One of the problems with politics in America is that people spend a lot of time repeating boilerplate, trying to come up with cool one-liners, and debating trivia, but a lot of the basic and critical questions never seem to get answered or even discussed.
Great list. Logical, rational and exactly what all critical thinking people see as THE QUESTIONS.
So, why isn't the media asking these of the politicians and candidates? Because that is the difference between what we would have expected in the 1980s and earlier and today. And not only is the media NOT asking these questions, but it is also pushing propaganda to deflect from those questions being considered.
I keep cycling around for an explanation for why we have lost so much of our American pragmatism and objective assessment of issues. I keep landing at the Great Feminization as the answer. We have an educated chick problem. They have infested the education system which then has feminized generations that have launched into positions of power and influence in our institutions including the media, and their way is toxic to the standards of patriarchal problem identification and problem solving.
I hate to admit this, but I am becoming more attracted to Sharia Law every day as I don't see any other remedy to the slow death of Western civilization resulting from too much female socioeconomic dominance.
The answer is to harden ourselves against the now-reflexive fear of being called racists, so that we can do what must be done - in my opinion, the expulsion of the hundred-million-plus inhabitants of America who aren't really Americans.
Illegal aliens, "refugees" from third-world toilets where gang-raping women is considered laudable, "U.S. citizens" who'd rather be in Michoacan or Oaxaca if the stickers in the back windows of their trucks are accurate, H-1Bs from cultures where cheating strangers is just life, people who think Communism doesn't work because the right people aren't running it, squeegee jockeys and panhandlers making bank scamming people at stoplights with bullshit sob stories, fourth-generation welfare recipients, people with no ID but who DO have EBT cards, Chinese companies buying up farmland COINCIDENTALLY right next to Air Force bases and all those truck drivers who can't read road signs.
Interesting, but if Sharia were to be implemented today how long would it take to de-feminize the country? Would we still exist at the end?
I think our women have more stones than the mullahs. At least I know they have more than all the congress, so it would be a battle to behold. Feminazies -vs- sharia.
Alas! It would not matter if politicians were asked these questions.
They would not give straight answers.
Already, in the late 1960s candidates were being formally trained in how to answer questions out of both sides of their mouths.
As State College Director of the Georgia Young Republicans I attended a seminar conducted by the GOP to train budding politicians.
I listened as the party "pros" explained that in your campaign and in public office if you were successful, you never allowed other people to "hijack" your campaign or public positions in office.
The instructors were quite huffy and self-righteous about this. They regarded a voter's question or input as a potential "hi-hacking."
For instance, if a citizen asked you what you planned to do to keep Social Security solvent by either reducing benefits or raising taxes, we were instructed to fob off the question with an answer along these lines:
"I firmly support our making provision for our seniors who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And, I'm also keenly conscious of the tax burdens our working people have to bear. That's why I support a fiscally sound and unburden-some Social Security program."
Participants in the training seminar were told to avoid straight answers because a straight answer would almost always cause you "trouble."
Psychiatrists and scholarly studies show that the highest rate of sociopaths is found among politicians.
Almost all politicians - Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative you name it - share a common psychological trait:
THEY DESIRE THE LOVE AND ADULATION OF ANONYMOUS MASSES OF PEOPLE...PEOPLE THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHOSE NAMES AND FACES THEY CANNOT POSSIBLE REMEMBER.
This is a bizarre psychology. Normal people want to be trusted and loved by their immediate family and a small circle of friends.
Normal people aren't willing to live the lives led by politicians - detached from family and friends, never having time for a real conversation with a friend or spouse, having to shave twice a day, with days starting with the MethoBapTerian prayer breakfast at 7:00 a.m., followed by a lunch speech to the Optimist Club, then a fundraising party at 3:00 p.m. and then concluding with a speech to the Rotary Club at 7:00 p.m.
Normal people couldn't stand such a life....but politicians love it.
They bask in the glow of being loved by people they don't know.
The bottom line is that we are ruled by abnormal people.
When I was a young lawyer still in my 20s, an astute client of mine, an 80 year old, successfully self employed woman from an aristocratic family in South Carolina, explained to me that this is inevitably how things work out in a universal suffrage "democracy."
She laid it out to me:
In a universal suffrage democracy, we are ruled by 2 classes of people:
The scum that float to the top and the dregs that sink to the bottom.
She concluded, "It seems counterintuitive that the scum and the dregs would make common cause together against decent people, but that's how it works out. The scum and the dregs have a lot in common."
There's a lot of information here, thanks for this comment. It is difficult for me to understand the need, or lust, for power. Everybody wants to be loved, I guess, but so many of these people need to control. I suppose its narcissism, but there also seems to be connection to the quest to make people do what you want them to do. I know there are some people who do it reluctantly, too, people who just want to fix things then go home. Like His Excellency, George Washington. Obviously a unique character in world history, someone almost universally admired who reluctantly took power because our people needed him. I so look forward to the kingdom of God! He already has all power, He is wise beyond our comprehension, and He loves us passionately.
You cite Washington as the rare person blessed with sound finances, good sense and fine character who undertook being President because our people needed him.
There are still occasionally such people....Congressmen Paul and Massie come to mind.
But such saintly self-martyring types are a small, small minority among politicians.
As a youth I, like most Americans, had little use for the old institution in Mother England called The House of Lords, which even though it was vested with only a fraction of the power of the elected House of Commons, did have a modicum of authority.
Unlike the Members of Parliament the House of Lords consisted of aristocrats who were not elected but were members by accident of birth to some grand ancestor who cut a broad swath in British history.
I thought, "Why should a guy have a position just because he comes from a swell family?"
I raised this point with an English client of mine who was politically sound and tuned in to our frequency.
He was a businessman, a successful guy but not a member of the aristocracy. He was a "conservative" like us. (How I hate that word! But, inevitably one has to use it.)
To my surprise he not only defended the House of Lords but did so ably making arguments I had never considered.
His major point echoed what you said in your reply.
He said that it was good to have a house of Parliament with limited authority to temper and moderate what came out of the House of Commons. Specifically, it was good to have such an institution for the precise reason that I had objected to:
That it was made up of people who inherited their position without any desire, ambition or effort of their own.
The elected branch of Parliament, he said, was made up of men and women of very different character...people who WANT POWER and who scheme and work to get it.
He believed it was a good idea to have as a slight counterbalance an institution peopled by those who did not seek power but were stuck with the job by virtue of coming out of families who had played heroic roles in the history of the country.
He believed that, as I said, without being an aristocrat, because he was of a conservative bent of mind.
So, what is the answer for us?
I don't have one.
It goes without saying that America can never have a House of Lords or a Monarchy.
The Founding Fathers, as most well educated people know, were opposed to democracy.
They intended the Senate - which originally was not elected - to function as our equivalent to the House of Lords.
They intended the President - who originally was not directly elected but was to be chosen by prominent "electors" chosen for the job - to be the equivalent of the Crown in England.
The Senate and the Presidency were intended to act as brakes on the more representative House of Representatives whose members themselves were to be chosen by an electorate limited to a small minority of White males who owned property.
However, the Founding Fathers, no matter how well intentioned and despite doing the best they could, failed.
P.S. Tony Blair, the consummate leftist, conniving crook but blessed unlike most of our conservative politicians with sound insight on what really matters, essentially neutered the House of Lords.
He used my youthful arguments. He said that the unelected aristocrats ought to be replaced with people who got their positions on what he called "merit."
So, the hereditary peers were removed.
They were replaced with "men of merit", people chosen by politicians like Blair himself.
The result?
The House of Lords now consists of political hacks and connivers put there by politicians.
Periodically, members are exposed as sexual deviants, pedophiles, financial con artists and so on.
24) is the most critical. Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
Never was, never will be.
Great list. Logical, rational and exactly what all critical thinking people see as THE QUESTIONS.
So, why isn't the media asking these of the politicians and candidates? Because that is the difference between what we would have expected in the 1980s and earlier and today. And not only is the media NOT asking these questions, but it is also pushing propaganda to deflect from those questions being considered.
I keep cycling around for an explanation for why we have lost so much of our American pragmatism and objective assessment of issues. I keep landing at the Great Feminization as the answer. We have an educated chick problem. They have infested the education system which then has feminized generations that have launched into positions of power and influence in our institutions including the media, and their way is toxic to the standards of patriarchal problem identification and problem solving.
I hate to admit this, but I am becoming more attracted to Sharia Law every day as I don't see any other remedy to the slow death of Western civilization resulting from too much female socioeconomic dominance.
Sharia law's absolutely NOT the answer.
The answer is to harden ourselves against the now-reflexive fear of being called racists, so that we can do what must be done - in my opinion, the expulsion of the hundred-million-plus inhabitants of America who aren't really Americans.
Illegal aliens, "refugees" from third-world toilets where gang-raping women is considered laudable, "U.S. citizens" who'd rather be in Michoacan or Oaxaca if the stickers in the back windows of their trucks are accurate, H-1Bs from cultures where cheating strangers is just life, people who think Communism doesn't work because the right people aren't running it, squeegee jockeys and panhandlers making bank scamming people at stoplights with bullshit sob stories, fourth-generation welfare recipients, people with no ID but who DO have EBT cards, Chinese companies buying up farmland COINCIDENTALLY right next to Air Force bases and all those truck drivers who can't read road signs.
Interesting, but if Sharia were to be implemented today how long would it take to de-feminize the country? Would we still exist at the end?
I think our women have more stones than the mullahs. At least I know they have more than all the congress, so it would be a battle to behold. Feminazies -vs- sharia.
There are no feminists on a sinking ship.
Every candidate for federal office should have to provide answers to those questions.
One of your best articles!
Alas! It would not matter if politicians were asked these questions.
They would not give straight answers.
Already, in the late 1960s candidates were being formally trained in how to answer questions out of both sides of their mouths.
As State College Director of the Georgia Young Republicans I attended a seminar conducted by the GOP to train budding politicians.
I listened as the party "pros" explained that in your campaign and in public office if you were successful, you never allowed other people to "hijack" your campaign or public positions in office.
The instructors were quite huffy and self-righteous about this. They regarded a voter's question or input as a potential "hi-hacking."
For instance, if a citizen asked you what you planned to do to keep Social Security solvent by either reducing benefits or raising taxes, we were instructed to fob off the question with an answer along these lines:
"I firmly support our making provision for our seniors who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much. And, I'm also keenly conscious of the tax burdens our working people have to bear. That's why I support a fiscally sound and unburden-some Social Security program."
Participants in the training seminar were told to avoid straight answers because a straight answer would almost always cause you "trouble."
Psychiatrists and scholarly studies show that the highest rate of sociopaths is found among politicians.
Almost all politicians - Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative you name it - share a common psychological trait:
THEY DESIRE THE LOVE AND ADULATION OF ANONYMOUS MASSES OF PEOPLE...PEOPLE THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHOSE NAMES AND FACES THEY CANNOT POSSIBLE REMEMBER.
This is a bizarre psychology. Normal people want to be trusted and loved by their immediate family and a small circle of friends.
Normal people aren't willing to live the lives led by politicians - detached from family and friends, never having time for a real conversation with a friend or spouse, having to shave twice a day, with days starting with the MethoBapTerian prayer breakfast at 7:00 a.m., followed by a lunch speech to the Optimist Club, then a fundraising party at 3:00 p.m. and then concluding with a speech to the Rotary Club at 7:00 p.m.
Normal people couldn't stand such a life....but politicians love it.
They bask in the glow of being loved by people they don't know.
The bottom line is that we are ruled by abnormal people.
When I was a young lawyer still in my 20s, an astute client of mine, an 80 year old, successfully self employed woman from an aristocratic family in South Carolina, explained to me that this is inevitably how things work out in a universal suffrage "democracy."
She laid it out to me:
In a universal suffrage democracy, we are ruled by 2 classes of people:
The scum that float to the top and the dregs that sink to the bottom.
She concluded, "It seems counterintuitive that the scum and the dregs would make common cause together against decent people, but that's how it works out. The scum and the dregs have a lot in common."
There's a lot of information here, thanks for this comment. It is difficult for me to understand the need, or lust, for power. Everybody wants to be loved, I guess, but so many of these people need to control. I suppose its narcissism, but there also seems to be connection to the quest to make people do what you want them to do. I know there are some people who do it reluctantly, too, people who just want to fix things then go home. Like His Excellency, George Washington. Obviously a unique character in world history, someone almost universally admired who reluctantly took power because our people needed him. I so look forward to the kingdom of God! He already has all power, He is wise beyond our comprehension, and He loves us passionately.
WheelHorseman:
You put your finger on an important point here.
You cite Washington as the rare person blessed with sound finances, good sense and fine character who undertook being President because our people needed him.
There are still occasionally such people....Congressmen Paul and Massie come to mind.
But such saintly self-martyring types are a small, small minority among politicians.
As a youth I, like most Americans, had little use for the old institution in Mother England called The House of Lords, which even though it was vested with only a fraction of the power of the elected House of Commons, did have a modicum of authority.
Unlike the Members of Parliament the House of Lords consisted of aristocrats who were not elected but were members by accident of birth to some grand ancestor who cut a broad swath in British history.
I thought, "Why should a guy have a position just because he comes from a swell family?"
I raised this point with an English client of mine who was politically sound and tuned in to our frequency.
He was a businessman, a successful guy but not a member of the aristocracy. He was a "conservative" like us. (How I hate that word! But, inevitably one has to use it.)
To my surprise he not only defended the House of Lords but did so ably making arguments I had never considered.
His major point echoed what you said in your reply.
He said that it was good to have a house of Parliament with limited authority to temper and moderate what came out of the House of Commons. Specifically, it was good to have such an institution for the precise reason that I had objected to:
That it was made up of people who inherited their position without any desire, ambition or effort of their own.
The elected branch of Parliament, he said, was made up of men and women of very different character...people who WANT POWER and who scheme and work to get it.
He believed it was a good idea to have as a slight counterbalance an institution peopled by those who did not seek power but were stuck with the job by virtue of coming out of families who had played heroic roles in the history of the country.
He believed that, as I said, without being an aristocrat, because he was of a conservative bent of mind.
So, what is the answer for us?
I don't have one.
It goes without saying that America can never have a House of Lords or a Monarchy.
The Founding Fathers, as most well educated people know, were opposed to democracy.
They intended the Senate - which originally was not elected - to function as our equivalent to the House of Lords.
They intended the President - who originally was not directly elected but was to be chosen by prominent "electors" chosen for the job - to be the equivalent of the Crown in England.
The Senate and the Presidency were intended to act as brakes on the more representative House of Representatives whose members themselves were to be chosen by an electorate limited to a small minority of White males who owned property.
However, the Founding Fathers, no matter how well intentioned and despite doing the best they could, failed.
America is not a republic.
America is a universal suffrage democracy.
And, for the time being, we're stuck with it.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
P.S. Tony Blair, the consummate leftist, conniving crook but blessed unlike most of our conservative politicians with sound insight on what really matters, essentially neutered the House of Lords.
He used my youthful arguments. He said that the unelected aristocrats ought to be replaced with people who got their positions on what he called "merit."
So, the hereditary peers were removed.
They were replaced with "men of merit", people chosen by politicians like Blair himself.
The result?
The House of Lords now consists of political hacks and connivers put there by politicians.
Periodically, members are exposed as sexual deviants, pedophiles, financial con artists and so on.
These are the "men of merit."