32 thoughts on “Objectively Pro-Democrat”

  1. I always bottom-line everything to the question: “What would be best for liberty?” It’s difficult to imagine the “liberal’ plunderbund re-taking power being good for liberty.

    1. It’s difficult to imagine the “liberal’ plunderbund re-taking power being good for liberty.

      And yet that’s the most likely end game from Trump’s presidency. Especially if the economy stays together long enough for him to eke out a 2020 victory.

      ~Jon

      1. Trump has been great for liberty.

        You are on Twitter and have seen the way Democrats act. Imagine if they were in control of government right now. Their actions are not a reaction to Trump, it is just a continuation of how they always act.

      1. I didn’t lump Jonah with them? I do think Jonah could have spent more time noting Republicans that were not voting to repeal Obamacare, rather than complaining about Trump. Still, that was a year ago, and not the same as advocating for Democrat control of Congress.

        I don’t know how Will, Boot, and Rubin can square punishing the Republican Congress with punishing Trump. If they want Trump impeached, they need to bring evidence that needs to happen. I don’t think it matters as much who controls Congress if there was evidence that Trump committed a high crime.

        Speaking of, I came here after reading Scott Johnson piece noting that the FBI/DOJ failed to meet the Congress deadline to provide documents stating when the Trump investigation began. It seems such a simple request. If you open an investigation into possible collusion, then when did that start? Again, evidence of a crime worth investigating would be nice.

        1. “If they want Trump impeached, they need to bring evidence that needs to happen. I don’t think it matters as much who controls Congress if there was evidence that Trump committed a high crime.”

          Think you are being willfully naive; if the Dems take the House almost regardless of Mueller’s “findings” (probably obstruction of justice in firing Comey and/or the “meeting” with that Russian lawyer) there will be a vote to impeach Trump. The Dem’s rapid Trump hating base will insists on it. The 2018 elections will be a referendum on impeaching Trump and protecting Roe vs Wade (if the 2nd likely conservative justice Trump names is confirmed).

          1. My first sentence was poorly edited. It was meant to say “they need to bring evidence that a crime happened.” The point is if there actually existed evidence of a crime, and that Trump was complicit in it; then I think the Republicans would happily impeach Trump. That’s what wouldn’t matter.

            These guys pushing to punish the Republican Congress are just nuts. If they want Trump gone because he is bad and evil; then provide the evidence of it.

          2. “If they want Trump gone because he is bad and evil; then provide the evidence of it.”

            Because Trump probably isn’t guilty of a crime as such; “collaborating with the Russians to influence the election” the stated purpose of the Mueller investigation isn’t a crime even if true. That was the problem with the investigation from the start; it is investigating a non-crime. That’s why it will default to obstruction of justice; that explains Mueller going after Trump associates like Manafort, Cohen, etc. Get them to lie on Trump in exchange for immunity/reduced sentences for unrelated charges. It reminds me of when Ken Starr (Whitewater) went after Susan McDougal; she said at one point the reason she didn’t testify instead going to jail on I think contempt charges was that she felt she was trapped between a rock and a hard place. If she testified honestly said testimony would have contradicted coerced testimony obtained from others; Starr would have gone after her for perjury. If she lied said what Starr wanted to hear than she is committing actually perjury; which sooner or later might be exposed. That’s likely the similar to the current Manafort situation, why he won’t talk for the same reason. He would rather sit in jail in solitary confinement than be used by Mueller to make his bogus investigation.

          3. Its funny cause the Russian lawyer was working for Hillary and the DNC. It really is too bad that we wont get an actual investigation of Russian collusion. We have an investigation of Trump, which isn’t the same thing at all.

            They might find some crime he committed but as with all the charges brought so far, nothing to do with Russian collusion.

        2. What people forget is that the House may only vote to hold an impeachment trial, nothing more than that. It takes two-thirds of the Senate to vote guilty for the individual to be removed from office. So the most the Democrats would gain is a show trial.

          1. That would meet their needs though. It isn’t just about removing Trump from office but about impeding his ability to govern and to frame his Presidency as illegitimate.

      2. Goldberg isn’t in the same boat as the terminally deranged but his criticisms are often spastic and off base.

  2. Always been an (R)… Even when most of the local Pol’s were (D) because of FDR and the slowly fading belief that “…you can’t vote for Lincoln’s Party!”
    Watching the (D)’s get more radical year by year only confirms that early judgement. Don’t have to like the (R)’s — just feel that the having the (D)’s dismantle our Republic is a really Bad idea.

    1. The Republicans have problem, no doubt. But when the democrats remain the party of theft under color of law, slavery, and surrender to America’s enemies, I can only see them as objectively evil. The “Libertarian” party is far more libertine these days, and even adopting platform planks that a classic Libertarian would reject out of hand. And every other party I see gaining even an iota of traction looks like some splinter that makes the democrats look moderate. So I’m left with the republicans, which at least appear to have an honest primary process (as far as State law will allow).

    2. just feel that the having the (D)’s dismantle our Republic is a really Bad idea

      And that is an open goal that they have. Should we be surprised they are never challenged on it by the Democracy Dies in Darkness crowd?

  3. and while I believe in open borders in principle, open borders and a $15 minimum wage and expanding social programs are, finally, just crazy talk.

    Of what possible relevance, or even use, is a “principle” if it just. won’t. fucking. work.

    Take a good look at the world’s most important graph Charlie. We could completely eliminate even the concept of a minimum wage, and completely eliminate most social welfare (the entire programs, not just their expansion), and double the current US population would scrape together enough to get on a plane to Newark tomorrow. With that many more arriving every twenty years. And the effect on that graph would be barely noticeable.

    “Open Borders” as a “principle” is about as useful a concept today as alchemy was 800 years ago.

    1. I would like to know where the people who made that graph think Africa is going to find the food for another 3 billion people.

      1. When I look at recent history, famines correlate very strongly with corrupt or inept government. With good government protecting investors from thieves and vandals, the continent could thrive.

      2. Africa’s biggest problem is marxism and other forms of poor governance. With access to energy, water, and good governance styled on the USA, Africa would thrive. It would be really nice to see the continent lifted up out of misery.

    2. This is a good demonstration of a common misunderstanding of “Republicans” on immigration.

      While you don’t actually state it, presumably you believe that “double the current US population” would be a bad thing. Here’s the thing: if we double the US population, in addition to the number of workers doubling the number of consumers doubles. This is a “good thing” (TM). As the number of consumers increases, the amount of specialization increases, so you can get exactly what you want (instead of just an iPhone). The incremental cost for production also goes down (so your iPhone is cheaper).

      So with increased population, everything is better. The only caveat to that is that new people may not know how to select a “good” government. The fix to this is to require a waiting period before they can vote. We already have that in most cases.

      While newly arrived immigrants tend to vote democrat (because that is how they ruined their own country), after 20 years they start to vote republican…

      1. I didn’t state it because I figured it goes without stating. Stupid me. The number of workers wouldn’t double. The number of consumers wouldn’t double. And no, with increased population everything is most definitely not better. The environment isn’t better. Social cohesion isn’t better. Crime rates aren’t better. And preservation of cultural norms that allowed us to achieve this nirvana that everyone wants to join wouldn’t be better.

        The US already has an immigration system that almost no other country on the planet has. If you don’t think that’s a recipe for exploitation you’re not thinking very thoroughly.

        While you don’t actually state it, presumably you believe that open borders would be a good thing. I recommend you run for office on that.

        And I don’t give a flying frag how “newly arrived immigrants tend to vote”. It’s better for everyone if they stay where they are and work to improve things at home. Instead of just moving elsewhere and allowing the degradation and despotism to continue to get worse.

      2. To me the question is less how many foreigners we let in, and more which ones. Also, how long do we want them as a legal resident, working to carry their weight and following our laws, before they become a citizen with the right to vote? If we filter for people with a good work ethic and compatible culture, and have a good testing period before we grant them the next tier as a citizen, we can absorb far more than if we have uncontrolled borders.

      3. So with increased population, everything is better. The only caveat to that is that new people may not know how to select a “good” government.

        That is the problem. Consumers aren’t cogs, they need to assimilate into American culture. Importing people at a rate that they can’t assimilate is bad for our country and it doesn’t matter how they vote decades later because decades is enough time for them to do damage and there will always be more coming in at the begging of the cycle you describe.

        Increasing population can be good. Citizens reproducing and transmitting cultural and societal values and norms is better than open borders. Having some immigration is very desirable but immigrants have to be able to adopt our culture and assimilation best takes place in immersion, which can’t happen if immigrants are not vastly outnumbered by citizens.

        The level of immigration is where debate comes in. The majority want a legal immigration system, so how many people should be let in and under what conditions? How many people even know how many legal immigrants enter America every year or how many new citizens are sworn in?

        There is a level of ignorance on the subject because an informed populace would find we already have a very generous and fair legal immigration system and that wouldn’t suit the goals of the DNC media who need ignorance on the issue in order to use it to drive the Democrat’s ideology of identity politics, which will only become worse with higher levels of legal and illegal immigration.

        When people see themselves as some group rather than Americans, it is bad for the continued existence of our way of life, which has done more to lift humanity out of the mud than anything else in 300,000 years of human history. But I am also selfish, I don’t want my life ruined either.

  4. Rick C: “I would like to know where the people who made that graph think Africa is going to find the food for another 3 billion people.”

    Norman Borlaug’s file cabinet?

    Who was it said, “The future is already here, but it’s unevenly distributed?” That’s especially true of agriculture. IFF the intensity of cultivation common in the US and EU were to become common in sub-Saharan Africa, they would be rather in the position of India, today. Which is to say, not starving.

    Given a bit more very achievable “future tech” such as desalination plants to irrigate fields, foods preserved with irradiation, and Amazon-style logistics of inventory management and distribution, billions become much less scary.

    1. The issue with lousy agriculture in Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with tech.

      It has everything to do with African politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *