re: The Anti Populist Crowd

quote:

---

your beliefs aren't in line with the political party you claim to support.

---

frick your vote buying schemes.

Donny is too expensive for me.

I havent changed a bit. You people did. Y'all used to pretend to support Ron Paul, et al.

quote:

---

Make e-verify a real thing in employment.

Fine businesses that skirt the law on hiring illegals.

Stop paying NGOs to make a profit taking care of illegals.

Revoke EMTALA.

Presto. Problem solve

---

Yep, if we cant pay them welfare and they cant get real jobs, there is no reason to be here.

quote:

---

Frick Trump!

Trump's not the end all be all of the America First movement. Long after Trump's gone America First will continue on. For some reason y'all can't figure it out yet

---

Because "America First" treats Trump like he's the end all/be all.

We'll see if America First persists after Trump is gone but based on actions of AFers so far, I wouldn't bet my house on it. Or lunch. Or a stick of gum.

quote:

---

Trump's a disposable tool in the battle against the D.C. Uniparty Globalist system.

---

Trump is a big government/establishment Republican. Why would a movement that's not all about Trump choose him as a tool to "battle" against the establishment?

quote:

---

The Anti Populist Crowd

---

You mean pot head Libertarians?

quote:

---

So, to be clear, it’s your opinion that there was not fraud and or illegal votes in 2020, it was legitimate at the state level?

---

Where were the illegal votes?

...and don't fricking say Wisconsin, Barry.

quote:

---

quote:Trump's a disposable tool in the battle against the D.C. Uniparty Globalist system.

Trump is a big government/establishment Republican. Why would a movement that's not all about Trump choose him as a tool to "battle" against the establishment?

---

Because no other American has placed themselves in the crosshairs of the D.C. Political establishment like Trump.....no one, and survived.

As a follow up to what Roger claims to support:

As I said, Roger is a "conservative" that claims the USA was NEVER conservative but socialist because of spending and taxes and tariffs.

He loves FDR for "free Trade". etc. But the chart shows what his brand of "conservatism" got the USA:

quote:

---

The matter was debated. It was decided that states would make the determination. In certain states, women, blacks, and non-landowners were allowed to vote.

---

It's a fair point that the limitations were left up to the states, but the point I'm making is that THEY ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE LIMITS. I'm not advocating that we go back to white male landowners (which was the majority even if there were exceptions). Given the current political climate I don't think there's a way to significantly limit who gets to vote at all...that ship has sailed. All I am saying is that I don't believe this system was designed to be a very democratic system. I think it was designed to be a tentatively democratic system with a pretty good safeguard against too much mob rule. I think what y'all would call "elitists" won out in the debate back then and what I call "populists" lost.

Remember, back then they expected the states to control/decide most things. So by sending that responsibility to the states they were being consistent with their concept of federalism in concentrating the power for most important things at the state level.

Also remember that their concept of the electoral college was not what we think of it today. Their concept of delegates was that they would be much more independent minded. They weren't advocating that delegates be just rubber stampers who did "the will of the people." Their concept of delegates was that you were really electing someone to decide who the president should be, not that you were sending someone to cast the majority vote for you. Yes, they leaned toward one candidate or the other, but if they changed their mind at some point in the process they were free (and they still are, but it rarely happens) to change their vote to match their judgement.

Also, sure there was disagreement about how to structure things. There was disagreement and debate about everything the FFs did. My concept is that it makes the most.sense to favor the side that won out in the debates when discussing what the framers intended rather than the side or sides that lost.

quote:

---

I don't hate traditional conservatives. Here are my concerns.

They are far to into constant war. They are blind to the influence of the military industrial complex.

They have no concern over government/ corporate collusion and how it is used to undermine our freedoms.

They don't understand the difference between free enterprise and monopoly.

They have no conception of fair trade.

They care not about the loss of our industrial base.

They don't care if American Corporations are no longer American in any sense of the word.

They profit from illegal immigration and use it to suppress wages.

They profit from inflation.

They talk about deficits but then back establishment politicians that enable it.

They won't acknowledge that most corporations are Woke and have joined the other side.

That's just off the top of my head. They basically don't recognize the deep state, corporatocracy that we have become.

All the politicians doing anything to fight the attack on our country are either maga or libertarians.

---

I don't have time this morning to address each point individually, but I will hit a few high points.

I think a lot of Wackaists (since the term "populist" has been deemed too mysterious to utter) hold many of the opinions that you articulated above because of the binary thinking that either attracts certain people to the philosophy in the first place or somehow facilitates once they embrace it.

What I see Wackaists doing is concluding, "Someone made money on that military intervention. Therefore, it was unnecessary and a con job."

That's not what that means. Every time someone makes money it does NOT mean that whatever we're talking about was a put up job that ONLY served the purpose of making money.

Just like if you need an operation. The hospital is GOING to make a bunch of money on it. They are GOING to charge $100 for an aspirin, etc. That obviously doesn't mean you didn't need the operation.

Now, could it have been fraud? Could it have been unnecessary? Sure, but that's not proven just by the fact that someone grifted on it.

Same with military interventions. Huckster Carlson has y'all believing anytime someone profits on military intervention, that means it's not necessary.

It's pretty common sense that international Bad Actors will press forward to the limit of what they think they can get away with. If the limit is our state borders, eventually, that's where we will find them. It's as dumb as waiting until a cancer becomes Stage 4 before doing something about it. It's a whole lot easier to remove a breast lump when it is just a Stage 0 mass than once it has metastasized into the lymph nodes, and no idiot alive would wait until then just to keep a doctor or hospital from profiting off of treatment at an earlier stage. Refusing to acknowledge the danger of international Bad Actors unless someone is actually attacking Texas is doing just that.

As for most of the rest of your list, as I have said before, my rebuttal is that Wackaists do not deal in principle. You guys fail to perceive or extract the underlying principle behind what it is you want to do. You just don't like that Facebook censors certain speech, so you call it a monopoly to try to justify government intervention/control of a private company without thinking through what precedent you set by doing something like that.

Conservatives don't think about things in terms of whether American corporations are still "American." We think about those questions in terms of things like Private Property Rights, Freedom of Association, and Free Trade. We think in terms of the underlying principles. You guys do not.

For example, so what if most corporations have become woke? If they are private companies, that's their prerogative. Conservatives absolutely support government not enforcing that sort of thing, but here's the difference...we would also support it if most corporations had become conservative, or MAGA, or something else. You guys wouldn't. If the government wanted to intervene by enforcing a set of values that you agreed with, you'd be just fine with it. We wouldn't be.

More to say, but no more time to say it just now.

quote:

---

As I said, Roger is a "conservative" that claims the USA was NEVER conservative but socialist because of spending and taxes and tariffs.

---

Youre such a simpleton.


I said nothing of the sort, you folks just have serious cognition issues.