MLB

[OUBubba]

Voter fraud is a joke. The perpetuation of such crap is latent racism and elitism. YARN Story: I love a little macho male bonding. | e503e1dd-115d-4e19-b3fa-d69cf5bd17ea

 

[Monahorns]

Those tweets don't show good critical thinking skills. No where in the article does KDW support his thoughts because Rs and Ds. Ted Lieu thinks anything outside of his preconceived notions is insane. To him t's too much to think deeply and originally about a subject. KDW might be wrong. But these goofballs clutching their pearls just proves their own shallowness.

 

[theiioftx]

Ted Lieu is an idiot on par with SJL.

 

[OUBubba]

Those tweets don't show good critical thinking skills. No where in the article does KDW support his thoughts because Rs and Ds. Ted Lieu thinks anything outside of his preconceived notions is insane. To him t's too much to think deeply and originally about a subject. KDW might be wrong. But these goofballs clutching their pearls just proves their own shallowness.

Shallow people thinking that everyone in a democracy should vote. Jeez!

 

[OUBubba]

Ted Lieu is an idiot on par with SJL.

I'm not a huge Ted fan. Dr. Grayson, that's different. She's who I was trying to copy. Old man and a mouse. What are you gonna do?

 

[theiioftx]

What about letting first graders vote? They are people and they know what they want. Democrats could pander to them with free candy and paid time at the playground.

I think anyone eligible to serve in the military should be allowed to vote. However, they need to show up in person to vote with an ID. If unable, develop a system to accurately document they are voting in a secure manner. Ballot harvesting or mailing ballots to everyone is pure fraud.

 

[OUBubba]

What about letting first graders vote? They are people and they know what they want. Democrats could pander to them with free candy and paid time at the playground.

I think anyone eligible to serve in the military should be allowed to vote. However, they need to show up in person to vote with an ID. If unable, develop a system to accurately document they are voting in a secure manner. Ballot harvesting or mailing ballots to everyone is pure fraud.

You're being silly.

Except that a few states (Colorado, Oregon, etc.) do it with zero issues of fraud. I'm good with voter ID as I've stated on this website NUMEROUS times.

 

[theiioftx]

I am, but I do not think it is important for EVERYONE to vote and I do not think it results in a better form of government. Citizens on both sides are not necessarily who needs to vote. If you do not have the competency to fill out a ballot, know simple issues or understand simple economics, I do not care if you vote. It remains your right, but I am not going to be sad if you don't or virtue signal about how it is good for America.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't disagree with you basic criticism. Elitism isn't good either. But would you also agree with KDW that there are "bad" voters? Those who really don't have a clue about what they are doing? If so, should our system take that into account?

Not sure I'm comfortable with any definition of "bad" voters and limiting their ability to vote aside from the exceptions like felony convictions or unregistered voters. Someone that makes a decision based on favorite color is no more invalid than voter that bases their decision on conformity to the latest Mises Institute brief. There is a universe full of reasons people support politicians, some informed some misinformed.

You are factually incorrect on your 3/5s statement. Slaves didn't vote and once they were made free and did vote their votes counted 1 for 1. The 3/5s was about assigning seats in the House of Representatives based on population. Slaves were considered 3/5 in the count. Northerners wanted slaves to count as 0. Southerners wanted slaves to count as 1

My bad...you are correct. Too much multitasking for me. Should focus more on my work meetings.

You keep up that mantra but I have seen reports that are interesting. Of course social media sites are trying to remove the reports from their platforms.

Yes, until any of those "reports" merit worthiness to consider I'll keep them in the "9/11 was an inside job" bucket for consideration. Theories based on incomplete datasets do not merit any claims of stolen election nor the Republican sponsored legislation introduced.

Voter ID isn't anti-libertarian. Voting is anti-libertarian for those who are anarchists. Many don't vote because they don't care. But if there is a voting system then that is under the purview of government and should be made secure. Philosophically i think requiring voter ID is common sense. 1 person 1 vote is fair and can't be verified if there is no voter ID.

Isn't voter registration enough to designate intent? Do we need to put a bunch of rules to demonstrate intent? See why I said your position is anti-libertarian?

There are verification steps in all states, including the vote by mail states. To be sure, this isn't just about VoterID. Forcing people to include a picture of the ID with their mail-in ballot requires a printer or a scanner. Limiting drop boxes to only certain hours in certain locations (Fulton County will drop from 40 drop boxes to 8, and only during business hours) is dumb. Each of these laws are being done clearly to put more barriers to voters getting their vote heard. Will they make the vote more secure? Maybe but at what cost? "Bad" voters don't get to vote? That sounds like conservatives want to rig the election which is why the accusations of voter suppression are being levied...and have validity.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Those tweets don't show good critical thinking skills. No where in the article does KDW support his thoughts because Rs and Ds. Ted Lieu thinks anything outside of his preconceived notions is insane. To him t's too much to think deeply and originally about a subject. KDW might be wrong. But these goofballs clutching their pearls just proves their own shallowness.

To be certain, it wasn't a deep article. The author admits he's advocating for less people voting and it's in his best interest. Of course, he never says WHAT HIS INTERESTS are just that voting restrictions serving his political self interest does not mean it's bad policy.

So, what are his arguments?

1. We are a Representative government. How do those get selected though? Actually, we are a Representative Democracy. He literally glosses over the latter half of our government because including "Democracy", even the word, anywhere in his advocation for Representatives would bet the question "how do the Representatives get selected?" The answer, voting. That's lazy and if it's indicative of the NRO's quality writing then William F. Buckley must surely be rolling over in his grave.

2. "Voting is analgesic". Voting is apparently bad because it gives a voter a misperception that they have more power over their government than they actually do. Evidently any bad politicians are simply the result of the voters. At least, politicians that the author doesn't like. Come on...that's Ted Lieu caliber depth.

Voting is, among other things, an analgesic. It soothes people with the illusion that they have more control over their lives and their public affairs than they actually do. Beyond naked political self-interest, it probably is the sedative effect of voting that makes expanding participation attractive to a certain kind of politician. The sedative effect is why the Philadelphia city council has not been drowned in the Schuylkill River and why the powers that be in California have not been exiled to North Waziristan. When people vote, they feel like they’ve had their say, and they are, for some inexplicable reason, satisfied with that.

3. He admits that more rigorous Voter ID laws will limit voter participation. He's OK with that because those people aren't worthy of having a vote.

The rest is simply elitism defined. Only people over 30 should be able to vote. We should treat voting like becoming a medical doctor. Majority rule is bad. Throw in some a few pet issues for conservatives and progressives that he believes are not supported by the majority and BAM!!! you have a facile argument for limiting voter access.

 

[Monahorns]

Someone that makes a decision based on favorite color is no more invalid than voter that bases their decision on conformity to the latest Mises Institute brief. There is a universe full of reasons people support politicians, some informed some misinformed.

That is a scary comment. I don't think voters should have to pass a ideological test to vote. But voting based on a favorite color? That is barbarous, destructive thinking. You can't claim that and say you want what is best for the US. When buffoons vote your country turns into buffoonery.

Yes, until any of those "reports" merit worthiness to consider I'll keep them in the "9/11 was an inside job" bucket for consideration. Theories based on incomplete datasets do not merit any claims of stolen election nor the Republican sponsored legislation introduced.

Our definitions of worthiness differ. My problem is that the political establishment and mass media don't think any level of evidence is worthy if the candidate is not-Trump. I am not even claiming the election was stolen. But I have seen evidence with my own eyes that any reasonable person would consider worthy of further investigation, but temptation to believe establishment propaganda is too strong.

Isn't voter registration enough to designate intent? Do we need to put a bunch of rules to demonstrate intent? See why I said your position is anti-libertarian?

But by that logic, you are saying there should be no rules regarding voter registration. And also no rules to make sure only the registered voter votes. That's asinine. Libertarianism isn't the cartoon you and others think it is.

There are verification steps in all states, including the vote by mail states. To be sure, this isn't just about VoterID. Forcing people to include a picture of the ID with their mail-in ballot requires a printer or a scanner.

But you already said you don't want a bunch of rules. In order to thread the needle you contradict yourself. You need to go back and rethink your position and don't come back until it is all at least internally consistent.

Limiting drop boxes to only certain hours in certain locations (Fulton County will drop from 40 drop boxes to 8, and only during business hours) is dumb. Each of these laws are being done clearly to put more barriers to voters getting their vote heard.

Now you are treating 2020 like any other old year. There were 40 drop boxes because people were afraid to go vote like normal because of COVID. How many dropboxes were there in 2016? If less than 8 then Georgia is in fact making it easier to vote in a normal year. Also, Georgia doesn't have the strictest requirements so when compared to their peers your conclusion isn't reasonable.

Will they make the vote more secure? Maybe but at what cost? "Bad" voters don't get to vote? That sounds like conservatives want to rig the election which is why the accusations of voter suppression are being levied...and have validity.

Or maybe Democrats are trying to rig the election by making elections insecure. See how that works? Let's use logic and reason and less slander and speculation.

 

[Monahorns]

To be certain, it wasn't a deep article. The author admits he's advocating for less people voting and it's in his best interest. Of course, he never says WHAT HIS INTERESTS are just that voting restrictions serving his political self interest does not mean it's bad policy.

So, what are his arguments?

1. We are a Representative government. How do those get selected though? Actually, we are a Representative Democracy. He literally glosses over the latter half of our government because including "Democracy", even the word, anywhere in his advocation for Representatives would bet the question "how do the Representatives get selected?" The answer, voting. That's lazy and if it's indicative of the NRO's quality writing then William F. Buckley must surely be rolling over in his grave.

2. "Voting is analgesic". Voting is apparently bad because it gives a voter a misperception that they have more power over their government than they actually do. Evidently any bad politicians are simply the result of the voters. At least, politicians that the author doesn't like. Come on...that's Ted Lieu caliber depth.

It is an article about political philosophy, critically thinking about the system we have and where he thinks its weaknesses are and how to improve it. He may be wrong. But this is a deep a thinking article as you will find out there.

1. He mentions voting through the whole thing. That's democracy. Very poor criticism of the article. You criticize him for not writing about something the whole article is about. Are you feeling okay?

2. KDW is correct here. Voting doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things and he explains why that is. He doesn't claim anything you claim about him. He just says that for anyone who votes for the person who loses, for that person the act of voting is merely a way to voice his opinion and get nothing in return. Politics is a zero sum game in this regard. It is wise to remember this aspect of it. It is deep because virtually no one is willing to be honest enough about the situation to write it out publicly. Ted Lieu has maybe 10 thoughts he thinks and any idea outside of them causes him to insult in reflex.

 

[nashhorn]

When buffoons vote your country turns into buffoonery.

Now that’s funny cause it didn’t take buffoons.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That is a scary comment. I don't think voters should have to pass a ideological test to vote. But voting based on a favorite color? That is barbarous, destructive thinking. You can't claim that and say you want what is best for the US. When buffoons vote your country turns into buffoonery.

It was a point to say that voting is personal. It could be a personal interaction with the politician. Maybe you saw them treat their dog poorly from across the street? Maybe you vote based only on their public statement in the voter's pamphlet. Maybe their experience is the #1 factor. For everyone there is a different point of emphasis on what is important. To assume reading Mises Institute makes you a "good" voter and someone else's personal reasons makes them a "bad" voter is elitist. It's what KDW was advocating for and what many here often accuse liberals of.

Our definitions of worthiness differ. My problem is that the political establishment and mass media don't think any level of evidence is worthy if the candidate is not-Trump. I am not even claiming the election was stolen. But I have seen evidence with my own eyes that any reasonable person would consider worthy of further investigation, but temptation to believe establishment propaganda is too strong.

I truly appreciate the evidence you've posted over these months. It's more than most. No, I don't think some random blogger that claims some statistical revelation without any peer reviewed dataset and claim is anything more than a conspiracy wonk. In most cases you choose to believe it and that's your choice. Could it be because you want to believe there was some malfeasance more than Trump turned OFF more voters than he turned ON?

But by that logic, you are saying there should be no rules regarding voter registration. And also no rules to make sure only the registered voter votes. That's asinine. Libertarianism isn't the cartoon you and others think it is.

No, you said that voters that don't care to vote shouldn't vote. I responded that voter registration demonstrated intent. In every stated there are rules around voter registration. In vote by mail states that is when they confirm you are you say you are with ID. Every vote by mail process I'm aware of has a signature verification process. It has to match what's on the voter registration. GA for example rejected 0.15% of their ballots for a missing or non-matching signature. What you're really saying is that the current barriers to voting are inadequate and we need more. If fewer people vote, that's a good thing for you, KDW and the Republican party.

But you already said you don't want a bunch of rules. In order to thread the needle you contradict yourself. You need to go back and rethink your position and don't come back until it is all at least internally consistent.

The rules I'm pointing at is restrictions putting more steps in place to invalidate votes. Make is harder to get your vote in. In GA, in the past that was a disproportionate number of polling stations in Conservative areas vs. Progressive areas. In 2016 the lines in Atlanta to vote lasted as long as 8 hours in some polling places. 2020 showed that absent barriers like long lines, limited voting hours and other barriers there is LOTS of desire to vote. They may not vote how you want them to but the desire is there.

The most insidious ideas for the GA bill go left on the cutting room floor. Removal of no-excuse mail voting. Still, drop boxes are now available ONLY at polling stations and ONLY during polling hours. The ONLY reported tampering with a drop box occurred in LA where someone attempted to light on on fire. There simply isn't any evidence that tamper proof drop boxes are a risk. I'm so convinced of this through experience. Here are the rates of Drop box usage for voters in WA. Drop boxes should be encouraged over the mail system but then GA doesn't want those voters to get their vote registered. They'd rather trust the USPS which is less reliable.

Now you are treating 2020 like any other old year. There were 40 drop boxes because people were afraid to go vote like normal because of COVID. How many dropboxes were there in 2016? If less than 8 then Georgia is in fact making it easier to vote in a normal year. Also, Georgia doesn't have the strictest requirements so when compared to their peers your conclusion isn't reasonable.

Why not? It was a HUGE vote for voting by mail. You had thousands of Republicans trying to prove fraud in the VBM process and nearly all the fraud they found were from fellow Republicans. The HUGE increase in voters showed that reducing the barriers of standing in line at a polling station makes voting more accessible to voters, you know...the Democracy KDW was referencing.

Or maybe Democrats are trying to rig the election by making elections insecure. See how that works? Let's use logic and reason and less slander and speculation.

There you go again...no evidence but levying the fraud claim. If you claim there is a problem that needs to be regulated then it's easier to justify the legislation. I'll repeat, that's not libertarian but something altogether different. I haven't put my finger on it yet.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It is an article about political philosophy, critically thinking about the system we have and where he thinks its weaknesses are and how to improve it. He may be wrong. But this is a deep a thinking article as you will find out there.

1. He mentions voting through the whole thing. That's democracy. Very poor criticism of the article. You criticize him for not writing about something the whole article is about. Are you feeling okay?

Wait...the same voting he's advocating for limiting through the whole thing? No wonder I missed it. That's anti-Democracy just as more rules/laws are anti-Libertarian. How are you feeling?

2. KDW is correct here. Voting doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things and he explains why that is. He doesn't claim anything you claim about him. He just says that for anyone who votes for the person who loses, for that person the act of voting is merely a way to voice his opinion and get nothing in return. Politics is a zero sum game in this regard. It is wise to remember this aspect of it. It is deep because virtually no one is willing to be honest enough about the situation to write it out publicly. Ted Lieu has maybe 10 thoughts he thinks and any idea outside of them causes him to insult in reflex.

I get it. The only way to justify curtailing voting rights is to diminish their importance. They don't matter...each vote really doesn't have an impact...unless it's a fraudulent vote which means the whole election is illegitimate. Do you see the attempt to talk out of both ends here? Voting is not impactful but Granny commits voter fraud buy voting on behalf of dead Grandpa and all hell breaks loose.

In the end, voting is VERY much for the politicians and those interested in policy. It's why Conservatives would be happiest if only they were allowed to vote and progressives want everyone to vote.

I'm a little hung up on why you think the article is "deep". He admitted that he supports voter suppression for reasons that benefit him. That's deep? Seriously? If elitism = deep then there are a lot of liberals that are owed apologies.

 

[Clean]

Meanwhile, this just in from Crazytown. Olberman suggests MLB boycott should be just the beginning. The Masters should be boycotted too. After all, calling it The Masters can't refer just to golf.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottTheMasters?src=hashtag_click

 

[n64ra]

How about The Past Masters for a new name?

 

[huisache]

I have represented defendants in voter fraud cases. Such fraud is easy to do with mail voting and hard to prove. Which is why there is no evidence of fraud.
Once we get used to widespread indiscriminate use of mail voting the techniques will be honed. Maybe it is because I was raised in south Texas where such shenanigans were a subject of humor but I don’t think a lot of you understand what may happen and why our Republican friends are starting to panic

given the pathetic shape of our political class I don’t get too upset with which pack of monkeys get to the top of the greasy pole or how they get there

 

[Horn6721]

Except you can't deny or refute the good ecomony for nearly everyone under Trump
Not to mention the strides we made getting other countries to pay more
And the strides made at the border

Yea but other than that both parties results are the same

 

[Monahorns]

Wait...the same voting he's advocating for limiting through the whole thing? No wonder I missed it. That's anti-Democracy just as more rules/laws are anti-Libertarian. How are you feeling?

SH, if you don't know many libertarians don't like any government and question the value of voting. They speak out about the dangers of voting for things that can lead to harm of those who are in the minority. It isn't about rules/laws on voting. It is about a system that can be used and is used to harm people while giving people the mirage that they are determining things.

I get it. The only way to justify curtailing voting rights is to diminish their importance. They don't matter...each vote really doesn't have an impact...unless it's a fraudulent vote which means the whole election is illegitimate. Do you see the attempt to talk out of both ends here? Voting is not impactful but Granny commits voter fraud buy voting on behalf of dead Grandpa and all hell breaks loose.

Good points. Let me take a step back. Does it contradict to think that voting in our current system is used to give the illusion of choice or sovereignty while at the same time being concerned that fraud is a problem? I don't think so. Fraud makes each vote even less valuable because it each fraudulent vote nullifies one legitimate vote. I think that is reasonable. If we are going to have the system we have you want two things I think 1) 1 person 1 vote only and 2) get the wisest voting population as possible. I agree we have to be careful about denying voting to people but I hope you can agree that unwise, ignorant people voting doesn't really lead to good outcomes either. That is the conundrum of democracy.

In the end, voting is VERY much for the politicians and those interested in policy. It's why Conservatives would be happiest if only they were allowed to vote and progressives want everyone to vote.

I'm a little hung up on why you think the article is "deep". He admitted that he supports voter suppression for reasons that benefit him. That's deep? Seriously? If elitism = deep then there are a lot of liberals that are owed apologies.

I don't get the logic of your first paragraph. Please explain some more.

The second paragraph I guess we will have to disagree. KDW was writing about foundational ideas about what our political system is based on. That is deep to me. He questions current consensus. He raises difficult questions. It is uncomfortable to even think about them. Your and Bubba's responses show that. If that isn't deep I don't know what is.

 

[iatrogenic]

In a recent Rasmussen poll, a plurality of black voters said they opposed MLB’s decision to move its All-Star Game from Atlanta. A majority, 57 percent, said it was a bad idea for sports teams and athletes to get involved in politics.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I've been very busy lately, so I haven't had much chance to comment on the Williamson article. Is it self-serving? In the short term, probably so. In the long term, I think likely not. Either way, something can be self-serving and still be good policy. For example, I favor people having unfettered access to the courthouse. Is it self-serving? Of course, but I also think it's good policy.

Is it elitist? Maybe, but again, that doesn't make it bad. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. If you read Williamson's work over the years, you know he's not a fan of populism of the Left or the Right. He thinks it's bad regardless of where it's coming from, and inviting every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Hairy Dick to vote no matter his qualifications or intentions leads to populism and often poorly-considered policy and sometimes an abuse of others. I think SH assumes that it will lead to a lot of moderate voters showing up and calming things down, but I don't think that's a very safe assumption.

Consider this quote.

I'm biased. The extremes of both parties are literally tearing us apart at the seems. The only way to drown them out is to engage more people into the process. It starts with voting.

I understand the sentiment. However, I don't know that it's the extremists in terms of ideology as much as it's the rhetorical ****-flingers and the voters who like them. For example, Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC aren't a problem because they're too extreme. You can be a hard nosed conservative (or whatever Greene is) or a socialist and not be a problem. They're a problem, because they say a lot of stupid **** that gets a lot of media attention and worse a lot of very ignorant and poorly-informed people like it and vote for it. People like this make it much harder for the adults in the room (both the officeholders and the public) to reach consensuses on issues.

I also don't share his assumption that more votes addresses the problem. Just consider AOC and Greene. Both had more sensible opponents in their primaries, but high turnout put them over the top. Consider Trump. He won the primary to a great extent by bringing a lot of previously disengaged voters into the process. The result of big turnout was populism, not moderation or consensus building.

Also, look at party nominations in general. Back in the day, party leaders (elites) chose nominees through caucuses and conventions. Now we choose them through primary elections. Did bringing more voters into the process breed moderation or willingness to reach consensus? I don't see much evidence of that. In fact, I think the opposite occurred.

Nevertheless, even if you want to bring more people in, I don't think it starts with voting. I think it starts with opening a book(s) and having individual conversations with people. It takes work and takes time. Turning 18 years old and not being a felon didn't make me qualified as a voter. Reading and listening to others who knew more than I did about issues and about how things get done made me qualified.

There's a reason why the founding fathers didn't want everybody voting. It wasn't just raw racism and sexism. It was a belief that more informed people would make better political judgments. Early Americans may have been wrong about the methods for effectuating that goal (overly broad restrictions based on race, sex, or property ownership), but I don't think they were wrong to have that goal in the general sense.

And let's be honest. Democrats want ease of voting, because they assume it will mean more voters who are deferential to media and pop culture, which obviously benefits them. It's every bit as self-serving. And they actually inject more elitism into the equation, because while they want more people voting, they tend to favor reducing the power of the institutions elected by those people and expanding the power and role of government regulators and of course, the judiciary. So the good news is that it's easier to vote flippantly, but the bad news is that in their preferred system the real decision-making (certainly the veto power) is held by people who are extremely insulated from those voters.

 

[OUBubba]

I've been very busy lately, so I haven't had much chance to comment on the Williamson article. Is it self-serving? In the short term, probably so. In the long term, I think likely not. Either way, something can be self-serving and still be good policy. For example, I favor people having unfettered access to the courthouse. Is it self-serving? Of course, but I also think it's good policy.

Is it elitist? Maybe, but again, that doesn't make it bad. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. If you read Williamson's work over the years, you know he's not a fan of populism of the Left or the Right. He thinks it's bad regardless of where it's coming from, and inviting every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Hairy Dick to vote no matter his qualifications or intentions leads to populism and often poorly-considered policy and sometimes an abuse of others. I think SH assumes that it will lead to a lot of moderate voters showing up and calming things down, but I don't think that's a very safe assumption.

I see the effects of populism I’m eastern Oklahoma. People are running for city council now on the premise that grants are bad and not good for the country. Plus all of the idgets with their trump flags who wouldn’t know what supply side economics was if it fell off their stimmy big screen and landed on their big toe.

 

[bystander]

For everyone there is a different point of emphasis on what is important.

Long ago a Latino candidate ran against Phil Gramm. He was an utter embarrassment in the debates because he didn't have a position or enough information to comment on certain issues. But the Latino vote turned out because they are tribal. We all know this. Voting color is a way of life for the Left unless you are an elitist white feminist who uses them like the pawns they are (and believe me, they wouldn't have them in their neighborhood at all except as maids and yard men) in exchange for scraps taken from other white people who have been demonized (white privilege campaign).

 

[Mr. Deez]

I see the effects of populism I’m eastern Oklahoma. People are running for city council now on the premise that grants are bad and not good for the country. Plus all of the idgets with their trump flags who wouldn’t know what supply side economics was if it fell off their stimmy big screen and landed on their big toe.

The impact of Trumpism on local government is a major problem especially in rural areas. I have friends in Mineral Wells, Texas, where Trumpy dumbasses are basically trying to destroy growth in the area and know nothing of local issues. They run on dumb cultural crap and don't know that their main job is stuff like repairing potholes.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

But the "dumb cultural crap" is why the leftists completely control:

the media
the entertainment industry
all schools
the legal system
the entire tech industry
most big companies anymore

The right gave up on maintenance of the culture of America, and as is said, politics is downstream of culture.

Letting the left control the culture of the country, while the right makes the trains run on time and having nice roads is a recipe for one party rule.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

The impact of Trumpism on local government is a major problem especially in rural areas. I have friends in Mineral Wells, Texas, where Trumpy dumbasses are basically trying to destroy growth in the area and know nothing of local issues. They run on dumb cultural crap and don't know that their main job is stuff like repairing potholes.

I wouldn't blame that on Trump as much as that is basically every small town in America. They all try to stop growth to keep the town "small" and in the end it really hurts the city.

For example it happened to Hutto. The city council literally voted to stop HEB from coming in because it "would cause too much growth in the city". Well guess what, they grew anyway then they begged HEB to come in because there's no where to buy groceries. After that they were begging for any big corporations to come in to increase the corporate tax base which is why Home Depot and Lowes were the only big businesses there for about 7-8 years. It's happening where I live in Taylor right now. It has nothing to do with Trump.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But the "dumb cultural crap" is why the leftists completely control:

the media
the entertainment industry
all schools
the legal system
the entire tech industry
most big companies anymore

I'm not per se against running on cultural issues, but if you want to focus on cultural issues, run for an office to which cultural issues are relevant. For example, if you're running for Congress, President, state legislature, etc., do I care what your view on abortion is? Yes. Do I care what your view on abortion is if you're running for Constable? No. In fact, if you run for Constable on cultural issues, I'm going to see it as a diversion to cover up the likelihood that you don't actually know what the office does or to distract from unpopular positions you have on issues that are relevant to being a Constable.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wouldn't blame that on Trump as much as that is basically every small town in America. They all try to stop growth to keep the town "small" and in the end it really hurts the city.

For example it happened to Hutto. The city council literally voted to stop HEB from coming in because it "would cause too much growth in the city". Well guess what, they grew anyway then they begged HEB to come in because there's no where to buy groceries. After that they were begging for any big corporations to come in to increase the corporate tax base which is why Home Depot and Lowes were the only big businesses there for about 7-8 years. It's happening where I live in Taylor right now. It has nothing to do with Trump.

I don't blame Trump. I blame the idiots who run on a "Trumpy" cultural platform when the office they seek has nothing to do with that.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

I realize that, probably agree with it. But it seems to work for leftists, who run for mayor and CC in big cities on a bunch of cultural issues, and win with it. The town turns into a dump (look at Austin), but it doesn't impact their re-election, and doesn't hurt the party on a national basis.

Fact is, the Democrat party is far more successful than the Republican party is. Maybe it's time to see what's worked out for them, and copy some of those behaviors, even when at first pass, they don't seem to be relevant or useful.