Demagogue: A Plausible Path to the End of the American Republic

This post is also available in: العربية (Arabic) Español (Spanish)

After a lengthy discussion, a conservative friend of mine finally granted me a single point about the state of our country today: that, if nothing else, the fear of a Trump presidency expressed by the left, while unwarranted, is genuine. He reminded me, however, that I could find solace in the U.S. Constitution, the greatest political document in human history.

I was less than reassured.

This casual dismissal of my concerns, and those of my progressive brothers and sisters on the left, smacks of wish thinking; the Constitution isn’t a magical document, impervious to devils and tyrants, if only we believe strongly enough. For indeed, while there are times when the Constitution protects me, there are also times when I must protect the Constitution.

Article in the New York Times, Nov 21, 1922, citing "several reliable, well-informed sources" that Hitler's anti-Semitic rhetoric was just a campaign device to mobilize the common man, not genuine proposals for governing.
Article in the New York Times, Nov 21, 1922, citing “several reliable, well-informed sources” that Hitler’s anti-Semitic rhetoric was just a campaign device to mobilize the common man, not genuine proposals for governing.

Unconcerned by the precedent, the Senate has, for half a year now, expressed a flagrant disdain for both the Constitution of the United States, and for the American voter. They’ve ignored a key provision for the checks and balances this country so depends on by denying President Barack Obama his constitutional right (and his obligation) to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.1http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/10/gop-senators-renew-pledge-to-block-obama-supreme-court-nominee/ This cynical ploy is purely political, and employs an Orwellian tactic made far too common by the Bush Administration: make the unimaginable and inexcusable both common and plain, simply by framing it as its exact opposite. Today the Senate claims to want to empower the American people, give them a voice, by ignoring the results of the 2012 election (which, not for nothing, reaffirmed the results of the 2008). The Constitution is not ambiguous in this, nor was the gall of the Senate when they took their contempt a step further by saying that they’d ignore the will of the people in the next election, too, if the people chose Hillary.2http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

They’ve done this, and many other galling acts of obstructionism in the name of satisfying a single constituency: The Tea Party. They do not care for the Constitution, the spirit of compromise on which it was built, or the oaths they took to protect and defend it, but rather for their own job security, over which the Tea Party has demonstrated remarkable influence.3http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/us/politics/gop-senators-fail-to-head-off-tea-party-rivals.html

This capitulation of our highest legislative body, intermixed with the smug condescension of liberals on the left, and a stubborn denial of facts on the right (reinforced by the most powerful media echo chamber in human history, happy to invent its own facts, both for profit and the furthering of its owners’ private political agenda) have combined to give us an unprecedented threat to the integrity of our constitution, and to the Republic itself.

By “The end of the American Republic,” I do not mean a repeal of the Constitution, nor, necessarily, of any of its amendments. Rather I mean the successful acquisition of power, by an individual or group, sufficient to be able to silence or disenfranchise nearly all political opposition, and to make clear, deliberate, and institutionalized violations of the constitution, and the rights therein, free of the checks and balances explicitly meant to block such violations. Indeed many countries, including the former Soviet Union, had grand and expansive constitutional rights. But it’s not just the quality of its founding documents which defines a country, but the enforcement (or lack thereof) of the rights they provide.

"[Hitler is] merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused"
“[Hitler is] merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused”
Donald J Trump is an incredibly talented man. Among his remarkable abilities is a complete mastery of the use of the carrot and stick; he can be both gracious and magnanimous, while also being a bloviating, intimidating bully. We’ve seen him use it throughout the election season, with opponents like Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and Newt Gingrich. Trump doesn’t want power, not even money (he burns through it like it’s water). What he wants–what he needs–is fame, idolization, and complete and unwavering loyalty. He lavishes praise and rewards on those who cede their worldview to his, while he brutally and unrelentingly attacks those who would question it.

If these traits sound familiar, they should; they are common to all despots and demagogues, like Kim Jong-Un, Saddam Hussein, and Vladimir Putin, just some of the dictators whose methods Trump has professed admiration for.4http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/donald-trump-favorite-dictators-and-strongmen/ They have terribly thin skin, are incapable of admitting error, and protect their ego by over-reacting to even the slightest perceived insult or threat to their image.

But the similarities don’t stop there. Adolf Hitler was able to come to power as a result of a number of factors. First, while he made his intention to eradicate the Jews clear in Mein Kampf, everybody assumed he couldn’t possibly be serious, that it was campaign rhetoric. Second, if he was crazy enough to try anything, the government and the people would never allow it. Further, it was assumed that the Jews– lawyers and bankers, members of the elite–could take care of themselves. Lastly, Hitler was thought not to be bright enough to pull it off.

But while I’ve been told that Mr. Trump boasts and bloviates simply to get his big crowds, I have always taken him at his word. I don’t see an alternative. When he says he will torture people, kill the families of terrorists, use religious tests to block entry into the country, and carpet bomb foreign countries, and lays veiled suggestions of Muslim internment camps, I assume he’s telling me the truth (I am, in fact, surprised by the people who take comfort in the notion he’s lying; if he is, then he hasn’t told a single truth in the last year and a half). And I don’t find him particularly bright or clever either, but he’s a talented bully, and has extraordinary instincts when it comes to the application of leverage over people.

This leaves a single question: Are the constitution, the people of the United States and their elected officials, strong enough to repel fascism?

Upon ascending to the presidency, Donald J. Trump will do what every president does, what he’s been doing since he won—project his power into Congress. With the help of the tea-party and a devout constituency, his position is simple—refuse to endorse me at your peril. Endorse—pledge your loyalty—and all is quickly and magnanimously forgiven (his proposal of term limits is along these lines. He likely has no real intent of following through on it, but he’s a negotiator, and the threat of it gives him a superior hand to bargain with members of congress). When Omarosa Manigault went on national television and proclaimed that every critic of Trump would bow down before him, he did exactly what you’d expect a fascist despot to do–he hired her and made her his director of African American Outreach.

"Everyone who has ever criticized Donald Trump will have to bow down before him" - Omarosa Manigault
“Everyone who has ever criticized Donald Trump, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him… will have to bow down [before President Trump]” – Omarosa Manigault
He’s leveraged brutalizing attacks and gracious magnanimity in concert to decimate the Republican establishment and prove himself superior to every one of their leaders, from Mitt Romney, to the once beloved Paul Ryan. Ryan, facing obliteration before the Trump machine, changed tack to support Trump, and has now cleared re-election to speaker of the house, the second most powerful office in the Union. Former enemies of Trump, people like Ted Cruz, who openly and publicly defied him during the convention (and with good reason), find offers of presidential appointments waiting for them when they come around. Indeed Trump seems to care little for a candidate’s qualifications for any one job, but rather whether or not the person’s will to resist him has been broken.

This power he is projecting into our Congress is the same demagoguery that served him so well in his campaign. The notion that now, having ascended to the highest office in the Union, he will self moderate, or that Congress will be able to stop him, seems laughably naive. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. What I do see is a mass of broken careers, all of people who underestimated trump, stretching from Trump Tower in New York to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC.

Indeed, having shrewdly filled his administration with congressional insiders and tea-party favorites, Mr. Trump has accomplished what was thought to be impossible—the successful appeasement of both the establishment, and the tea-party, wings of the Republican party.

The consequence of this is stark but clear: whatever power or will Congress had to check the incoming president is already largely blunted, and appears to be waning almost by the hour. Congress is under Republican control, cowering before the Tea Party, which Trump openly courts as his primary constituency (to which the appointment of Steve Bannon as a senior advisory attests).

This represents a serious compromise in the checks and balances between the White House and Congress, one being deliberately built upon.

That is the most banal of our problems.

The Supreme Court is split 50/50, and down one justice. In all likelihood Trump will get a nomination right out of the gate, and we can expect a nomination keeping with the principals of loyalty above all else, and pleasing the Tea Party (one of his proposed picks, William Pryor, filed a 2003 legal brief on criminalizing homosexual activities, even in private amongst consenting adults.5http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/17/pryor-lgbt-laws/). Republican’s control of the senate–nay, Trump’s control of the senate–is strong enough to end-run around any Democratic filibuster. He will take the power he has leveraged in congress, and leverage it to the Supreme Court, where it’s estimated he could fill as many as four vacancies. This is a stacking of the court for which there is no historical precedent.

This will place a demagogue at the head of the executive branch, with little but a severely compromised congress and court in his way. I want to be clear: this will give a single human being more power and representation, across all three branches of government, than there has ever been, more than the founding fathers had ever intended, and in direct violation of the founding principal of The United States.

Who, then, would be in a position to protect the American people from the rise of a fascist demagogue?

Running down our remaining constitutional protections and institutions, the outlook is rather bleak.

I’ll start with The Fifth Estate, which is protected by the first amendment. It’s our first amendment, even over the right to bear arms, because it is assumed that where there is a free press, a dictator can not possibly come to power. This may or may not be true, but is entirely irrelevant. Mr. Trump has made clear his utter disdain for media outlets and news organizations. He has reviled them, cut them off from his campaign when he doesn’t like their coverage6https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html, ignored the principals of a protection pool7http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-press-protective-pool-reporters-journalism-1.3854296, and promised a direct assault on free speech and freedom of the press 8http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866.

All of these, without exception, reflect the top priorities of fascist and dictatorial regimes worldwide, and throughout history.

Fox News unwittingly lay the foundation for Trump’s dominance over the media by setting a dangerous precedent of making facts irrelevant9http://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/, turning ignorance into a virtue10http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#362cbecf6189, and  spinning wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.11http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/11/29/unbalanced-fox-news-conspiracy-theory-obsession/173820 Fox’s normalization of this kind of demagoguery has given Trump, who fifteen years ago would have been immediately recognized for the fraud he is, room to maneuver, and expand further to the right of Fox’s biases, making Fox News truly seem “fair and balanced”, and turning Breitbart, an irrefutably Anti-Semitic, white supremacist news outlet, into the new right.

But Trump’s promise to attack the principles of free speech are what are most troubling, promising to “open up the libel laws” so that he can sue anybody who prints anything malicious or unfair. The problem is that that’s already in the libel laws. It’s already illegal to print things maliciously which you know are untrue. What he means is that he wants to sue anyone who prints anything that he thinks is unfair, or untrue. Judging from past experience, this is simply anything which is critical of him, disagrees with him, or suggests he made an error, in even the slightest way.

This is the cornerstone of authoritarianism—to suppress freedom of expression, and to redefine anything critical of the leadership as bad press, a priori.

You may find yourself repeating the mantra we have all thought, the mantra of every good society facing fascism. He won’t get that far. At what point do we get to stop saying that? At what point are we obligated to stop saying that? If he goes after the New York times with the full weight of the office of the president, with a stacked Supreme Court, who exactly do you think is going to stop him?

Not only is free press under unprecedented assault in this country, but a large percentage of his constituency thinks it should be. They blame “the lame stream media” (which, by some feat of cognitive dissonance now seems to include Fox News) for empowering the elite which has so disenfranchised them. The barriers to a successful campaign against the institutions of journalism are already half down, and weakening.

The rule of law is an institution I had also looked to for some hope. The Trump University issue is actually quite serious, the training manuals alone irrefutable proof of deliberate fraud on a scale that had caught even me by surprise, with barely any effort to apply even a cosmetic appearance of legitimacy. He’s been insulating himself against impeachment by the house. But he can’t block a criminal fraud case, or a case of sexual assault, each of which are conceivable and could land even a president in jail. It wouldn’t surprise me if he chose to continue to serve under those circumstances, but he’d rapidly lose his stranglehold on the government.

The problem, of course, is that he could simply pardon himself.

Don’t balk. I remind you, again, that his audacity has been underestimated at absolutely every turn. He would paint the criminal charges as “unfair”, and “rigged”. As he attempted to subvert one judge in the case by questioning his heritage, he would subvert the judge, jury, and prosecution. He was already gearing up for a genuine challenge to the legitimacy of the election – one with violent overtones at that. If he could convince his constitutes that the elites are taking the election from him, how hard would it be to convince them that these same people, sore losers and rioters, have doctored charges against. There’s no suggestion in the constitution that the president can’t pardon himself, and if he did, our only recourse would once again be… The Supreme Court.

This leads me to the final institution on which we rely to maintain our freedom—voting.

I’m not black, so there’s at least the possible that I’ll be able to vote against Trump four years from now. But if I can, it will be despite a deliberate, widespread, and systematic assault against the fundamental right of all Americans to vote.

There are several ways in which this right is under attack, but I’ll address the top two: Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering.

Voter Suppression: This is when members of the local, state, or federal government deliberately make it harder for the opposing party to vote, thereby increasing their own chances to win. It’s both illegal and rampant.

A hilarious and poignant take on voter suppression by John Oliver, Last Week Tonight
A hilarious and poignant take on voter suppression by John Oliver, Last Week Tonight

The most common way in which this is done is with Voter ID laws which require people to show a government issued ID to vote. These laws are ostensibly to block voter fraud, but while there are many kinds of possible voter fraud, Voter ID can block only one kind—in-person voter impersonation (where a voter comes in claiming to be someone they’re not).

This kind of fraud is extremely rare, for several reasons. First, it’s easy to catch (especially if the other person has already voted). Second, the payoff isn’t particularly high (you get a second vote, congratulations). Third, the risk is quite high, as much as a $10,000 fine and five years in jail. For these reasons, people rarely do it.

The most pessimistic study of voter fraud suggested 241 fraudulent ballots.  But after checking for clerical errors and other explanations, that number fell to about 31. We do know for a fact that 241 is way too high, but we’ll take take it. So 241 fraudulent ballots out of how many total?

Out of every billion votes cast.

This means that, absolute worst case, nightmare scenario, in-person voter fraud affects roughly 0.00415% of the vote (what’s more, for every one case of in-person voter fraud, there are 207 cases of voter fraud of another kind). In fact, from 2000 to 2012 there were only 10 cases of proven, in-person voter fraud, nationally.

On the other hand, 20 million eligible voters do not have any form of government issue ID. This is most often the poor, people without a car or passport, and the elderly. This represents roughly 11% of the population of the United States. If we assume that, in keeping with national averages, only half of them would even bother to vote, that’s still 5% of the population, or 10 million people, who would be unable to vote if Voter ID laws become a reality–easily enough to sway the outcome of an election. Voter ID proponents would eliminate 5% legitimate votes to guard against 0.004% illegitimate ones. Put another way, 208,333 legitimate votes are blocked for every 1 fraudulent vote.

Governor Scot Walker of Wisconsin’s reply to these figures? “It doesn’t matter… who would want to be the person whose vote is canceled out by a vote that was illegally cast?”

In the 2000 Election, Al Gore lost the state of Florida by only 537 votes.

So how hard is it to get an ID?

That depends. For the poor who live paycheck to paycheck, who don’t have a car, taking a day off to get an ID can be a heavy burden12 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html. Further, ID locations themselves are subject to voter suppression attacks, and are often underfunded with irregular hours (the most infamous of these is the Sauk City DMV office in Wisconsin, which is only open on the fifth Wednesday of every month). The requirements can be inconsistent and/or unclear, requiring multiple visits, and create another problem: to get an ID, you need to prove who you are, and so you need an ID. Again, if you’re poor, paying up to $300 for a copy of your birth-certificate (and taking another day off to get it) is a burden.

That this burden is proven both to disproportionately affect Democratic voters, and to significantly reduce voter turnout is, I’m told, just a coincidence. So too, is the fact that 34 out of 35 states considering or passing Voter ID laws over the last 4 years are controlled by republican governors and/or legislators.

The State of North Carolina even commissioned a report on the voting habits of black voters, then used findings to create laws to specifically to, in the words of one federal judge, “target African Americans with almost surgical precision”13http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/ by closing polls early in African American communities, blocking early voting on Sundays (when black churches bus parishioners to the polls), cutting the number of polling stations, and eliminated same day registration.

In fact, with enough time spent in front of the camera, more than once a republican official has accidentally let slip that Voter ID is helpful, if not critical, to republican efforts to win elections.14https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtmhX0ZIDcY

Between that, and republican efforts to purge voter rolls and block convicted felons from voting (efforts which successfully blocked 1.3 million votes in the state of Florida which, I’m told, occasionally has an impact on national elections), conservatives have made incredible advances in denying Americans the right to vote.

Economist Robert Reich explains Gerrymandering in under 30 Seconds.
Economist Robert Reich explains Gerrymandering in under 30 Seconds.

Gerrymandering: This is the redrawing of districts so as to allow lawmakers to choose their voters, instead of voters choosing their lawmakers. The goal is to clump as many like-minded voters into a single district, thereby diluting their power in the rest of the state. While gerrymandering exists on both sides, Karl Rove made it official policy and a national priority with project REDMAP,15http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap, a nationwide effort to install “a permanent republican majority” in spite of the will of the voters.16http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all The goal is to allow republicans to significantly increase their control of state legislators and lock democrats out of representation in the government. This effect builds, allowing them to make laws that compound voter suppression and further cement their control of their state, and to push that control upwards into the federal government. This tactic has allowed Republicans to block Barack Obama’s legislative agenda despite being a minority.17https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-power-that-gerrymandering-has-brought-to-republicans/2016/06/17/045264ae-2903-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html?utm_term=.a8e49e2bdc2c

Votes Cast vs. Seats Won (By The New York Times)
Votes Cast vs. Seats Won (By The New York Times)

I’ll save the moralizing for another time but to say this: There can be no argument that gerrymandering is not only a gross violation of democratic values, but the values and intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States.

Implementing national Voter ID is one of the principal agendas of the 2016 Republican Party Platform.

Donald Trump was responsible for none of this, but as a Republican, he has benefited. Given that the most recent supreme court enabled a huge surge in voter suppression by gutting key provisions of the Voting Rights Act just three years ago, and that Donald Trump will soon be able to stack the court as he sees fit, it is fair to say that institutionalized voter suppression and gerrymandering will only get worse, further solidifying Karl Rove’s promise and dream of single party rule in this country.

By looking at the severe damage done to the essential institutions of democracy in this country, I would estimate that Donald Trump, both through his own actions and by means of anti-democratic Republican infrastructure, is already between 30% and 40% of the way towards a successful overthrow of the American republic.

What does he need to do to complete the job?

A terrorist attack of any kind will help. Baring that, he’ll begin direct assaults on the national media. He’ll probably start with The New York Times, tie them up in lawsuits and intimidate any media organization which would speak poorly of him. He’ll severely limit the press pool, expelling and punishing any organization which prints unflattering articles18https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html, and likely try to reduce or remove the protective pool (a process he has already begun by putting them on a separate plane)19https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-reporters-worry-about-trump-ditching-his-press-pool-173416077.html. He’ll begin trying to divide these organizations by going after individuals too, suing reporters, editors, and CEO’s of media outlets, and rewarding “honest” reporters for stories, substantiated or not (look up birtherisim) which undermine the credibility of these organizations.

herman-goringThe KKK does not support Trump for his policies on Muslims. They support him because they believe he isn’t going to stop there. With the ascension of Steve Bannon to the most powerful administrative position in the White House, and given the direction of Breitbart news under Bannon’s direction (with articles like “Why Equality and Diversity Departments should Only Hire Rich, Straight White Men” and “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew“), it’s not hard to see why they’re optimistic.

He will continue to appoint racist, homophobic, and white nationalists to official posts, courting the alt-right and making a huge push to normalize its behavior. He’ll do this, not necessarily because he supports their cause, but because they’ll happily pay the price for getting a national voice for the first time in their history: unwavering loyalty with a dull, ever-present threat of violence seething below the surface. He’ll use their enthusiasm, as well as masterful policy feints (like the wall and term limits, which are likely only on the table so he can graciously take them off) to ensure that congressmen who oppose him find themselves facing credible tea party challenges in their primaries.

Internationally he will become more isolationist. He will improve relations with Russia, and hail such improvements as evidence of his superior leadership. We will (as promised) become far less concerned with the morality of a country (such as their respect for human life and international law) and more concerned with what that country can do for us, alienating us from first world democracies and aligning us with despots willing to pay any homage for legitimacy.

His protectionist policies will create trade wars with most of our trading partners, starting with Mexico. This will be framed as proof that they are treating us unfairly, and used as an excuse to begin targeting Americans of Hispanic (and eventually African American) decent, as well as to mobilize this country around him, around a shared view that the rest of the world is taking advantage of us. Hate crimes will go up, but organizations that report retaliatory crimes against white supremacists will be considered the only “fair” organizations, and coupled with the assault on media, it will be painted as vicious minorities attacking innocent white Americans. At this point he will be able to start bringing in the national guard to “protect” key pillars of our democracy, starting first with news organizations and polling places (indeed, he’s promised to boost military spending by 50%, but that will be the end of him if he can’t find a use for them). Liberals who oppose this will be branded as unpatriotic, and soon also be subject to scrutiny and intimidation (note the placement of people who already use this tactic, like Sarah Palin, in his administration). Indeed, a keyword in his administration will be “patriotism”, and it will be used like a knife to cut any who disagree with him.

Lastly, he’ll begin taking advantage of the tools available to him to engage in much more organized and national level voter suppression. He hasn’t mentioned Voter ID yet (likely isn’t even aware of it as a political tool, yet), but he will within the next year. Expect tremendous, full throated support from white supremacists, including those already installed in his administration, as they know full well the consequences of these laws. Further, he’ll begin suppressing the vote of Muslims, using intimidation and restrictive laws to suppress turnout. Expect “Security Checks” to “ensure” safety at the polls, checking anyone with robes or a headscarf.

None of this is original. What I’ve detailed here is an outline drawn from the playbook of every fascist leader, every dictator, in history. He has their traits, their ambitions, and has gotten as far as he has the same way they all have. Very little about him or his rise is original, as has been pointed out by those who lived through the rise of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin.

None of this is to say it is decided. Luck always plays a factor in world events, far more than we realize (had the wind across New York’s East River changed direction on the night of August 29th, 1776, George Washington and his army might have been wiped out, instead of escaping without losing a man, and we might well have lost the Revolutionary war). Thus far Trump has successfully made his own luck. But he’s got obstacles, including his own inexperience, and institutionalized resistance to his administration. Further, emboldened by their success, his own staff has proven somewhat difficult to wrangle; power like his breeds infighting and paralysis in large organizations, and the scope of this is beyond what Trump was prepared for. Given his short attention span and overwhelming boredom with the details of protracted projects, he may get bored and bail (I’m not saying it’s likely, but…).

And, frankly, fully opposed by every institutional body this country can bring to bear, he may well succeed anyway. In any case it seems to me that the United States has, as a country, failed catastrophically to recognize and deal with Donald Trump, and has at every possible turn underestimated him and the threat of a Trump presidency to our most basic institutions.

I do not know what the future holds. But I believe I have outlined here today a plausible path for the subversion of the principles of our democracy, into a fascist, totalitarian, single party rule, and the end of the American Republic in the span of an 8 year Trump presidency, and that such a process has in fact already begun.

N. Lamar Soutter

References   [ + ]

1. http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/10/gop-senators-renew-pledge-to-block-obama-supreme-court-nominee/
2. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/us/politics/gop-senators-fail-to-head-off-tea-party-rivals.html
4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/donald-trump-favorite-dictators-and-strongmen/
5. http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/17/pryor-lgbt-laws/
6, 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html
7. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-press-protective-pool-reporters-journalism-1.3854296
8. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866
9. http://www.mintpressnews.com/pants-on-fire-analysis-shows-60-of-fox-news-facts-are-really-lies/205563/
10. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/#362cbecf6189
11. http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/11/29/unbalanced-fox-news-conspiracy-theory-obsession/173820
12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
13. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtmhX0ZIDcY
15. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap
16. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all
17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-power-that-gerrymandering-has-brought-to-republicans/2016/06/17/045264ae-2903-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html?utm_term=.a8e49e2bdc2c
19. https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-reporters-worry-about-trump-ditching-his-press-pool-173416077.html

209 Comments

  1. Did you know that Trump is Hitler reincarnated and Hillary visits abortion clinics to eat unborn babies with hot sauce she carries in her purse.

    November 28, 2016
    • Please don’t do that. This forum is for honest discussion, and you need to fact check and be clear. Everyone knows that Hillary prefers sweet and sour on her unborn fetus’.

      November 28, 2016
    • Crap. Now I need to check MY sources… That’ll put a wrench in the whole day. I was on my way out the door to club a few baby seals! Thanks for nothing….

      November 28, 2016
  2. This is somehow mischievous, demagogue star already with the state of political dynasties, and that’s a bipartisan model, and Democrats are more consistent on that. Demagogue start with empty symbols, like a first black president who could do nothing against the racially profiled violence of the police, and a first female candidate who abused by her husband’s scandalous infidelity. All that ignoring Republicans (the racists) promote both blacks and female (black female) to top positions not because their ideological compromises but because their individuality and strength. And demagogue restart now with Democrats dreaming with the nomination of Michelle before reflect about the roots of their defeat.

    November 28, 2016
  3. Paul Volmar said:

    And this is why fear mongering will be forever used by presidential candidates in election years… because it works on so many people…

    November 26, 2016
    • Excuse me, but he is correct. They acted to impeach Nixon. They did not impeach him, the charges only cleared the judiciary, the full house had not yet voted on it. But “they acted to impeach him” is quite correct. Wow, so much hatred people aren’t even reading anymore…. They acted to impeach him, and he resigned before they actually impeached. Wow…

      November 26, 2016
  4. Eric Almond said:

    Good points. At least a bipartisan congress acted to impeach Nixon. Don’t see that happening this time around but who knows?

    November 26, 2016
  5. Jerry Rogers said:

    Bet you believe everything you read in Communist Lying Occupy Democrats and CNN the Clinton News Network, they lied to you Liberals all year saying your two time loser lying corrupt criminal Hillary Clinton was winning by double digits. HA HA LOL.

    November 26, 2016
  6. I looked at your “references”. No credibility in any of those and neither are your arguements. Dont you know those news outlets tell lies and have been cought doing so? Your just riding the same ole horse.Anyone that knows anything about history would know that Hillary and her politics are more closely related to Hitler. Nice try.

    November 25, 2016
    • What evidence do you have that they lie. Could you give me some sources which show The Washington Post or NYT lying? I’d be very interested in that.

      November 26, 2016
    • CNN says the NYT lies? Again, I’d be most interested. I’ve never heard them accuse NYT of lying. Please provide the sourse.

      November 26, 2016
    • So your premis is that all of these fine upstanding institutions are the bastions for truth?And you have read and listened to them and that you get all of your information from them? Your just riding their ole propaganda horse.

      November 26, 2016
    • I misunderstood you. I asked for a source. You say that these sources lie, and apparently quite often. I’d like your source on that, your evidence. I’ve cited sources, and you’re saying they’re wrong. Great, cite some back. Correct me, show me where the NYT lies. I love being corrected, because I wake up tomorrow smarter than I was the day before. Show me evidence that NYT is not a credible source. If it’s as obvious as you say, great, I’m ready for it.

      November 26, 2016
    • No, I read Fox news online very day. I read Fox, CNN (less in the last two years), WP, MSNBC (sometimes), NYT, every morning for the last … I don’t know, maybe 10 years. Read AP and Reuters at least two or three times a week, The Guardian…, Al Jazeera a read now a few times a week too. I look forward to your sources.

      November 26, 2016
    • Lol just because someone writes that someone is a racist or a NAZI does not make it so. Please cite your sources that say that these news sources are beyond reproach. Can you? Lol

      November 26, 2016
    • It’s impossible to prove a negative. You said these news outlets lie. You said they’ve been caught doing so. I just asked to see your evidence. You seem realy sure, great. Now I agree that just because it’s written doesn’t make it so, I’m going by what Bannon himself authorized. I made that quite clear. I quote Bannon’s own organization, cite it as the source for the white supremacist claim. If I can’t quote the organization he was CEO of, who can I quote. lol… U sure you read the piece?

      November 26, 2016
    • Listen you said NYT caught lying. Great. Show me. That’s all I’m asking. I cited evidence. You think it’s bad evidence, cite the counter evidence. It’s really that simple. I’m open to it.

      November 26, 2016
    • They reported that Trump said all illegals are rapist and drug dealers and that all the refugees are terrorist. Now did he say that?

      November 26, 2016
    • I see one of your sources is YouTube. A good source of information most of the time because you get to hear someones own words, The part that you wrote about voter fraud was intresting. So have you gone to YouTube and listened to the setting POTUS tell illegals to vote days before the election and that nothing would be done to them. What did he say? When you vote you are a citizen. He is telling them to commit voter fraud but your fine news establishments didn’t mention it because it’s not a part of their agenda just like it doesn’t fit your agenda. In your article you are arguing that voter ID is so hard on poor people. You have to have an ID to open a bank account ,get benefits or anything else in society. But not to vote? There is only one reason to argue against this and it is fraud.

      November 26, 2016
    • I know people without ID, so, no. There are 20 million people without an ID. Ask, I can get you the sources on that, never heard it disputed. Implement voter ID, they can’t vote. You want to get them free ID, I’m all for that, then we’ll talk, but I’ve never seen a Voter ID law that doesn’t burden the people trying to get the ID. Go to their door, hand them out, you’ve got my support for the ID law. But states that have passed it have made people (living paycheck to paycheck) pay hundreds for the ID, and that violates the constitution.

      November 26, 2016
    • The video your talking about, telling them to commit voter fraud, sounds AWESOME. Link please 🙂

      November 26, 2016
    • Who reported that Trump said “All illegals are rapists and drugdealers”. That would be terrible reporting, I agree. I can see how they could make the mistake, but a reputable news organization shouldn’t say that. Who said it? When? Got the source? I’d love to see it (my concern? People’s memories play tricks on them, and they THINK a news outlet said something they didn’t really say, so I always need to see the source for myself. I know you’d demand the same, as well you should).

      November 26, 2016
    • Definitely get me the article. If the NYT said that trump said “All Mexicans are rapists”… Yeah, that’s an issue. I look forward to that one, thank you.

      November 26, 2016
    • Mississippi furnished voter ID cards. Free. Do these people you refer to not have any form of ID. No drivers license. No source needed when you have logic.

      November 26, 2016
    • Now let’s get to the point. You copy information or propaganda and arrange it into an essay to appeal to certain individuals. For what? The betterment mankind of some nobel cause. Naaa here is the reason.N Lamar Soutter is creating Books and Essays
      Overview
      Posts
      Community
      Become a patron
      0
      patrons
      $0
      per month

      Follow

      Share
      Welcome to the N Lamar Soutter Patreon page.

      If you’re here, you probably already have some idea of what I do. I write books, novels, and essays on politics and the social sciences. My goal is to provide an educated, rational, and balanced perspective, both on popular issues, and topics which may have slipped in under the radar (and, on occasion, certifiable acts of lunacy).

      My novel, The Water Thief, was written as a rebuttal to Ayn Rand’s Atlas shrugged. It’s spectacular critical success was matched only by its catastrophic commercial failure. Nonetheless, I’ve been blessed with the ability to do author signings, conferences, and radio interviews on it.

      But it doesn’t pay the bills – not even close. I blog, but I take great pains to provide genuine insight – to avoid ranting and raving. The essays take a great deal of time to research and write – and significant expense in the rare occasion that they need to be translated into Spanish, Hebrew or Arabic.

      I couldn’t continue this career without the support of my fans. Much of it is in the form of e-mails or Facebook messages of support, and that means a lot to me, especially on the dark days where I wonder if I’m just wasting my time, shouting into the wind. But you can also demonstrate your support in a more concrete way – by becoming a patron and helping me to continue my work.

      It doesn’t take much – even small monthly contributions start to add up, and it doesn’t take long before the effects are real for me and my family. If you’ve read my work, if you think it has value, I hope you’ll consider becoming a patron.

      There are rewards at all levels of patronage. Patrons will get exclusive material not available anywhere else. The higher the level of patronage, the more available to you – including previews of future work, personal essays on the method and madness, and background material on myself and the work I’ve published.

      So again, if this work has value to you, I hope you will consider becoming a patron.

      Thank you.

      N. Lamar Soutter. Source? YOU
      I think you are a little out of balance myself. When I came across your page with the Hitler picture and the destruction of the Republic caption I thought for sure it would be an article about Hillary and the bullet we dodged. But I see it is a biased article to try and get money from her disgruntled supporters. Source. YOU.

      November 26, 2016
    • Her is the link to Obama on YouTube. Put forth a little effort and search on youtube Obama telling illegals to vote. It’s easy.

      November 26, 2016
    • Think you forgot the link. It’s not easy, because most of the ones I see are fake, and I shouldn’t have to research YOUR position. You can sort through the fake ones and give me a real source. Why should I have to find your evidence for you? Anyways, I think you forgot the link.

      November 26, 2016
    • Lol I thought you liked researching and were so astute at finding CREDIBLE sources. And of course you are so balanced according to my source. YOU.

      November 26, 2016
    • See, for example, I just did a search and found this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUN6FsQFOkY But that video has a number of problems, not the lease of which is that if you read the original transcript, you can see the part where he says illegals can’t vote has been edited out. It’s a convoluted question, she asks about HERSELF voting, and he answers that, and says that she can because she’s a citizen, but has to speak for those who can’t because they’re not. But people who don’t do their homework make a big deal out of videos like this, so I ask them to do the research first. Read the transcript. Look forward to the video.

      November 26, 2016
    • Listen, please stop the personal attacks, and just show me the evidence. You said the NYT got caught lying. You seem to think this is an easy, credible thing. Why are you looking up my website instead of just showing me your evidence. How many times do I need to ask. I told you I’d grant it a lie if they said what you say they did. Sight unseen, I agree with you. So show me. But you will need to stop the rest of this garbage. Lets stick to facts, can we do that? Show me the proof, and you’ve won.

      November 26, 2016
    • Did you like the videos? Perhaps you could write a balanced article about the POTUS breaking his oath of office.

      November 26, 2016
    • David Covington Did you just post copyrighted material on here without the permission of the copyright holder? Tisk, tisk, tisk….You will need to stop ad hominim and just stick with facts, please, I’m getting sick of banning people on here. Had to ban a certifiably hater not 6 hours ago. I’m asking for simple stuff- just back up your claims. Instead you go after me personally and think you’re being clever. It’s not helpful. Show me the NYT lied. I’d be genuinely interested.

      November 26, 2016
    • I answered the videos. Posted it myself. The problem is that it’s an edited part of the interview. Now please… You are attacking Obama, attacking me… You said that the NYT isn’t credible, they’ve been caught lying. Could you please just back up that claim. You’re attacking everything but the evidence I’ve given which you say isn’t credible. Stop changing the subject, and for the twentieth time, please show me why the NYT is unreliable.http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/07/video-obama-encouraging-illegal-immigrants-vote/

      November 26, 2016
    • Stop changing the subject. The NYT lies–You said that they wrote that trump said “All Mexicans are rapists”. I agreed if they said that it would be false reporting. I agreed with you. So now backup your claim, or else I call horseshit on absolutely everything you’ve said. I agreed that if they said what you say they did, you’re right. You said they did it, so back it up.

      November 26, 2016
    • RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

      OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

      RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election

      November 26, 2016
    • David Covington The cards are free, yes, but the Birth Certificate to prove you’re eligible for the cards isn’t (in some cases hundreds of dollars). There are expenses. Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed those “Free” Cards. Stop changing the subject. NYT-proof they lie please.

      November 26, 2016
    • Lets see specific sources for the claim that Trump is a NAZI ( is that not what you are saying). That he is like the dictators that you mentioned and proof that he is actually a racist. I’m sure you won’t have a problem there. Credible sources of course like CNN ect. The bastions of truth and unbiased fairness. I actually thought I would get to see them stab themselves on election night. But they were fair and unbiased weren’t they? Apparently everything in your piece was taken from the honest unbiased journalist.

      November 26, 2016
    • Please. Stop making shit up. Please. Point to where I call Trump a Nazi. I’ve got sources on his admiration of Putin, he said it on O’riley, all over the place, I can do that, but you keep refusing to back up what YOU say. For the 8th time, what’s your source that the NYT is unreliable? And don’t put words in my mouth. Where Do I call trump a Nazi. Stop making shit up. Either get me your sources, or get off of this forum (or I will take you off). But stop lying about what I said.

      November 26, 2016
    • You do not imply? Why have Hitlers photo on your post then? What did I make up. You compared Trump to Kim and those other dictators or were you comparing Hillary to them. Admiration of Putin makes him want to be Putin. Wow I never knew. You cited sources so I assumed you wrote what they said. Who does Hillary admire. Your balanced piece does not mention that.

      November 26, 2016
    • Wow. I said he hired white supremacists into his cabinet (he did, and I can source it, in fact I already do). I compared, explicitly, not him, but his rise to power, in terms of other fascists, and how it was done by Hitler. I never said he was a Nazi. Stop lying, stop putting words in my mouth, and stop changing the subject. Please cite your source that the NYT is unreliable. You said it was clear, they’ve been caught, show me. I’ve been phenomenally patient, but I will not read another thing from you till you back up your claims.

      November 26, 2016
    • It is true that David Duke is endorsing trump? Called his appointments “like Christmas”, right? Any thoughts as to why he said that?

      November 25, 2016
    • David Duke I cant answer for what comes out his mouth but I can say Trump has repeatedly denied affilation with Duke or any other hate groups. The hate was a creation by the left winged propagandist who are more like Nazi’s than anything since 1930. Devide and conquer.

      November 26, 2016
    • Well David duke seems to think Trump’s doing a good job. Lets start with his top advisor, Steven Bannon. Now when Bannon joined Breitbart, it was already pretty far to the right. As the head of Breitbart, it went even further to the right, and published articles like “Why Equality and Diversity Departments Should Only Hire Rich, Straight White Men”. Do you think that it’s articles like that, published under Bannon’s leadership, that influences David Duke’s opinion?

      November 26, 2016
    • Jerry Rogers said:

      Bet you believe everything you read in Communist Lying Occupy Democrats and CNN the Clinton News Network, they lied to you Liberals all year saying your two time loser lying corrupt criminal Hillary Clinton was winning by double digits. HA HA LOL.

      November 26, 2016
    • I copied the breitbart article. It’s their article. I’m quoting them and asking if you can see why it looks racist, that’s all. Stephen Roper taking great pains to avoid answering the question, but it’s a fair question.

      November 26, 2016
    • By every objective measure Trump lies A LOT more than Hillary (ask for the sources I’ll get them to you). He’s rolling back more of his promises faster than any candidate in history. He’s not even in the WH and he’s rolled back most of his “promises”. His cabinet is mostly Washington insiders, The wall may not be built (use fence or drones instead), and he’s going to keep the provisions that make ACA the ACA (he just hasn’t said how he’s going to pay for it), and won’t go after Hillary (which he couldn’t have done in the first place). He was a lifelong democrat for single payer and pro choice till he decided he wanted your vote… I think you may find that the man who literally has a gold plated toilet and never applied for a job in his life may not represent the working class as well as he said he would. Just a thought.

      November 26, 2016
    • If you think this guy is going to ever leave the White House you’re delusional ! He’s planning on his family running America forever ! He’s like any other fanatical fascist !

      November 27, 2016
    • I would, but it’s spent so much time up there, my ass has just gotten too big, and my head doesn’t stick there anymore. Besides, people were staring.

      November 25, 2016
  7. Therein lies the problem both the left and the right would be perfectly happy with a dictatorship as long as their party was in control of the dictatorship both sides try screaming the other side down if you’re not for me you are against me which creates zealots on both sides of the aisle

    November 25, 2016
    • Unfortunately, Mr. Mueller, there is a good deal of truth to that. It’s not completely true (note the denunciations against trump from rather serious Republicans), but yes, there’s truth to it.

      November 25, 2016
  8. I admit I didn’t read all of this, but I think it’s interesting that the thesis is that people on the right are endangering the continuation of the republic … seeing as how so many on the right are sure that it’s actually Leftism that’s endangering the republic.

    We look around and see: self-aggrandizing Dem politicians BUYING the votes of many with promises to redistribute the wealth of others; a MOB mentality that turns the concept of “tolerance” on its head; an activist judiciary that ignores the intent of the Constitution and laws, interpreting them through an ever-shifting lens of what those jurists WANT them to say; irrational environmentalism that deprives people of their property rights; foreign policy from a posture of weakness and insidious tinkering with the military, combining to endanger our prosperity and freedom.

    The American Left (which today certainly includes the leadership of the Democratic Party and many of the rank and file) not only endangers the republic: it’s in a full-frontal assault on the Constitution and the republic.

    November 25, 2016
    • Sir… Thank you. I disagree with you (obviously), but you were honest about not fully reading the article (which I get, it’s a long piece, we all have lives, and if you disagree with it, it feels like a waste of time). I appreciate that you gave it a good shot, and put in a decent rebuttal. I’ve no time to debate you at the moment, but I do have the time to say I sincerely appreciate the engagement. Thank you.

      November 25, 2016
    • N Lamar Soutter: And, I appreciate you reacting civilly and thoughtfully. I believe what I believe passionately, but I lament that it’s rare these days to be able to discuss something with someone with whom you disagree … without being disagreeable. Thanks for the follow-up

      November 25, 2016
  9. This article confirms what I have seen throughout the election year. Trump ran the Hitler playbook better than Hitler did. He managed this because the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell had laid the groundwork for him, I have viewed more Nazi film and read enough on the era which would translate into two PhDs. Having met a wonderful you lady of German descent who told how her granddad rebuffed the fuehrer and ran away from Germany with his family, I told my relatives what to do and am prepared to do it myself. This situation will not cure and there are two options: face the tribulation or run away from it. You can deduce what my decision is.

    November 25, 2016
    • Jerry Rogers said:

      Bet you believe everything you read in Communist Lying Occupy Democrats and CNN the Clinton News Network, they lied to you Liberals all year saying your two time loser lying corrupt criminal Hillary Clinton was winning by double digits. HA HA LOL.

      November 26, 2016
    • I post here for the edification of others mainly. I am aware that only about 20% of the info that exists is on the web. For your information, I read newspapers in three languages to get diverse perspectives, When the spirit moves me, I read a fourth language to tax the brain a little. I come from the era of direct interviewing, public library research and travel. Donc, je vais lire Le Monde maintenant. Que tenga un buen dia!

      November 26, 2016
    • Paul Volmar said:

      A shame to see such valiant efforts at self education still give way to fear mongering…

      November 26, 2016
    • Jerry Rogers said:

      H Jake Broomes, Obama’s Legacy = he will only be remembered for 4 things = Tranny’s in the restroom which I could care less it’s just funny as hell, America’s biggest rip off Obama Care, Marxist Political Correctness, and he Screwed the whole world with his pathetic Iran deal just to sell Iran 25 billion in Boeing jet airliners.

      November 26, 2016
    • OMG. Tempted to take the article down, except it’s so silly it serves as an example of what hooks people, what’s so dangerious–no claims of fact against Hillary, no direct comparisons… OMG, no wonder our education system is… Do you watch Fox News? Just asking…

      November 25, 2016
    • Thank you for your input sir, however Hillary did call the TPP the gold standard, and only changed her view when she wanted union endorsements…just one of several issues she has flip flopped on….her supporting TPP is far not factual than ” misleading “

      November 25, 2016
    • Well, I’ll say this… You’re extremely polite (despite being baited), which I do appreciate. Thank you for your response.

      November 25, 2016
    • Being rude never accomplishes anything….especially if we disagree on an issue like this one…..

      November 25, 2016
  10. Bob Williams said:

    Hey Libs, quit projecting your short comings onto those with opposing viewpoints, remember how we all survived the post election riots in 08 and 12…..yeah. We sucked it up. Look in the mirror…you oppress any who don’t agree with you and call them names…sounds a bit Hitlerish…..

    November 24, 2016
  11. Right thought, wrong candidate. Had Hillary won then your little scenario would definitely becoming true at this very moment. Look at Hillary’s Brownshirts out in the streets now. My G-d, had she won there would be prosecution and jailing of her opponents, and the Browns hurts would be shooting and hanging the supporters of Trump in the streets, from the trees, and tossing them from tall buildings the the Islamofascists toss gays from rooftops. Thank G-d we veered away from the Cult of Clinton.

    November 24, 2016
    • Rindi Baze said:

      Tinsel McIntosh your post is absolutely untruthful and ridiculous! Unfortunately some of the Trump supporters such as yourself fit right in to that basket of deplorables!

      November 25, 2016
    • Sonya Welch said:

      That is some of the craziest crap I have ever heard. Been listening to too much alt right radio.

      November 26, 2016
    • Sonya Welch, I can’t stand the alt right, just like I can’t stand Occupy Democrats. BLM, the Cult of Clinton, and race hustlers like AL Sharpton. And nothing I wrote is any crazier than this semi-functional dumbass N Lamar Sutter writing his crap, which apparently you love, which would definitely put you right there in insanely crazy category.

      November 27, 2016
    • Rind Baze, what is wrote is a lot more truthful, and light years less ridiculous than what was written by the trogoladyte, N Lamar Soutter. I see you keep up with this bonehead, so when it comes to ridiculous and untruthful, maybe you should take a good look at the man in the mirror tomorrow morning.

      November 27, 2016
    • Rinsel McIntosh Lets keep the ad hominem out of it. Not for my sake, mind you, I just don’t think that was a nice thing to say To Rindi Baze (or about troglodytes, come to that).

      November 27, 2016
  12. Steve Reed said:

    Dude, you need to explore outside your northeastern bubble. As another writer said, “Travel is fatal to prejudice.”

    November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      Five, if you count Hong Kong as a separate one prior to reunification with the PRC. How about yourself?

      November 24, 2016
    • I assume you meant, for me, travel within the US. I’ve lived in Michigan, SoCal, spend a lot of time in New Mexico, Alabama… Spent two months in the USSR, Argentina, UK, Mexico, Canada, Greece… I’m sure there’s more, but that’s just off the top of my head… And I guess I’m still a prejudice SOB…. What do you know….

      November 24, 2016
    • And since somehow it seems to be relevant, I teach history and law, and (at the height, when I was graduating High School… I was) fluent in Russian, Japanese (okay, fluent here a stretch, but I was good), and Spanish– travel means more when you can speak the native language.

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      N Lamar Soutter I said that only because the “fear” meme is the sort of thing that you’d expect from being cloistered among people who don’t personally know anybody who voted for Donald Trump. Your statements about the Tea Party appear to have been downloaded from a hard left news site whose writers were unacquainted with any actual views or positions from Tea Party voters. When even SNL is poking fun at the “bubble” phenomenon, it’s probably time for our fellow patriots on the left to ponder whether there just *might* be a particle of truth in the gibe.



      November 24, 2016
    • Course all that travel, I’ve been called an elitist snob for learning about other cultures, so I’m a jerk no matter what I do. Why don’t you just read the piece and argue it on its merits, instead of saying I’m not well enough traveled?

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      Okay, you said Tea Party voters care nothing for the Constitution. In actual fact, a restoration of Constitutional rule was a central feature of the movement (along with a reduction in the level of taxation).

      November 24, 2016
    • It WAS the central feature of the movement. But the problem is that every article, every clause, every paragraph, every sentence, every word, and every piece of punctuation cam as the result of compromise. The constitution was written so as to require compromise. Another central feature of the movement was to not compromise under any circumstances. That’s incompatible with the founding tenants of the constitution, and the positions are mutually exclusive. They can say that they’re for it all they like–they’re for a few pieces of it, but they appear to despise it’s intent. I judge them on what they do, not what they say, and obstructionism appears more important to them. Am I misinterpreting something?

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      N Lamar Soutter You said that the President has the right to appoint SCOTUS justices. This is untrue by reason of being materially incomplete. Any nominee must be approved by the Senate. I could “fisk” your article for a long time, but there’s no need for that. Instead, why not quiet your fears by taking a driving vacation through a few red states and just ask people whether they’re fascists, or if they want to kill off minorities, or whatever else it is you’re concerned about. You’ll feel better, and then you can write another article about what you find on the road, like Charles Kuralt.

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      N Lamar Soutter I believe you’re misterpreting something, yes. It is one thing to compromise in order to GET a Constitution. It is another thing entirely to then compromise the Constitution itself. Constitutional conservatives like myself believe that the document has been compromised until very little of the original remains in force. One example: The Constitution vests all legislative power in the House and Senate. This has been usurped almost entirely by the executive branch via the regulatory bureaucracy. The executive branch promulgates new rules daily via the Federal Register, none of which originate in the legislature. Rolling back the excesses of the “regulatory empire” is a goal of Constitutional conservatives everywhere and was a goal of the (now pretty much defunct) Tea Party. That is not a matter of compromise, but rather is a matter of putting legislative authority where it always belonged, namely, in the legislature.

      November 24, 2016
    • No, he must appoint with consultation and approval of the senate. But the senate has not held a hearing or voiced their opinion formally. This is called Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur, or “Silence implies consent”. Most constitutional scholars agree that there’s a decent argument to be made that he can now appoint (I can send you a few articles if you like) since by not having a hearing, they have denied themselves a voice in it.

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      The president can make a recess appointment if the office is unfilled, but it’s for a limited time only. As for silence being consent, that would be a sterling example of the kind of extra-constitutional connivance the Tea Party rightly opposed. The Court can do its work with eight justices, or even fewer, so there is no exigent situation that demands we blow up the current, Constitutional process by trying to kick the Senate to the curb.

      And besides, the senate has not been silent. Mr. Garland is not acceptable to the majority of the senate, and senate leadership has said repeatedly that they will review whatever appointment is made by the *next* president. They said that when everyone thought the next POTUS would be Mrs. Clinton. Now that it appears it will be Mr. Trump, nothing’s changed.

      I’ve enjoyed our conversation. If you’re ever in Wilmington, NC, send me a FB message, and I’ll buy you a steak and libation of your choice.

      November 24, 2016
    • As to your second point. ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

      You don’t know what any of those words mean. You may think you do, and that terrifies me.

      What’s a person? When this was written it was a white, 12 year old male or older. Period.

      What are arms? Does this cover side arms, nuclear arms, artillery?

      What’s infringed? I think paying for a gun is an infringement–my read on this is that the government should supply them for me.

      What is a right? Can convicts have that right removed, or not? What about the insane?

      Only tyrants say they know for certain what the constitution says or means. It is meant to be discussed, to be evolved, and worked on. The Tea Party calls this weakness, and thinks that the constitution is theirs, and theirs alone. Whatever they once were, they are the party of tyrant, cloaking themselves in “patriotism”–the virtue of the vicious. They believe they alone are right, and by refusing to compromise, enabled Obama’s power grabs (of which I do not approve, but congress can’t stop him because they won’t work with him, and lost all authority to do so).

      There should be a hearing on Garland, there should be a vote, and if it’s no, Obama should pick another. By refusing to do that, Congregates cedes the high ground, Obama’s poll numbers go up, and now he can Appoint on his own and get away with it. And it’s congresses fault.

      November 24, 2016
    • Steve Reed said:

      N Lamar Soutter “Getting away with it” is the kind of lawlessness that I hope we never see from either party. Not good for you; not good for me; not good for America.

      November 24, 2016
    • Curious sir, Who were the 12 year olds that wrote the Constitution?…and there is plenty of context the choice when they did write the Constitution it was so any man could understand it

      November 25, 2016
    • I never said 12 year olds wrote the constitution. But 12 to 14 was the age of manhood, and the minimum age to bear arms and fight in the revolutionary war was usually 12. Age of consent to marry varied, but was generally 10 for girls, 12 for boys.

      November 25, 2016
    • Jeff Krugler said:

      the hitler comparison can’t be helped. trump is acting like him so its deserved.

      November 23, 2016
    • That is not an argument. I make arguments in the piece, and I cite references. You can try to refute them, or you can post unoriginal meme’s. It’s up to you, but I’m genuinely unimpressed so far.

      November 24, 2016
  13. No hitler comes from the far left where free speech is shut down and laws force people into one mold. Trump is the correction this country needs. He will move the country back to the center

    November 23, 2016
    • Jeff Krugler said:

      trump has shades of hitler. let us not forget that hitler blamed the jews for Germanys troubles following world war one where as trump is blaming Mexicans and muslims. hitler put forth laws that hurt everyone in Germany whereas trump has signaled he wants laws that help the rich and upper middle class and has yet put forth any thing that would help the lower end of the middle class and the poor. we pray that trump doesn’t mess this country up too bad and that all the progress that has been made over the last eight years will not be ended.

      November 23, 2016
    • Let me get this straight… Trump will move us back to the center by limiting free speech and hiring white supremacists, and forcing people into one mold (conversion therapy).

      November 23, 2016
    • Joe Ferrera said:

      Lamar, stop pushing lies, you drama queen. There’s no basis for thinking like that. And the morons who take you seriously can’t differentiate between reality and fantasy.

      November 23, 2016
    • I’m only a “queen” when I’m going to the club in a dress–haven’t done that in weeks, so, stow it… At any rate, have you read the piece? I cite sources for every claim I make. Pence is for conversion therapy, Trump want’s to “Open Up” the libel laws (and since they already allow suit for malicious, unfounded articles, what he really wants is to stop “unfair” articles… guess who gets to decide what’s unfair?) he’s revoked press credentials of newspapers like the WP, and he’s hired White Supremacists–and I source it all. Who’s denying reality?

      November 23, 2016
    • Joe Ferrera said:

      Libel laws need to be enforced. You shouldn’t be allowed to ruin anyone’s life with lies and get away with it.

      November 23, 2016
    • I agree, and you’re not. But nobody’s printed anything libelous on trump (and he’s tried suing repeatedly, and most of the time he loses. He thinks that means the laws are no good, but the truth is every case I’ve seen has been terrible). Again, I covered this already.

      November 24, 2016
    • Ray McLaurin said:

      N Lamar Soutter you are the type of person who would love to see the US fail so you can run around with copies of your crappy little rant and say”see, I was right”. You are a special kind of stupid aren’t you sunshine. The same as all the other whiny ass little spoiled children who didn’t get their way and don’t know how to comprehend losing. It’s real easy…your candidate didn’t win!!! Do you actually think that this country will go down the same road as Germany in the 20’s? What you fail to realize is the same people who voted in Donald Trump are the same ones who would fight a war to remove a Hitler of today. You liberal little twits would protest any kind of military action because….I don’t have to say a thing…just view some of the protest footage…do you think these men( and I use this term in the most broad spectrum I can to include at least 10% of the supposedly male gender creatures who cry and stomp their feet) would actually defend this nation if it were needed? No sir…the men and women who voted for Donald Trump are the closest resemblance of the Americans who stepped up in 1939 to help the British and the Chinese. Who ran to the induction centers the same day of the Pearl Harbor bombing. Your crowd sir…would have refused to fight and would have accused FDR of orchestrating tho whole episode including American pilots in painted planes to look like Japanese. So you can take your worried little self to your nearest safe space so the rest of us can get back to making this country great again.

      November 25, 2016
    • Your indignation might be slightly more convincing if I didn’t remember burning effigies of Barack Obama hanging from a noose in front of a church right after his election. I also note that you don’t actually refute any of my arguments. Nobody protested Bush’s re-election, certainly I didn’t, and I never called for a challenge to the vote in the first. I’ve lost many elections. This is different-so save your generalizations and name calling for the playground at recess (or come up with something more original).

      Now, if you think Trump is going to “Make America Great Again”, I think you’ll be disappointed. I’ve seen no evidence Trump meant any of his campaign promises. He was a lifelong pro-choice, pro-single payer democrat until the day he started running. I’m amazed that that doesn’t seem to trouble his constituency. He never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary, I doubt he cares much about the wall (and is already rolling that back)… He’s rolling back his ACA repeal… I’ve never seen a candidate renege on more promises before he’s even in office. And judging by his business dealings he’s already working on (too busy to take his daily intelligence briefings, the man with the golden toilet, who represents ‘the common man’ is already making business deals in China and Argentina, and “draining the swamp” straight into the White House).

      I’m not sure how “nobody owns or controls him”, which is absolutely true, translated to “well, except us. Put him into the highest office in the world, and he’ll do what we who voted for him tell him to”. Certainly I see no evidence of that.

      If you want to pigeon hole me into one crowd or another, go ahead—I’ve been called worse by people both smarter and better educated. But I site sources and posited a cogent argument. If the mood strikes you, maybe you can tackle a point or two I made, not make silly generalizations about what crowd YOU think I’m in.

      November 25, 2016
    • Ray McLaurin said:

      N Lamar Soutter you are the cookie cutter liberal I run into all the time. No one special and definitely thinks he is more intelligent than he is. So what are you going to do in 2 years when the US is better off in world politics…better off in the world market place and you have no more illegal aliens to sanctuary? What then?

      November 25, 2016
    • Trina Kath said:

      N Lamar, amazing piece. Those who don’t want to see the truth will twist and turn and laugh and gyrate to avoid seeing it.

      November 25, 2016
    • Ray sorry but, Larmar took you to school and speaks truth. But it’s not his fault Trump went 360 degrees from what his campaign promised his supporters. You guys just were to emotional to see the writings on the wall.

      November 25, 2016
    • Ray McLaurin. Wow. Way to lash out and sound really stupid. Someone tries to have an intelligent conversation with you and you lost. And as I have had happened to me before, you pull out the patriotism card. Just because someone doesn’t share your political views or is smarter then you, doesn’t make that person less patriotic. By the way FDR was a Democrat. Oops.

      November 26, 2016
    • Well thanks guys. I appreciate the support. Ray, to anwser your question… If in two years a)Trump actually stuck to his promises, and b) they worked, and we’re safer, the world is safer, and the economy is better, I will do what I always do when that happens– admit I was wrong, and be thankful for it. Wouldn’t be the first time. Best of luck to you.

      November 26, 2016
    • Ray McLaurin said:

      Thomas Gervell I was referring to the pussies who call themselves Democrats now. But fuck you is appropriate fir ass wipes like you

      November 26, 2016
    • Ray McLaurin Went completely off the rails–did another post, calling people assholes and… well, I deleted the post and banned him. There’s a record of what he said on my website, but frankly it’s not worth looking up. He’s gone. Wish we could have actually had a discussion. Thank you all.

      November 26, 2016
    • Frankly Ray McLaurin is lucky I banned him. He kept that up and he’s in violation of Facebook ToS. Wouldn’t be the first person to loose his Facebook account over this kind of thing. Just wow… My faith in humanity at an all time low.

      November 26, 2016
    • Yeah, Jerry gets it. Like “Obama may not have been born in the us”, “I saw thousands of people cheering the fall of the towers”, “mexico is sending us their rapists.” and “Hillary is a crook”…. Unsubstantiated propaganda.

      November 26, 2016
  14. Ken Jones You lost me… This article shows no concern for those attacking Trump, how does it then equate to concern (or lack-there-of) over democrats attacking Bush.?

    November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones said:

      “Unconcerned by the precedent, the Senate has, for half a year now, expressed a flagrant disdain for both the Constitution of the United States, and for the American voter. They’ve ignored a key provision for the checks and balances this country so depends on by denying President Barack Obama his constitutional right (and his obligation) to appoint a supreme court justice.”

      I repeat, where were you when Democrats were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees?

      November 22, 2016
    • There is a significant difference in holding a hearing and refusing to approve a nominee, and refusing to perform the Constitutionally mandated duty of having a hearing. The second is treason.

      November 22, 2016
    • Actually, there is NO mandated duty to hold a hearing. That’s an argument that’s been tried but in fact, most legal scholars note this: . The appointments clause of the Constitution gives the president the power to nominate judges, but it also gives the Senate the power to provide “advice and consent” and places no limits on how the Senate discharges this power. The Senate may withhold its consent by voting down a nominee, but it may also withhold its consent by refusing to act, or otherwise failing to confirm a nominee.

      November 22, 2016
    • Melvin Kallsen You are partly correct. But the legal term is Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur, – “Silence implies concent”. They are not required to hold a hearing, but if they don’t, then they have not taken a position. The legal precedent is that he can proceed, since they’ve been given ample tome to advise cna consent, and have clearly waived their right to do so. All they have to do is have a hearing and say “We do not consent”, but they’ve waved their right to it.

      November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones That’s two different things. Each side has always blocked judicial candidates, and the right does it four times more than the left. This isn’t a circuit court Judge he’s appointing. This is messing with an entire branch of government. The precedent it’s setting is that no precedent is ever again allowed to appoint a justice (and indeed, they promised to block Hillary for 4 years, where as many as 3 more justices could retire). This is unprecedented. You don’t refuse to consider the nominee, and you don’t stack the supreme court.

      November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones said:

      That’s pretty much what I expected you to say. In other words, it’s okay for Democrats to do it, but not for Republicans. It’s a double standard.

      November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones that’s not what he said at all. 2016 is the first time since George Washington that a sitting President was not allowed to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. It has literally never happened before. The “lame duck” argument was nonsense … Obama became a lame duck President on November 8 and will remain so until January 20. The true intent of the Republican majority was revealed when they vowed to refuse to fill the SCOTUS vacancy if Clinton was elected. This is an insane, treacherous, power grab. You are supporting a party that refuses to uphold the Constitution … unless it serves their purpose. Winter is coming.

      November 22, 2016
    • So have Obama appoint the new Justice while the Senate isn’t in session. Then have the Republicans add two or three justices next year as there are no limits set as to the number of justices, was 6 before it became 9. Make it 13, what the hell. If we want to use loopholes, and back door things then lets both parties take the gloves off. Maybe it would be best if both parties just went to hell and we got back to governing for the good of the people, not the parties and their twisted muses.

      November 22, 2016
    • Kevin Lindecamp Exactly my point. I DON’T WANT Obama to just appoint the Justice. He CAN, but that’s not what he should do. He should nominate, and there should be a hearing, and a vote, and if it doesn’t work out, nominate another. Obama can absolutely end run around this, not that hard, but because I don’t want him to, I just want him to be able to get the consultation he’s supposed to do, people like Ken Jones there calls me a hypocrite. This shouldn’t escalate like that. That’s where it’s headed. Heck, Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur. Obama can appoint right now if he wan’ts, but I’m a hypocrite for wanting hearings and not wanting end-runs around congress. But that’s what we’ll get if they won’t engage.

      November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones said:

      N Lamar Soutter: Obama has been making end-runs around Congress during his entire administration. Did you complain about them at the time?

      November 22, 2016
    • Ken Jones Qui Tacet Consentire Videtur. Obama can appoint right now. He shouldn’t, he should get a hearing, and then nominate another if the hearing fails. But because of this, Obama can appoint right now, and it shouldn’t be that way. I’m calling for deescalation. But screw it, if that’s hypocrisy, fine, lets just call for Obama to appoint now (he can), and burn the whole frigging house down. I’m just asking COTUS to do their job, sorry that’s unreasonable.

      November 22, 2016
    • My apologies. I didn’t see the question. Yes, I objected at the time. The Executive needs to be limited, and Bush expanded it (which I was against) and Obama more (also very much against). The problem is that he was facing the most obstructionist congress in history (and his agenda wasn’t that liberal. Clinton was more liberal). Because they obstructed him, that justified his actions, and congress lost the authority to call him out on it. Even when he was dead wrong, congress couldn’t call him out on it because they refused to work with him. They actually empowered his power grab, just like they’re empowering him now to bypass the senate on SCOTUS. You think I want that president for the next president? How stupid do you think I am? It’s short sighted all around. Congress handed him this power on a plate. Their fault, and I’d like them to stop it.

      November 22, 2016
    • And I’ve called on Democrats, when Bush was in power, when Republicans have had the senate, to end the filibuster. The filibuster is counter to the intent of the senate, and Republicans don’t have the balls or the morals to do the right thing when the dems in charge, so the Dems need to do it when it will hurt the themselves the most. It’s the only way it’ll get done, and it’ll hurt, but only untill they get back in power again. The right thing is never easy. But the dems got power in congress, and the republicans will never agree to it (especially with Obama in charge)… So…

      November 22, 2016
    • So you’re saying that Congress doing their job as they see fit is justification for going around them? Congress has absolutely NO obligation to hold a hearing. That leaves Obama with two options which he has had all along. Drop this nominee and move on to the next or whine about obstructionism. You see how well that worked for the Democrats and the media, didn’t you? The Republicans won MORE seats in Congress.

      November 23, 2016
    • Ken Jones said:

      N Lamar Soutter: In other words, you’re okay with Democrats obstructing a Republican president, but not the other way around. That’s pretty much what I suspected?

      “How stupid do you think I am?”

      You don’t really want me to answer that, do you?

      November 23, 2016
    • No, Melvin Kallsen, it leaves him with the option to appoint. And congress’s job isn’t to be obstructionist. They’ve passed 1/10 as much legislation as any congress in history. That’s not doing their job. Their job is to work with the elected president.

      November 23, 2016
    • Mr. Jones, you’re not reading what I’m writing. You’re reading what you want to, and I don’t appreciate it. I made it clear I’m not for democrats obstructing a Republican, and I said I thought that the democrats should, when they were the minority and bush was in charge, have agreed to drop the filibuster. It’s undemocratic and they should have agreed to let the Republicans use “the nuclear option”. You just took my words as the opposite of what I said. 1)Don’t mischaracterize me. 2)Stop the ad hominim. Now.

      November 23, 2016
    • “And I’ve called on Democrats, when Bush was in power, when Republicans have had the senate, to end the filibuster. ” That’s what I said, Ken Jones. So no, I am not okay with democrats obstructing Republicans, I opposed it.

      November 23, 2016
    • Ken Jones said:

      You also said this: “The problem is that he was facing the most obstructionist congress in history (and his agenda wasn’t that liberal. Clinton was more liberal). Because they obstructed him, that justified his actions, and congress lost the authority to call him out on it.”

      Nothing is ever Obama’s fault, is it? As for the “ad hominem”, I assume you’re referring to my reply to this question: “How stupid do you think I am?” Any fair-minded person will agree you walked right into that one.

      November 23, 2016
    • “Walked into it” doesn’t excuse you. Don’t do it.. And I’ve said repeatedly Obama created ISIS. And I said that Dems should, when the minority party under bush, support abandoning the Filibuster. Congress lost the power to work with Obama when they refused to work with obama. Plenty is Obama’s fault, but they’re empowering him.

      November 23, 2016
  15. Ken Jones said:

    Oh, for Pete’s sake! Where was all this “concern” when Democrats were doing the same thing to Bush? This article is little more than demagoguery – with a few sour grapes thrown in for good measure.

    November 22, 2016
    • Hillary was plain evil.

      By all means let’s have a recount. Let’s start with the unopened absantee ballots. Then let’s verify that everyone who did vote was eligible to vote, was alive on 11/8/16 and hadn’t voted anywhere else. Let’s verify that everyone has a state issued photo ID and will stand by there vote – hell, it would probably be cheaper to have another election with just trump and Hillary on the ballot and everyone voting in person on 12/8 with picture ID in hand.

      I can see the democrats swearing already!

      November 26, 2016
    • I can already see the democrats sweating! Let’s go for it!! Stein and her stormtroopers are paying so why not!!!

      November 26, 2016
    • I THINK perhaps you should for it is you that will in the end need them more than the ppl you are against oh sure you DON’T see it right now bit YOU WILL
      #INdueTIME

      November 23, 2016
    • Actually…I am only against very specific people. If you’re in this country illegally…if you’re always a person who has received benefits and you’re not sick or disabled and you don’t work and have no intention to change that…if you’re a criminal of any sort, from protesters who destroy others’ property to a murderer to the banker who establishes phony accounts. That’s pretty much it for me. I don’t hate because of race or gender, I dislike because of individual characteristics. White, black, brown…if those characteristics fit, then I have no use for you.

      November 23, 2016
    • Ryan Brown said:

      Very well said Melvin Kallsen but you will still be branded a racist bigot. It’s the new globalist term for anyone who advocates for enforcement of our immigration laws. Open borders and free socialist programs for all illegals on this country. A new generation of liberal voters is their end game! Power and control

      November 25, 2016
    • Yes, we’re looking to seize power by declaring healthcare a human right. We’re really quite stupid that way.

      November 25, 2016
    • Ryan Brown said:

      By “human right” you mean like the VA? Veterans dying waiting on care? Face it, the federal government always has an agenda. Right or left it doesn’t matter.They fuck up and destroy almost everything they touch. ” Single payer ” is the end game isn’t that right soutter? Because the government does all other social programs so efficiently, let’s give them control of one fifth of our economy? So yes, if you believe that you’re “really quite stupid that way” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      November 25, 2016
    • We’re the only first world nation that doesn’t have single payer. Maybe you think those other countries are better than us, that they have something we don’t, and it works there, but would never work here. Why do you hate America?

      November 25, 2016
    • Laura Wiley said:

      Advantages and disadvantages to everything but at least with single payer there would be no added on costs for advertising and marketing or huge corporate benefit packages and salary. Commercial insurance companies are all about profits for their boards of directors while a government program would be only about covering actual costs, maintaining the program for the future and appropriate use of resources. Right now, the commercial insurance companies rule our healthcare world with the power to approve or deny every dime spent. Medicare is much different and more reasonable. I ‘m a nurse care manager and work in healthcare so speak to this with experience and expertise.

      November 25, 2016
    • Laura Wiley Ryan Brown Well, add to that emergency room care. If someone gets free checkups, and free meds like Statins, it’s A LOT less expensive than the $40,000 you have to pay when he’s brought into the ER with a failed heart. Preventative medicine is ALWAYS less expensive than fixing it after a crisis (not to mention the social and economic damage if he dies). Aids is a biggie too, as is cancer. Better to get the meds for free than let these people die from a lack of treatment.

      November 25, 2016
    • Laura Wiley said:

      Or have to have treatment at the highest level and most expensive. We are geared to try to get patients managed through primary care or outpatient clinics but can’t do that with the sickest of the sick…which happens when people can’t afford meds, nebulizers, oxygen, or care at home.

      November 25, 2016
    • Yepers. We pay more for healthcare than any country in the world, but rank 32 for infant mortality, 34 for life expectancy. We’ve already socialized fire and police, and there’s a reason. Some services –the ones we all need (like health, fire, police and military) should be socialized.

      November 25, 2016
    • Laura Wiley said:

      No good comes out of turning the needs of every single citizen into a commercial indeavor. Capitolism has no business in areas that have to exist outside the realm of profit.

      November 26, 2016
    • That Awkward moment you publish a silly meme which confuses Adolf Hitler for Gregor Strasser, whom Hitler had killed… for being a socialist.

      November 21, 2016
    • Carl Dillow said:

      That awkward moment when you write a lengthy babble piece, stretching to correlate your loss to the rise of Hitler

      You are an idiot. To even draw a comparison completely diminishes what Hitler was and did.

      November 25, 2016
    • I’m drawing comparisons in the rise to power and authoritarian language, and I’m far from the only one doing it. The people doing it the most right now? Jews. And why don’t you point to a stretch I made… I cited everything, I’ve got references. Got a specific objection?

      November 25, 2016
    • Carl Dillow said:

      N Lamar Soutter Citations do not validate your premise. The fact that you even group all Jews into your premise shows how little basis it has.

      November 25, 2016
    • Hitler was a murdering psychopath.
      Spring 1934

      “At the same period Hitler paid his first visit to Mussolini, in Venice, with results that were apparently not very satisfactory. After his return he addressed a meeting of generals, party chiefs and SA leaders in Berlin. The response of the SA leaders to his oratory was noticeably cool. As I was leaving the hall I overheard remarks such as: ‘Adolf’s got quite a bit to unlearn.’ It amazed me to discover in this way that there were grave differences of opinion within the party itself. On the 30th of June (1934) the riddle was solved. Roehm, the chief of staff of the SA, and a large number of SA leaders were shot out of hand, and not only they, but also numerous men and women who had nothing to do with the SA and who’s only crime – as we know now – was at some time or another in some way to have opposed the Party. Among those murdered was the former Defense Minister and Chancellor, General Von Schleicher, together with his wife and his friend and colleague, General Von Bredow. …. Hitler’s statement to the Reichstag concerning these events was insufficient. It was hoped at that time that the Party would soon get over its growing pains.”

      From Panzer Leader by General Heinz Guderian pg. 33

      November 26, 2016
    • A psychopath is incapable of fear or remorse, and incapable of empathy. That reminds me of someone (two people, actually, but I’ll save that for later). 4% of the population is psychopathic or sociopaths, with the highest concentration in business and medicine (and they tend to make great doctors-well sociopaths do, though they have terrible bedside manner).

      November 26, 2016
    • Carl Dillow 1)Citations are not meant to validate a premise, rather to support an argument. 2)I did not cite Jews in the premise, only in a (admittedly poor) ofhand remark after the fact. 3) I put citations in the (what appears not to have been a rather naive) hope that people would argue facts, argue the logic, assumptions or premises, not me personally. I supported my claim, you can sit here and say I’m wrong, but so far of all the people doing that (and there are a lot) nobody’s shown me a shred of evidence. Back it up or you’re just full of shit. I backed it up. Why am I wrong.

      November 26, 2016
    • Carl Dillow said:

      N Lamar Soutter Trump is like the second coming of Jesus. Now prove me wrong. Same difference. When TRUMP forms death squads, maybe Ill have a shred of respect for your ‘essay’.

      November 26, 2016
    • Carl Dillow said:

      But to even attempt to equate the rise of Nazi Germany to what is happening today is ludicrous at best, and insulting to the millions of people who suffered.

      November 26, 2016
    • I never said he’d have death squads, just that he was a fascist. As to proving you wrong, it’s quite simple. My neighbor’s pet turtle Gilbert was actually discovered to be the second coming of Jesus– discovered Jan 16, 2012. Why he chose a turtle, I don’t know, you can ask him. But prove me wrong.

      November 26, 2016

Leave a Reply