Washington Governor Announces Run for President to Fight Climate Change

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Unfortunately, the people do not have the wisdom to lower expenditures until everything crashes. Politicians have taught them that they can get something for nothing buy voting for more welfare programs. That is of course false and a lie. It is up to responsible politicians to lead the country. Free stuff is continually offered up, and the mice take the bait. Thus Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, China etc. 

Then we deserve what we get.  AND, we should stop quoting crap about the debt being this admin's fault or that, or this president or that increasing it more or less than another.  Until we take responsibility and demand, across the board, that it be cut, it is OUR debt and we are responsible for it.  Not any one admin.  As one of our presidents said:  "government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem".  In his wisdom, he did NOT say Democrats or Republicans (although I will concede he then went on to say:  "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.").

Sorry to use you to argue this point, Ron; I know you don't like the debt anymore than I or anyone else does.  But it needs to be said and we need to stop pulling out this ludicrous argument whenever it suits us and whatever point we are trying to make, for argument's sake.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 3/2/2019 at 2:14 AM, ronwagn said:

That is the old Democrat Party. Now the Democrats want to minimize the middle class and solidify their support by crony capitalists, the lower class, the young, the illegals, the felons, Hollywood, government employees, etc. etc.

JFK would not be allowed in the current Democrat Party.

would Reagan be allowed in the GOP today? 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 3/6/2019 at 1:44 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Then we deserve what we get.  AND, we should stop quoting crap about the debt being this admin's fault or that, or this president or that increasing it more or less than another.  Until we take responsibility and demand, across the board, that it be cut, it is OUR debt and we are responsible for it.  Not any one admin.  As one of our presidents said:  "government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem".  In his wisdom, he did NOT say Democrats or Republicans (although I will concede he then went on to say:  "It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.").

Sorry to use you to argue this point, Ron; I know you don't like the debt anymore than I or anyone else does.  But it needs to be said and we need to stop pulling out this ludicrous argument whenever it suits us and whatever point we are trying to make, for argument's sake.

Well said. 

Sadly similar can said of most Western societies. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

11 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

would Reagan be allowed in the GOP today? 

Absolutely not. 

[TXPower + 643]

13 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

would Reagan be allowed in the GOP today? 

Would Reagan allow these so called republicans in the GOP today is a more salient question.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

7 hours ago, TXPower said:

Would Reagan allow these so called republicans in the GOP today is a more salient question.

Would Reagan switch to Independent?  Democrat to Republican to Independent.  In the end I think we will need to NOT declare for one party or another, and just declare as American Voter.  Americans MUST, IMHO, pay much more attention to the individual candidates and vote for or against the individuals.  I know it is a massive task that most people are not up to, but we've got to try. 

[John Foote + 1,135]

15 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Would Reagan switch to Independent?  Democrat to Republican to Independent.  In the end I think we will need to NOT declare for one party or another, and just declare as American Voter.  Americans MUST, IMHO, pay much more attention to the individual candidates and vote for or against the individuals.  I know it is a massive task that most people are not up to, but we've got to try. 

It wasn't very many years ago when our representatives didn't vote straight ticket. Clinton got, and perhaps rightfully so, grief for NAFTA. But when you look at the individual votes, both parties were split, and it was really a republican bill.

We need a return to voting true interests of the districts.

[TXPower + 643]

15 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Would Reagan switch to Independent?  Democrat to Republican to Independent.  In the end I think we will need to NOT declare for one party or another, and just declare as American Voter.  Americans MUST, IMHO, pay much more attention to the individual candidates and vote for or against the individuals.  I know it is a massive task that most people are not up to, but we've got to try. 

Dan, I agree with the thrust of your comments.  I would argue however, that a good portion of conservative America did just what you suggest last Super Tuesday.  President Trump was on the ticket as a Republican only because of our current 2 party system.  If we had more than a 2-party system, which I believe is what you are advocating for generally, Trump would not have run as an R, he would have run as an “I” or something else, who knows.

Historically speaking in the context of his economics President Trump has been an R.  In most other ways he has been more of a life-long D in dogma and deed.  His pro-life stance evolved relatively late in his life.

The overwhelming majority of Trump voters voted for what they believe is best for America.  America first and foremost and every thing else behind that.  Party be damned.  The Republican establishment surely didn’t want him.  Hell a good portion of conservative voters had to hold their noses when they cast their vote for him.

Many conservative voters, including myself, are tired of the Republican Party.  They have strayed from conservative action.  It matters not what the Republican Platform says, they do otherwise, save the supposed conservative federal judges that have been confirmed over the last couple of years.

Anyway, as I stated, I believe the evidence of 2016 suggests voters, at least conservative, middle class America first voters, who cast a ballot for Trump were casting votes for Trump’s stance on what he/they believe is good for America.  They supported him because he’s the cult of political personality and an anti-establishment, anti-globalist, “Republican” outsider.  They voted against Clinton the epitomy of establishment, globalist, leftist, insider Democrats.

Left of center voters voted for the same old song and dance.  I guess an argument could be made that if the DNC had not hi-jacked the primary from Bernie for Hillary, perhaps they would have been voting for something a little different.  A self identified, proud  Socialist instead of a closet socialist elitist like Hillary?

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, TXPower said:

Dan, I agree with the thrust of your comments.  I would argue however, that a good portion of conservative America did just what you suggest last Super Tuesday.  President Trump was on the ticket as a Republican only because of our current 2 party system.  If we had more than a 2-party system, which I believe is what you are advocating for generally, Trump would not have run as an R, he would have run as an “I” or something else, who knows.

Historically speaking in the context of his economics President Trump has been an R.  In most other ways he has been more of a life-long D in dogma and deed.  His pro-life stance evolved relatively late in his life.

The overwhelming majority of Trump voters voted for what they believe is best for America.  America first and foremost and every thing else behind that.  Party be damned.  The Republican establishment surely didn’t want him.  Hell a good portion of conservative voters had to hold their noses when they cast their vote for him.

Many conservative voters, including myself, are tired of the Republican Party.  They have strayed from conservative action.  It matters not what the Republican Platform says, they do otherwise, save the supposed conservative federal judges that have been confirmed over the last couple of years.

Anyway, as I stated, I believe the evidence of 2016 suggests voters, at least conservative, middle class America first voters, who cast a ballot for Trump were casting votes for Trump’s stance on what he/they believe is good for America.  They supported him because he’s the cult of political personality and an anti-establishment, anti-globalist, “Republican” outsider.  They voted against Clinton the epitomy of establishment, globalist, leftist, insider Democrats.

Left of center voters voted for the same old song and dance.  I guess an argument could be made that if the DNC had not hi-jacked the primary from Bernie for Hillary, perhaps they would have been voting for something a little different.  A self identified, proud  Socialist instead of a closet socialist elitist like Hillary?

 

 

Absolutely agree, TX.  Good points all.  I guess I actually switched, mid-comment, to meaning how we select State officials and the "others" we send to Washington.  Appreciate you straightening it out about the election of President Trump, against ALL odds.

[John Foote + 1,135]

Absolutely Trump was a rejection of standard Republican and Democratic politics, and a strange bridesmaid to the religious right.

Sanders was a rejection on the dems side. The Democratic party machine still managed to get their man (woman) in place, but forgot how loathed she was by so many. Not all voted for Trump, the majority of registered voters just declined to vote.

[specinho + 459]

On 3/1/2019 at 11:38 PM, TXPower said:

Hadn’t you heard? “Knowing anything about anything else” is no longer a pre-requisite in American political candidacy or incumbency.

On 3/2/2019 at 4:39 AM, Rodent said:

Yay! So you're saying there's a chance! 

Rodent 2020!

Now I need a campaign slogan...

 

"Rodent - For counter- infestation"!!!

 

On 3/6/2019 at 7:17 AM, ronwagn said:

Unfortunately, the people do not have the wisdom to lower expenditures until everything crashes. Politicians have taught them that they can get something for nothing by voting for more welfare programs. That is of course false and a lie. It is up to responsible politicians to lead the country. Free stuff is continually offered up, and the mice take the bait. Thus Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, China etc. 

There is a rather holistic way when dealing with national budget:

As we are wondering why we are spending more each year............................ the calculation is "extra-ordinary"..........

Besides that......... found something else for consideration:

[TXPower + 643]

48 minutes ago, specinho said:

"Rodent - For counter- infestation"!!!

 

There is a rather holistic way when dealing with national budget:

As we are wondering why we are spending more each year............................ the calculation is "extra-ordinary"..........

Besides that......... found something else for consideration:

Concerning the above matrix of Federal Spending, push that chart out to say, 1935 with the on-set of the New Deal and see how the numbers grow.  And grow.  And grow.

The  common denominator, social spending, that is, government programs which amount to welfare for one thing or another.

I like and agree with Mr. Buffets quote above.  As Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government isn’t the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Term limits is the answer because our current system proves over and over that the consolidation of government power wielded by career politicians brings about the absolute that can be wrought.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  

All of it feeds lobbyist, special interest and greedy politicians.  You want to effect real change, abbreviate politicians stay in DC.  Dispense with congressional salary and retirement.  Make political service just that, un-paid service.  We need to quit sending wealthy and un-wealthy representatives to DC who inevitably return wealthier or enriched.  Make it harder for them to be bought, especially long-term and you will wrest the real power and control from where it is and place it back where it belongs.

Rodent 2020

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/8/2019 at 5:30 PM, John Foote said:

Absolutely not. 

Of course he would. The trend is getting rid of the RINOS. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/9/2019 at 2:07 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Would Reagan switch to Independent?  Democrat to Republican to Independent.  In the end I think we will need to NOT declare for one party or another, and just declare as American Voter.  Americans MUST, IMHO, pay much more attention to the individual candidates and vote for or against the individuals.  I know it is a massive task that most people are not up to, but we've got to try. 

I agree in principle, but when you figure in how politicians lie, it is difficult to vote for anyone but especially a Democrat. Most have all changed their opinions 180 degrees since they first entered politics. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, John Foote said:

Absolutely Trump was a rejection of standard Republican and Democratic politics, and a strange bridesmaid to the religious right.

Sanders was a rejection on the dems side. The Democratic party machine still managed to get their man (woman) in place, but forgot how loathed she was by so many. Not all voted for Trump, the majority of registered voters just declined to vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections Estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like California continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the U.S. Elections Project.

There is more worth reading in this article. 

[specinho + 459]

On 3/11/2019 at 1:51 AM, TXPower said:

Concerning the above matrix of Federal Spending, push that chart out to say, 1935 with the on-set of the New Deal and see how the numbers grow.  And grow.  And grow.

The  common denominator, social spending, that is, government programs which amount to welfare for one thing or another.

I like and agree with Mr. Buffets quote above.  As Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government isn’t the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Term limits is the answer because our current system proves over and over that the consolidation of government power wielded by career politicians brings about the absolute that can be wrought.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  

All of it feeds lobbyist, special interest and greedy politicians.  You want to effect real change, abbreviate politicians stay in DC.  Dispense with congressional salary and retirement.  Make political service just that, un-paid service.  We need to quit sending wealthy and un-wealthy representatives to DC who inevitably return wealthier or enriched.  Make it harder for them to be bought, especially long-term and you will wrest the real power and control from where it is and place it back where it belongs.

Rodent 2020

note: IRA = individual retirement account

Nothing is easy...........

"Rodent - for counter-infestation"

Edited March 13, 2019 by specinho

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 3/1/2019 at 8:38 AM, TXPower said:

Hadn’t you heard? “Knowing anything” is no longer a pre-requisite in American political candidacy or incumbency.

Fixed that for you.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 3/9/2019 at 8:22 PM, TXPower said:

instead of a closet socialist elitist like Hillary?

 

 

That woman came out of socialist elitist closet in '93 with her health care program and mocking those who bake cookies.

 

 

[TXPower + 643]

13 minutes ago, John Foote said:

That woman came out of socialist elitist closet in '93 with her health care program and mocking those who bake cookies.

 

 

Compared to say, AOC or feel the Bern Sanders, not so much.  That’s why Pelosi and her friends don’t like AOC and try to hush her.  They are afraid word will get out how radical unabashed socialism really is and that it might affect them at the poles.  Especially with swing voters.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 3/10/2019 at 4:40 PM, ronwagn said:

There is more worth reading in this article. 

It is a good article, but something is wrong when a high turnout is 40% of those eligible don't participate. 

Of course I am also for a return to the draft, everybody does a 2 to 3 year tour of national service. Maybe not armed services, but nobody gets a pass on working for the country on a low paid level, and mixing with a broad group of Americans. 

I typically don't care for the choices, that our mostly two party system has dissolved to pure blocks is disappointing, but those that do are being rewarded in the electoral process. With so many districts essentially one party, the real voting is in the primaries and earlier, and that is a tiny percentage of people who participate.

I've participated in several elections with tiny margins of victories on the local level, once help block someone from being a delegate, but OMG is attending those things painful, and I've dropped from that. And one of true Trumps gifts is reinvigorating some participation. He's brought a lot of disenfranchised back to the booth. And almost Hillery-esq, he is now invigorating opposition. Which is funny since I know more than a few dems that couldn't find it to vote for her. They are extremely fragmented. Reagan's "big tent" has been burnt to the ground by Republicans, and Democrats have always been their own worst enemy.

I also live in a state with one of the worst turnouts. Perhaps a feeling of it doesn't matter since it's always a statewide landslide.

[Arjun + 39]

On 3/3/2019 at 10:11 AM, ronwagn said:

I feel like celebrating all the change in the last two years despite all the attacks and roadblocks placed in the way of President Trump. Pollution in America is greatly reduced due to natural gas replacing coal and our economy is booming while unemployment is lower than it has been for decades. Meanwhile, the Democrats want free everything for potential voters.

Not free everything, just the basics, they want people just surviving with the basics. If they give people everything, they wont have a platform left. The elite brass in communism need to maintain control by depriving people of the means to rise up in life. Climate change is a great way to do that. Also it hollows out the middle class which is a top priority. If you want to control a population, get rid of the middle class I guess.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 3/4/2019 at 9:29 PM, ronwagn said:

Obama did allow natural gas to go forward but was a major hindrance to having a good economy overall. He wasted billions spent on anything but the shovel ready jobs he promised. The recovery was very slow thanks to overregulation. 

Obama set the record for expanding the debt. He added nearly as much debt as all prior presidents. He also divided the races and alienated the middle class. We will have to see how Trump does on the debt after eight years. I would hope that he cuts expenditures in his second term. 

Obama spent more time and effort to pass the ACA and destroy healthcare coverage for those of us that had decent jobs with our actual skill sets, than he did on helping out the American middle class. He did drive wedges between the "races", and overall was what? The worst president in the history of this country. Only elected because he was black the second time, seems kind of racist in that light, doesn't it? But now he will be set for life, even though he was a poor example of the presidency of this country.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 3/10/2019 at 3:26 PM, John Foote said:

Absolutely Trump was a rejection of standard Republican and Democratic politics, and a strange bridesmaid to the religious right.

Sanders was a rejection on the dems side. The Democratic party machine still managed to get their man (woman) in place, but forgot how loathed she was by so many. Not all voted for Trump, the majority of registered voters just declined to vote.

In the run up to the US election I was out of work so had more time to listen to the running commentary. 

One show I listened to was Bill Mitchell. After all that Spirit cooking shyte and Jayzee's obsession with Thelema* occultism at the Hilary show loads of people were ringing in pleading with people to vote for Trump because whatever you thought of him he wasn't a Satanist like the Hilary crowd. 

Ironic really given that Thelema is an Occult concoction by Alastair Crowley who aside from being a Satanist was a notorious racist and white supremacist. Perhaps expalins why Beyonce is looking more and more like the black bloke out of Iron Sky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

In the run up to the US election I was out of work so had more time to listen to the running commentary. 

One show I listened to was Bill Mitchell. After all that Spirit cooking shyte and Jayzee's obsession with Thelema* occultism at the Hilary show loads of people were ringing in pleading with people to vote for Trump because whatever you thought of him he wasn't a Satanist like the Hilary crowd. 

Ironic really given that Thelema is an Occult concoction by Alastair Crowley who aside from being a Satanist was a notorious racist and white supremacist. Perhaps expalins why Beyonce is looking more and more like the black bloke out of Iron Sky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

 

Saul was a strange pick by Jesus who chose him to become the Apostle Paul. We have to look at who can defeat the enemy of the good. Even David committed a horrific sin far worse than anything Trump has ever done. True Christians believe in forgiveness when repentance is complete. 

Marx dedicated one of his books to Satan. I think it was Das Kapital.

http://whale.to/c/marx_and_satan.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread880821/pg1 Demonic poems by Marx. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by ronwagn
added reference

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 3/11/2019 at 3:44 PM, John Foote said:

It is a good article, but something is wrong when a high turnout is 40% of those eligible don't participate. 

Of course I am also for a return to the draft, everybody does a 2 to 3 year tour of national service. Maybe not armed services, but nobody gets a pass on working for the country on a low paid level, and mixing with a broad group of Americans. 

I typically don't care for the choices, that our mostly two party system has dissolved to pure blocks is disappointing, but those that do are being rewarded in the electoral process. With so many districts essentially one party, the real voting is in the primaries and earlier, and that is a tiny percentage of people who participate.

I've participated in several elections with tiny margins of victories on the local level, once help block someone from being a delegate, but OMG is attending those things painful, and I've dropped from that. And one of true Trumps gifts is reinvigorating some participation. He's brought a lot of disenfranchised back to the booth. And almost Hillery-esq, he is now invigorating opposition. Which is funny since I know more than a few dems that couldn't find it to vote for her. They are extremely fragmented. Reagan's "big tent" has been burnt to the ground by Republicans, and Democrats have always been their own worst enemy.

I also live in a state with one of the worst turnouts. Perhaps a feeling of it doesn't matter since it's always a statewide landslide.

I live in Illinois which just went under total Democrat control. They are quickly working to infringe on the Second Amendment. All I can do is fight them. I grew up in California, where I spent half of my life and now Winter there with relatives. Several elections there were turned over to Democrats after they were first declared to be won by Republicans.