Are We the Stupidest Generation?

[AFTiger 282]

Are we the Stupidest Generation?
By Peter J. Kennedy

Seventy-five years ago yesterday, our greatest generation stormed the beaches of Normandy to pound the fetid bile out of socialism.

The Stupidest Generation has been honoring that sacrifice with a politically, historically, and philosophically lazy narcissism.  Conspicuous consumption became the surrogate for liberty and personal responsibility.  We've shown our respect by allowing our constitutional republic to slip perilously close to the rocky cliffs of socialism.

Yes, that socialism.

Time Magazine acknowledged Hitler's magnificent socialist achievements by honoring him as its 1938 Man of the Year.  His more Hegelian approach had him blending a state-controlled capitalism with tyrannical dictatorship.  Hitler never did like the dull, gray masses produced by Lenin's more Marxist rendition.  He did, however, like Lenin's death camps and stole the idea. 

It amazes me that almost none of our best voices points out the very real danger — at least not with any frequency or clarity.  We're so focused on getting justice for the crimes committed by the Deep State that we've lost sight of the gigantic socialist apparatus that ties all of this together.  From Clinton, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Baker to Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Ohr, Preistap, Yates, Rice, and Lynch (and far beyond), this has been a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the will of the people. 

But why?

Dictatorship. 

Socialists have murdered well more than 100,000,000 innocent folks in the past 102 years, often in ghastly ways.  This same form of socialism is alive and well in American politics.  It is lying below the surface — and all they allow us to see are its brightly colored deceits. 

Mayor Pete and his daddy love the socialist Antonio Gramsci, who said, "Socialism is precisely the religion which must overwhelm Christianity[.] ... In the new order, socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."

They could not beat us from without, but they are quietly succeeding from within.  We are one fraudulent major Democrat election win away from having real justice slip away.  Hannity likes to say "we'll lose the country as we know it" — but what does that even mean? 

The reality is that we are in grave danger.  For the socialist left, power makes principles, morality, ethics, the law, and even our constitution irrelevant.  When they get that power back, folks are going to pay.

Consider that there are at least two major factors in play here: they lust for absolute power, and they wish to bury very real felonies...forever.

Socialism is a horrific political cancer — and we have it.  The symptoms are appearing everywhere, but we carry on as if the body politic might just be suffering a bit of a cold.   If we don't wake up soon, surely history will look back and deem us "The Stupidest Generation."

 

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/are_we_the_stupidest_generation.html#ixzz5qBJlDpF5 

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[AU64 10,122]

14 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Are we the Stupidest Generation?
By Peter J. Kennedy

Seventy-five years ago yesterday, our greatest generation stormed the beaches of Normandy to pound the fetid bile out of socialism.

The Stupidest Generation has been honoring that sacrifice with a politically, historically, and philosophically lazy narcissism.  Conspicuous consumption became the surrogate for liberty and personal responsibility.  We've shown our respect by allowing our constitutional republic to slip perilously close to the rocky cliffs of socialism.

Yes, that socialism.

Time Magazine acknowledged Hitler's magnificent socialist achievements by honoring him as its 1938 Man of the Year.  His more Hegelian approach had him blending a state-controlled capitalism with tyrannical dictatorship.  Hitler never did like the dull, gray masses produced by Lenin's more Marxist rendition.  He did, however, like Lenin's death camps and stole the idea. 

It amazes me that almost none of our best voices points out the very real danger — at least not with any frequency or clarity.  We're so focused on getting justice for the crimes committed by the Deep State that we've lost sight of the gigantic socialist apparatus that ties all of this together.  From Clinton, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, and Baker to Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Ohr, Preistap, Yates, Rice, and Lynch (and far beyond), this has been a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the will of the people. 

But why?

Dictatorship. 

Socialists have murdered well more than 100,000,000 innocent folks in the past 102 years, often in ghastly ways.  This same form of socialism is alive and well in American politics.  It is lying below the surface — and all they allow us to see are its brightly colored deceits. 

Mayor Pete and his daddy love the socialist Antonio Gramsci, who said, "Socialism is precisely the religion which must overwhelm Christianity[.] ... In the new order, socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."

They could not beat us from without, but they are quietly succeeding from within.  We are one fraudulent major Democrat election win away from having real justice slip away.  Hannity likes to say "we'll lose the country as we know it" — but what does that even mean? 

The reality is that we are in grave danger.  For the socialist left, power makes principles, morality, ethics, the law, and even our constitution irrelevant.  When they get that power back, folks are going to pay.

Consider that there are at least two major factors in play here: they lust for absolute power, and they wish to bury very real felonies...forever.

Socialism is a horrific political cancer — and we have it.  The symptoms are appearing everywhere, but we carry on as if the body politic might just be suffering a bit of a cold.   If we don't wake up soon, surely history will look back and deem us "The Stupidest Generation."

 

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/are_we_the_stupidest_generation.html#ixzz5qBJlDpF5

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Surprised you had to ask the question though maybe it's just a rhetorical question.....I mean....just check the everyday leftist/progressive posters on this site and you get a snapshot that should confirm the point.  

[DKW 86 7,419]

Every Socialist Govt mentioned in the article, came to power in a vacuum. Literally with little to no opposition. Today, thanks to a healthy debate, we could not make the mad power rush that happened in the evil examples. 

We do have a overly powerful Elite in this country. Empowering the people thru Socialist acts would level the playing field and just be the just, right, and HUMAN thing to do. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Every Socialist Govt mentioned in the article, came to power in a vacuum. Literally with little to no opposition. Today, thanks to a healthy debate, we could not make the mad power rush that happened in the evil examples. 

We do have a overly powerful Elite in this country. Empowering the people thru Socialist acts would level the playing field and just be the just, right, and HUMAN thing to do. 

Agreed. One thing the elite have been brilliant at is turning people against what’s good for them. I’m not saying that we should have a full blown soviet communism, but Socialized medicine and education would be incredible for the people if it was done the right way. 

[AU64 10,122]

55 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Socialized medicine and education would be incredible for the people if it was done the right way. 

People been trying to do it the right way for 100 years and still some people can't figure out that there is no "right way".    The basic concept just is not economically practical on a large scale.  

[PUB78 1,358]

This country is getting closer to Nazism than most realize due to the Democrats.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Agreed. One thing the elite have been brilliant at is turning people against what’s good for them. I’m not saying that we should have a full blown soviet communism, but Socialized medicine and education would be incredible for the people if it was done the right way. 

Try telling that to all the kids who had to suffer through Michelle Obama school lunches 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Every Socialist Govt mentioned in the article, came to power in a vacuum. Literally with little to no opposition. Today, thanks to a healthy debate, we could not make the mad power rush that happened in the evil examples. 

We do have a overly powerful Elite in this country. Empowering the people thru Socialist acts would level the playing field and just be the just, right, and HUMAN thing to do. 

You think the “Elite” have too much power under our current system, and “empowering the people thru Socialist acts” is the way to fix that? 

Tell me I utterly misunderstood your post, please. Literally, say it.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You think the “Elite” have too much power under our current system, and “empowering the people thru Socialist acts” is the way to fix that? 

Tell me I utterly misunderstood your post, please. Literally, say it.

Nope. I get where you are coming from  but Democratic Socialists would not be coming to power in a vacuum as in past history. look at Denmark, Norway, etc. No deaths, no tyrants. It can happen here too.

[AFTiger 282]

Socialism ignores human nature. 

Quote

Andy Puzder: Our booming economy can still overcome progressive misinformation, propaganda and myth
 

Gallup found that nearly one in four Americans associate socialism with “social equality” while only 17 percent associate it government control of the economy. This misperception is largely the result of an education system controlled by teachers’ unions – read that as progressive/socialists – and a media complex that feeds us leftist ideology as either entertainment or news. At its core, this notion of “social equality” is part of the often disproven myth that socialism is a “benevolent” economic system necessary to protect the oppressed masses from capitalist “greed."  Myth, in this context, being a polite word for a lie. In reality, it is capitalism that encourages concern for the needs of others while socialism inevitably encourages greed.

2020 Democratic presidential candidates argue surging US economy is not benefiting all AmericansVideo
In fact, in a capitalist economy, the only way you can improve your life is by satisfying the needs of others. That is by providing the products or services that other people want at a price they can afford. To be a successful capitalist, you have to shift your focus outward, to the needs and wants of others – your consumers. The only way to succeed is by knowing what your customers want and offering it to them at an affordable price. 

Capitalism empowers consumers as businesses compete for their support – their vote. In a form of economic democracy, consumers vote with every dollar they spend, determining which businesses succeed and which fail.  Henry Ford built cars for commoners, not the nobility. Steve Jobs created iPhones for all of us, not government elites. This is because the success of each business is determined by how well that business meets the needs of the masses – consumers.  

Think about the thousands of products in your local grocery store, shopping mall, or on Amazon, all vying for your attention. Each of these products represents an entrepreneur striving to meet your needs as the way to achieve their success. That may not be purely altruistic conduct – since capitalism depends on the natural desire of people to better their lives – but it channels that natural desire into focusing on the needs of others. With everyone focused on meeting the needs of others, the result is inevitably prosperity and abundance. That’s the benevolence of capitalism. 

In a socialist economy, rather than focusing on the needs of others, you improve your life by focusing on your own needs. You succeed by getting more for yourself than others get from the limited supply of goods, services, or benefits government elites make available.

People in socialist nations standing in the inevitable bread line or in line for gas or government rationed health care, aren’t thinking about the needs or preferences of others. They’re trying to figure how to get as much as they can for themselves from a limited supply of goods or services, for example, bread. No one standing in a bread line is thinking about how to satisfy the needs of those in front of or behind them. They are thinking solely of their own needs.  Sounds like greed or maybe just a survival instinct. 

How do you improve your life in a socialist economy? Whether you get more for yourself depends on how well you please the political elites rather than the masses. The focus is no longer on the consumers who control capitalist economies. In socialist economies, consumers desires are at best secondary and often irrelevant to the decisions of the political elites who control the economy. As a result, you improve your life not by meeting the needs of the masses but rather by meeting the needs of or becoming one of the government elites. 

People who make themselves useful to the powerful get special privileges, and since socialist systems produce so little wealth, the number of people with those special privileges is quite small. Everyone else waits in the inevitable bread – or gas or health care, etc. – line. 

Not surprisingly, under socialism, where economic power and the path for improving your life lies with government, the result is a well-fed government elite and masses who suffer from poverty and want. That’s the benevolence of socialism.

The good news is that, when the polling questions substitute the phrase “free markets” for capitalism and “government” for socialism, the advantage created by leftist propaganda and misinformation dissipates and most Americans get it. According to the Gallup poll, Americans prefer free markets – capitalism – over government – socialism – when it comes to the distribution of wealth (68 percent), the economy overall (62 percent), wages (62 percent) higher education (56 percent) and even health care (53 percent). With respect to technological innovation, 75 percent of Americans favor free markets over government. 

Given the overwhelming influence of the left on education, entertainment and news coverage, these results are encouraging – and a little surprising. Apparently, economic reality can overcome leftist misinformation, propaganda and myth.

 

[AFTiger 282]

The Nordic countries have discovered that Socialism is too expensive to maintain.

Quote

Denmark: Not As Socialist (Nor As Successful) As You Think

The lessons to draw from the Danish model are clear, even if they're not the ones Bernie Sanders would like us to draw. The Danes benefited from low taxes in order to get rich, and they remain fairly well-off thanks to a light regulatory touch, but their extensive welfare state is not the great success it's cracked up to be.

Bernie Sanders would like the United States to model itself after Denmark. Not the real Denmark, mind you, but a romanticized version of what its government does, and of how well it does it.

As Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen himself put it, in reaction to this fictionalized vision of his country: "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Admittedly, it is a market economy with high taxes and an extensive welfare state. But it wasn't always so--and it might not stay that way for very much longer.

First, a bit of history. Denmark did not become wealthy through redistribution alone, obviously. In fact, as Otto Brøns-Petersen of Denmark's Center for Political Studies recently explained, it got rich under a taxation and spending regime not that different from that of the big bad United States. Danish tax levels only took off starting in the mid-1960s--and the country's process of catching up to US wealth levels soon after came to a halt. In other words, Denmark became rich first, and only then ratcheted up its tax rates.

Next, some perspective. Denmark still qualifies as a market economy today despite its high taxes and large welfare state for a number of important reasons. As Brøns-Petersen points out, property rights are well-protected, the currency is sound, international trade is relatively free, and the regulation of business, labour, and credit is light. There are few restrictions on hiring and firing, there's no legislated minimum wage, and taxpayers are not called upon to bail out their banks.

For these kinds of reasons, Denmark scores quite well when it comes to overall economic freedom: 22nd on the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World report, and 11th on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. It ranks even higher on the World Bank's "Doing Business" list, coming in at number 3.

Finally, Denmark's welfare state is more of a rickety derelict than a solid structure. Successive governments have had to repeatedly reform the system, scaling back its benefits. British journalist Michael Booth, who has lived in Scandinavia for over a decade and written a book about his experience there, says that the quality of the free education and health care Danes receive is far from great. Their PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) educational rankings are just average, they have the lowest life expectancy in the EU aside from former communist countries, and the highest rates of death from cancer in the world.

Booth also says there is a broad consensus that the Danish welfare state remains unsustainable, despite the many reforms of recent decades. "The Danes' dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by--now dwindling--oil revenues."

The lessons to draw from the Danish model are clear, even if they're not the ones Bernie Sanders would like us to draw. The Danes benefited from low taxes in order to get rich, and they remain fairly well-off thanks to a light regulatory touch, but their extensive welfare state is not the great success it's cracked up to be. Anything else is just a romanticized fairy tale.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Nope. I get where you are coming from  but Democratic Socialists would not be coming to power in a vacuum as in past history. look at Denmark, Norway, etc. No deaths, no tyrants. It can happen here too.

Ehhh......

[Mid Atlantic Tiger 150]

Thanks AFTiger.  You remind me of just how thankful I am that I no longer live in Alabama.  Just some incredibly stupid and uninformed Scheisse right there.  Oops, those of us educated beyond a 5th grade level apologize for using a foreign language in your presence...

[AFTiger 282]

I am glad you are no longer in Alabama also. 

Dummkopf

[DKW 86 7,419]

Does anyone in America really think we are going to get a real tyrant here? He would be facing 300m weapons....

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

39 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Does anyone in America really think we are going to get a real tyrant here? He would be facing 300m weapons....

How many people would have voted for Obama for a third term if it was legal?  Right now the Dems are trying to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.  Mob rule is just around the corner if we are not careful.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How many people would have voted for Obama for a third term if it was legal?  Right now the Dems are trying to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.  Mob rule is just around the corner if we are not careful.

How many Republicans would have voted for a third term of Reagan if it was legal?  I mean, they did put his VP in the White House in '88.  See, this game goes two ways.

And yes, there are many of us who want the Electoral College gone.  It has nothing to do with mob rule and everything to do with voting equality.  A New York vote should count the same as an Alabama vote, which should count the same as a Wyoming vote.  It's not a complicated idea.  If a Republican can't win a general election nationwide via popular vote (and they haven't done it in 6 of the last 7 elections), then maybe it's Republican policies that need adjusting because they are the ones out of step with the will of the people.

As for "mob rule", well that's highly unlikely.  The U.S. has more red States than blue, thus giving Republicans an advantage when trying to hold the Senate.  This allows them a huge roadblock for any President to overcome.  McConnell has proven that many times over.

[autigeremt 6,600]

18 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Agreed. One thing the elite have been brilliant at is turning people against what’s good for them. I’m not saying that we should have a full blown soviet communism, but Socialized medicine and education would be incredible for the people if it was done the right way. 

IF......

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

How many Republicans would have voted for a third term of Reagan if it was legal?  I mean, they did put his VP in the White House in '88.  See, this game goes two ways.

And yes, there are many of us who want the Electoral College gone.  It has nothing to do with mob rule and everything to do with voting equality.  A New York vote should count the same as an Alabama vote, which should count the same as a Wyoming vote.  It's not a complicated idea.  If a Republican can't win a general election nationwide via popular vote (and they haven't done it in 6 of the last 7 elections), then maybe it's Republican policies that need adjusting because they are the ones out of step with the will of the people.

As for "mob rule", well that's highly unlikely.  The U.S. has more red States than blue, thus giving Republicans an advantage when trying to hold the Senate.  This allows them a huge roadblock for any President to overcome.  McConnell has proven that many times over.

Things like this always goes both ways, that’s why it needs to stay the same as the Founding Father’s planned.  There has to be a constant so people will know the rules and not change them when they don’t suit their beliefs.  If the Electoral College were gone the flyover states would be persona non grata in federal election years.  The only concern for the candidates would be the high populous states and cities.  The flyover states would feel left out of government, it would be like “packing the union hall” if that phase means anything to you (another term for mob rule at the Federal level).

You are correct, it is not a complicated idea, but the Electoral College is and so is America being a Republic not a democracy.  The Constitution was written to limit the federal government and the federal government has been chipping away at it for years to gain more and more power.

To the bolded part; did you mean to write “any Democratic President to overcome”?  That’s the whole idea of checks and balances when it comes to federal government, otherwise it’s mob rule.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Things like this always goes both ways, that’s why it needs to stay the same as the Founding Father’s planned.  There has to be a constant so people will know the rules and not change them when they don’t suit their beliefs.  If the Electoral College were gone the flyover states would be persona non grata in federal election years.  The only concern for the candidates would be the high populous states and cities.  The flyover states would feel left out of government, it would be like “packing the union hall” if that phase means anything to you (another term for mob rule at the Federal level).

You are correct, it is not a complicated idea, but the Electoral College is and so is America being a Republic not a democracy.  The Constitution was written to limit the federal government and the federal government has been chipping away at it for years to gain more and more power.

To the bolded part; did you mean to write “any Democratic President to overcome”?  That’s the whole idea of checks and balances when it comes to federal government, otherwise it’s mob rule.

Yes, should have been any Democratic president to overcome.

I get checks and balances.  The idea of a popular vote election for the president doesn't change the system in place for checks and balances.  The Senate, House, and Judiciary are all still there.  

As for flyover states not mattering in a general, it's not about the states to many of us.  It's about the individual.  Right now, we live in a system that says a person in Wyoming's vote counts for more than a person in Texas's vote on the only two offices that every American has a say in (POTUS and VP).  Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.  You don't give certain counties of a state more weight in a Senate election.  Shouldn't be that way for the President and Vice President either.

As for flyover states being left out of government, well that's just horse crap.  They still get the same amount of Senators as larger states and get representation in the House.  For goodness sake, the most powerful man on Capitol Hill is from Kentucky.  Not sure why they should also get an unequal say in who the President and VP are every four years.

People make this argument about how the founders set things up all the time, but it's a bit of an outdated one.  When the country was created, states were very much independent of each other.  People rarely moved from one to the other.  We essentially had a loose coalition.  Now, our commerce is often intertwined.  We are codependent on each other for goods, services, etc.  I personally have resided in three states during my life.  It's just a different time and world.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yes, should have been any Democratic president to overcome.

I get checks and balances.  The idea of a popular vote election for the president doesn't change the system in place for checks and balances.  The Senate, House, and Judiciary are all still there.  

As for flyover states not mattering in a general, it's not about the states to many of us.  It's about the individual.  Right now, we live in a system that says a person in Wyoming's vote counts for more than a person in Texas's vote on the only two offices that every American has a say in (POTUS and VP).  Sorry, but that's just plain wrong.  You don't give certain counties of a state more weight in a Senate election.  Shouldn't be that way for the President and Vice President either.

As for flyover states being left out of government, well that's just horse crap.  They still get the same amount of Senators as larger states and get representation in the House.  For goodness sake, the most powerful man on Capitol Hill is from Kentucky.  Not sure why they should also get an unequal say in who the President and VP are every four years.

People make this argument about how the founders set things up all the time, but it's a bit of an outdated one.  When the country was created, states were very much independent of each other.  People rarely moved from one to the other.  We essentially had a loose coalition.  Now, our commerce is often intertwined.  We are codependent on each other for goods, services, etc.  I personally have resided in three states during my life.  It's just a different time and world.

You’re correct that times have changed and we are more mobile than we have ever been.  The states are the ones that tell the Federal Government what is important to their populous.  Not the other way around.  The government was designed to work from the bottom up for the will of the people.  Here, in NC, I could not believe we argued over where people should go to the bath room, none of the government’s business, but there you go.  It just shows that the populous on NC is changing. It happens at a slow rate and government should happen at a slow rate also.  The Governor is a Dem and Charlotte is more Dem than is has been in the past.

The New York late term abortion law combined with the Va Governor talking about infanticide may have sparked the Southern States to take a look at their abortion laws. Va’s Governor has called for a ban of all semi-automatic weapons after the Va Beach shootings.  If the new abortion laws are implemented this will surely reach the Supreme Court. In the mean time, Hollywood is trying to bully Georgia and the state of California is doing the same with Alabama.because they don’’t like what they have done.  Is this a good thing?  If you don’t agree with a state’s political view you get to try influence them from another state?  A U of A donation was given back to the donor because (according to the donor) he objected to the Alabama abortion law.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/us/university-alabama-abortion-donation/index.html

When is the individual right of some one more important than the law of the land?

To the Wyoming reference; the Wyoming voter is not represented in the House of Representatives like the Texas voter is and if the Democratic Candidate wants to change the minds of swing/red states he or she better be spending some time in that state.  It’s one of the things Hilary was not good at in her campaign.  The states do their weighing of voters by drawing districts by the people in that district to make it more equal.

The comment about Kentucky seems a little elitist, the same way Hollywood getting in Georgia’s business does.

As time goes on, certain generations (and thinking) disappear and the next generation takes over.  We’ll see what the next generation has learned or will teach us.  Interesting times ahead. It’s also interesting that the two front runners for President in the Democratic Party (for now) are male baby boomers.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re correct that times have changed and we are more mobile than we have ever been.  The states are the ones that tell the Federal Government what is important to their populous.  Not the other way around.  The government was designed to work from the bottom up for the will of the people.  Here, in NC, I could not believe we argued over where people should go to the bath room, none of the government’s business, but there you go.  It just shows that the populous on NC is changing. It happens at a slow rate and government should happen at a slow rate also.  The Governor is a Dem and Charlotte is more Dem than is has been in the past.

The New York late term abortion law combined with the Va Governor talking about infanticide may have sparked the Southern States to take a look at their abortion laws. Va’s Governor has called for a ban of all semi-automatic weapons after the Va Beach shootings.  If the new abortion laws are implemented this will surely reach the Supreme Court. In the mean time, Hollywood is trying to bully Georgia and the state of California is doing the same with Alabama.because they don’’t like what they have done.  Is this a good thing?  If you don’t agree with a state’s political view you get to try influence them from another state?  A U of A donation was given back to the donor because (according to the donor) he objected to the Alabama abortion law.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/us/university-alabama-abortion-donation/index.html

When is the individual right of some one more important than the law of the land?

To the Wyoming reference; the Wyoming voter is not represented in the House of Representatives like the Texas voter is and if the Democratic Candidate wants to change the minds of swing/red states he or she better be spending some time in that state.  It’s one of the things Hilary was not good at in her campaign.  The states do their weighing of voters by drawing districts by the people in that district to make it more equal.

The comment about Kentucky seems a little elitist, the same way Hollywood getting in Georgia’s business does.

As time goes on, certain generations (and thinking) disappear and the next generation takes over.  We’ll see what the next generation has learned or will teach us.  Interesting times ahead. It’s also interesting that the two front runners for President in the Democratic Party (for now) are male baby boomers.

You make some good points, so only coming back on the bolded.  Everything else stands in its own.

You're missing the point about Wyoming.  Each state gets the same amount of Senators, which inherently gives smaller states an outsized influence in arguably the more influential chamber of Congress.  I have no issue with that.  What I do have an issue with is that one person, one vote does not equate for the only two offices for which we all have a say.  As a NC voter, your vote has more weight in the Presidential and  Vice Presidential election than my vote here in Texas.  However, that Wyoming voter's ballot has more weight than both of ours.  That should bother all of us.  One citizen's vote should be weighted equally next to the others on those two offices.

As for the Kentucky comment, it wasn't meant to be elitist.  It was a rebuttal to you that fly-over states would lose power.  I'm merely pointing out that the most powerful man on Capitol Hill hails from a fly-over state.  Who Kentucky decides to elect is up to them.  However, I sure as hell didn't vote for McConnell, yet he has bent the Chamber largely to his will.  He has one vote of 100, but can effectively kill any legislation he wants by simply not allowing it to come up for debate.  That's a problem, no matter which party is in power.  If my Senator wanted a bill to be discussed and McConnell says no, then that's it.  Too damn bad for us here in Texas.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, Mid Atlantic Tiger said:

You remind me of just how thankful I am that I no longer live in Alabama.

How is the...... Mid Atlantic?

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

27 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You make some good points, so only coming back on the bolded.  Everything else stands in its own.

You're missing the point about Wyoming.  Each state gets the same amount of Senators, which inherently gives smaller states an outsized influence in arguably the more influential chamber of Congress.  I have no issue with that.  What I do have an issue with is that one person, one vote does not equate for the only two offices for which we all have a say.  As a NC voter, your vote has more weight in the Presidential and  Vice Presidential election than my vote here in Texas.  However, that Wyoming voter's ballot has more weight than both of ours.  That should bother all of us.  One citizen's vote should be weighted equally next to the others on those two offices.

As for the Kentucky comment, it wasn't meant to be elitist.  It was a rebuttal to you that fly-over states would lose power.  I'm merely pointing out that the most powerful man on Capitol Hill hails from a fly-over state.  Who Kentucky decides to elect is up to them.  However, I sure as hell didn't vote for McConnell, yet he has bent the Chamber largely to his will.  He has one vote of 100, but can effectively kill any legislation he wants by simply not allowing it to come up for debate.  That's a problem, no matter which party is in power.  If my Senator wanted a bill to be discussed and McConnell says no, then that's it.  Too damn bad for us here in Texas.

Good discussion, I appreciate it.  I am usually afraid of the law of unintended consequences when it comes to change like your talking.  I don’t trust the bureaucrats that ultimately implement the rules.

Partisan politics is not the way to get things done. We are in a mess right now. 

[AFTiger 282]

I think I might be slightly po'ed if the state gave my votes to NY and California.