting in return for the sacrifices of their vets? Whines about BLM and claims by crony corporatists to rights to deal away the resources of their States. How much land in the Western States does the central apparatus keep its grip on, so it can reserve that Fed land for financial favors for its game of corrupt kickbacks? Who benefits most from the DC apparatus of control over Western lands: DC cronies or ordinary Westerners?
The proof is in the results. Every institution throughout the nation has been polluted with the moral corruption and insanity of the Eastern Crony-Commie model. To say the philosophies and wannas of Blue Staters has not been adequately fulfilled is plain nuts.
*********************
I do not know that you are wrong. I do know that I wouid feel less like I was being asked to buy a pig in a poke if I had a chance to appraise Trump and Cruz one-on-one.
Part of the reason Trump looks so good to his base is because they have been so worn down by the evil that has covered the land for so long that they have listened only to the parts about Trump that they like. They don't even consider the possibility that Trump is canny enough to sell them a bill of goods.
I don't think they tend to have much idea about how Trump plays to people who make it a point to read and see other information that is put out about Trump. Rather, they have made up their minds on a few important points and then sealed off further consideration based on a notion that I believe is plain bonkers: That Cruz is ineligible.
It is scary that their Birther reasoning has so easily waylaid them by vapid logic and uninformed nonsense. Between Progs and Birthers, it's an open question regarding which is most easily waylaid by nonsensical "reasoning." Maybe a psi interview with the spirit of Issac Azimov could shed light on the psychohistory of it?
*****************
I wouid feel less like I was being asked to buy a pig in a poke if I had a chance to appraise Trump and Cruz one-on-one.
Part of the reason Trump looks so good to his base is because they have been so worn down by the evil that has covered the land for so long that they have listened only to the parts about Trump that they like. They don't even consider the possibility that Trump is canny enough to sell them a bill of goods.
I don't think they tend to have much idea about how Trump plays to people who make it a point to read and see other information that is put out about Trump. Rather, they have made up their minds on a few important points and then sealed off further consideration based on a notion that I believe is plain bonkers: That Cruz is ineligible.
It is scary that their Birther reasoning has so easily waylaid them by vapid logic and uninformed nonsense. Between Progs and Birthers, it's an open question regarding which is most easily waylaid by nonsensical "reasoning." Maybe a psi interview with the spirit of Issac Azimov could shed light on the psychohistory of it?
**********************
I watched the Reagan-Mondale debate. O'Reilly says Roger Ailes gave Reagan his gotcha line. To his dismay, Mondale had "misunderestimated" Reagan. I instantly knew Mondale had taken a direct hit by a high powered shot. I'm not sure if Mondale immediately appreciated how hard he had been hit.
However, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984#General_election:
"If TV can tell the truth, as you say it can, you'll see that I was smiling. But I think if you come in close, you'll see some tears coming down because I knew he had gotten me there. That was really the end of my campaign that night, I think. [I told my wife] the campaign was over, and it was."
Notice that Reagan debated Mondale at a time when Reagan was the incumbent President. He did not play safe or stall. (I wonder how many contests have been lost because the leader tried to stall out a victory? Even if Trump gets 1237, does he really improve his chances if the price he pays, for playing only name-calling games that are safe for his base, is loss of mainstream support?)
Politics is not bean bag. I would agree that our electorate is less meritorious now than ever. However, if we are to have a representative republic, we have to set up a system and have faith in it. Otherwise, we are simply surrendering to a different variation on elitism.
Your concern would be mitigated by requiring several one-on-one debates. We ought not unnecessarily choose someone who is afraid to get into the arena. I would rather that Hillary be confronted by the best candidate between Trump and Cruz than that she be tossed a weak and untested challenger.
************************
Given how much free coverage Trump has gotten, one may legitimately consider this: Among Trump's most ardent supporters, how many have gotten that way on account of careful weighing of factors as opposed to emotional stirring of pots? Have they been made more rabid by reasoning or more irrational by emotion?
Unless Trump consents to a one on one debate against Cruz, how can we guess how he will do when a majority of votes is required instead of a mere plurality? If Cruz is such damaged goods, why fear a one-on-one debate? If Trump cannot dispose of Cruz in a one-on-one contest, how will he dispose of Hillary (who will be backed by monstrous media and frothy volleys of Dem trained zombies)?
Will Trump be able to convert more of those who view Hillary negatively than Hillary will be able to convert of those who view Trump negatively?
To weigh that determination, would a sensible, empirical-minded person want a one-on-one test, or would he be content to guess while a number of unaccounted for free variables pollute his test? Well, if he's looking for an exciting and emotional bet, he would prefer that his bet not first be vetted. He would want a free for all melee. Not a series of vetting, one-on-one contests. Maybe Trump should choose Vince McMahon as running mate while Hillary chooses Don King.
*****************
2 comments:
The establishment is being forced to take sides between Trump and Cruz. At least temporarily. But "the establishment" does not seem to be monolithic. I have not been able to discern which side most of the establishment has gone to.
Trump seems to get a lot of free coverage. Add Giuliani and Dole, among others. Hannity seems to favor Trump. O'Reilly plays patty-cake with Trump. While the establishment is flirting with both of them, it is entertained as each of them accuses the other of being most in bed with the establishment.
It's almost as if chains were being pulled to keep each of them off balance until both of them can be denied and replaced. I don't think top level establishmentarians fear or even dislike Hillary. So they don't have to front Kasich. All they need do is to keep enticing and exciting hate between supporters of Trump and Cruz.
As much as Trump and Cruz profess to dislike the establishment, they are both either playing into its hands or else one or both of them is really an establishment shill. Will the real anti-establishmentarian please stand up?
If both Trump and Cruz are truly anti-establishmentarians, then they need a go-between to negotiate a peace. Unless, that is, Trump believes he can get to 1237 without having alienated so many people that he will not be electable. Personally, I think time is drawing nigh, people are hardening in their alienation, and there is real danger that the establishment will manage a coup. And I am not entirely sure that is not what Trump and/or Cruz want. We thought they were both champions of anti-establishmentarians. That was what they told us. But were either of them, really? If so, show it. Show it by stopping the insanity that alienates.
The crony-commie axis has its boot on every throat and every institution. Congress has found it profitable to prostitute itself to this axis. So also has the professoriate. They figure, if they can't beat them, then enjoy the ride and sell out to them. This is how we get the float de la float instead of the creme de la creme. I doubt many people who retain capacity to think believe Congress or the professoriate. What they see is the path to gratification, which they presume they cannot change anyway. So they all follow the choom gang piper.
Regarding Elitism: Prog masochists want to be subjugated by their sadist leaders. And they get vicarious affirmation by helping their sadist leaders subjugate everyone else. The gangsterism of axis of masochists and sadists is commonplace.
We see it in commies calling for flash mobs and voter abuse and intimidation. In knowitall socialistic Presidents deigning to instruct other nations on what path to take "if they know what's good for them." In "elites" making common cause with imported socialists, reconquistas, and jihadis. In scum governors recruiting votes by enabling felons. In race baiters calling for "space to destroy" and to feel safe for SJWs.
All that is needed for the world to be subjugated to the axis of masochists-sadists and narcissists-sociopaths is for good people to buy the lies of professoriates of goosestepping feminazis and femimen.
Post a Comment