(02-21-2021 02:18 PM)JRsec Wrote: Didn't you know? Impassioned Conservatives are a terrorist theat. Hell, anything that opposes the Marxist bastards who are currently in power is a terrorist threat. Add that to all of the soccer moms who don't want to be called racist or privileged by Oprah and Ellen or the View, and the only socially acceptable place for them is in the tepid category. They want better for their kids, but won't stand up to the crap they teach in public education, and won't risk getting banned from Facebook and Twitter. If you won't stand up for yourself on social media, and you are more concerned about fake public opinion than what is right and just then you aren't worth a damn and can't be counted on to do what is required.
So there's your dilemma Owl. If you stand up you are a threat. If you want to be liked you're screwed anyway.
Just tell the truth, we have a boat load of so called conservatives who aren't worth a damn in a fight for survival. They'd sell you and me out in a heartbeat just like the sorry ***** in the Republican Party that they elect. People concerned about appearances simply can't ever be counted on, not in politics, not in your community, and sure as hell not in your Fox Hole!
Back to Dad's rule: Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!
I've read a couple of interesting books recently, George Friedman's THE STORM BEFORE THE CALM, and Andrei Martyanov's LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY. Both basically describe, in different contexts, a situation where the USA has become a struggle between the elites and common sense. Martyanov is a Russian immigrant, and there is a bit of a pro-Russian bias in his writings, but he basically says that the neocon elites in both parties (neocons came from the democrats, remember, Scoop Jackson was probably the quintessential neocon) missed a huge opportunity after 1990 to forge an alliance with Russia, and have driven Russia and China together in an alliance that we can't defeat. Friedman expects the struggle between the elites and common sense to come to a head some time in the next decade. So do I.
I think the driver will not be a military defeat, but rather a tanking of the economy. As Martyanov notes, we are falling behind China in manufacturing, across the board, and sustaining economic prosperity (not to mention a middle class) without manufacturing is going to be well nigh impossible.
I see a tremendous opportunity for republicans to position themselves as the party of restoring American manufacturing, and as such to become the party of the blue collar middle class against the ivory tower elites that dominate the democrats. But they need to get high behind that, and folks like Mitch McConnell are going to have zero credibility in selling that. I still think it was tragic that GHWB and Jack Kemp disliked each other intensely. I think that following Reagan with an administration with Kemp as VP, where GHWB handled foreign policy and Kemp handled domestic policy, would have left us in far better shape than we are today. Looking back at 1992, I think Ross Perot had a lot of good ideas (too bad he was a nutcase in other ways) and I think Bill Clinton was a good domestic president although he missed a lot of opportunities (including Martyanov's above) on the diplomatic side.
The democrat vision of a socialist/communist/fascist (three peas in the same pod) Amerika is a country where I do not want to live, and right now I don't see a credible alternative coming from republicans. Democrats are passionate for a terrible agenda, and republicans are simply satisfied, and passion beats satisfaction 1000 times out of 1000.
![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/20ca7b44403a79271217e69686bd088a/tenor.gif)
