Posted On: Monday - January 8th 2024 5:21PM MST
In Topics: Elections '16 - '24 Zhou Bai Dien President DeSantis
The one on the left, that is. I SURE hope you knew that!
I know, I know... he's not going to win. I wouldn't put any money on it, but then I wouldn't put any money on anybody, not being the
Had Trump not been getting pounded for years now by Potomac Regime Lawfare and the entire Regime media arm, I think Ron DeSantis would have much better chances. He is plain smarter than Donald Trump when it comes to ... well, thinking. That's what it is. The Gateway Pundit reports that Governor DeSantis would like to play tit-for-tat with the election balloting. Maybe the State of Florida might happen to have some worry about the legitimacy of Zhou Bai Dien as a candidate, maybe even as a sentient human being even, a legitimate concern, in my opinion.
The GP headline says DeSantis Says He is Looking Into Ways to Keep Biden Off Florida Ballot: ‘We’re Going to Fight Back’. See, that's what I mean. True, Donald Trump is not a Governor. Would he even think of this idea though, or is he too busy tweeting and speaking about it? Governor DeSantis figures out how to fight the enemy, such as with his efforts against Woke Mickie and Minnie (not sure which is which right now) down there. He plans and then executes.
Since I spent the time searching, here's another article on the matter from on A.G. Concarski of Florida Today - Tit for tat? Ron DeSantis floats striking Joe Biden from Florida ballot. (Mr. Concarski doesn't seem too favorable toward the Governor, but then this current article is still fair enough and gets DeSantis' points across. The articles headlines on the author's own page put DeSantis in a good light, even if unintended, illustrating my main point here. He fights. He's honest about it all too. He noted that the deal in Maine, just as in Colorado, is a stunt, and he'd like admit Florida's playing tit-for-tat would be too:
“The idea that one bureaucrat in an executive position can simply unilaterally disqualify someone from office, that turns on its head every notion of constitutional due process that this country has always abided by for over 200 years,” he said on “The Ingraham Angle.”Yeah, they opened that box up quite a while back, perhaps during the Johnson Administration, but some would say it was much more recently. I'd say the taking and holding of the 1,000+ Jan 6th Political Prisoners is the latest possible opening. Some might say Pandora had her box opened many times over the last few decades down there on Epstein's Fantasy Island. Smiles, everybody, smiles!
“It opens up Pandora’s box. Can you have a Republican Secretary of State disqualify Biden from the ballot because he’s let in 8 million people illegally in a massive invasion, including from enemies of our country? Places like Iran, China and the Middle East have poured in with his knowledge and assent basically. So it really opens up Pandora’s box.”
Hey, once Pandora's box is open, all parties ought to get a crack at it. Uhhh, back to Ron DeSantis, from the Gateway Pundit this time:
DeSantis said he disagrees with keeping candidates off of ballots, but said that it is important to “fight back” and play by the same rules that the left is making.Right. Well, OK, the way it's going, at least if he can't Make America Florida, he can at least Keep Florida Florida.
“I think if this is going to happen for them . . . I don’t believe in fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Whatever the rules are applied to us, we’re going to fight back and play the rules the other way,” DeSantis said.
DeSantis also vowed to fight against the Democrats’ “lawfare and weaponization” of the justice system if he is elected.
Comments:
MBlanc46
Wednesday - January 10th 2024 5:24PM MST
PS That’s an interesting hypothesis, Hail, and I sure can’t say that I know that it is inaccurate. My take on the Plague Panic is that the Chinese panicked when the virus escaped the lab because they knew that they’d been trying to create an exceptionally infectious virus, and they didn’t know to what extent they’d succeeded. For the same reason, the US panicked because they’d been financing the project. Maybe the Western Europeans were in the same position, or maybe they’re just wusses. None of that implies that the Chinks didn’t capitalize on the situation in order to tighten the screws on Hong Kong.
Moderator
Wednesday - January 10th 2024 6:59AM MST
PS: Re, a war over Taiwan. Yes, it could be a major regional conflict. I'd rather it that, getting the Japs, Vietnamese, etc, to go about defending the area, it being a war that's straight US (and allies) v China (and its allies?)
Economically, it could be very devastating, including to the US. People keep claiming that if China doesn't sell to us, they are fooked, so they will not stop. They sell goods all over the world. I don't know if we are the biggest market anymore - I doubt it. They could take care of themselves economically, even with a war going on.
In the long run, it would be much better for America being cut off from the cheap China-made goods. In the short-term, it would be devastating, yes. With China and other economies off the use of the US Dollar, the value of our currency would be realized finally, resulting in those $29.95 (no longer so) Happy Meals and such.
Back to Taiwan and a war between the 2 sets of Chinamen, there's one more new factor, and that's the plethora of one-child families. How many families on either side would be very adamant in keeping the young men, at least theirs, out of the war. Perhaps the war would be more automated... at least at the start.
I'm looking forward to your next post, Mr. Hail.
Economically, it could be very devastating, including to the US. People keep claiming that if China doesn't sell to us, they are fooked, so they will not stop. They sell goods all over the world. I don't know if we are the biggest market anymore - I doubt it. They could take care of themselves economically, even with a war going on.
In the long run, it would be much better for America being cut off from the cheap China-made goods. In the short-term, it would be devastating, yes. With China and other economies off the use of the US Dollar, the value of our currency would be realized finally, resulting in those $29.95 (no longer so) Happy Meals and such.
Back to Taiwan and a war between the 2 sets of Chinamen, there's one more new factor, and that's the plethora of one-child families. How many families on either side would be very adamant in keeping the young men, at least theirs, out of the war. Perhaps the war would be more automated... at least at the start.
I'm looking forward to your next post, Mr. Hail.
Moderator
Wednesday - January 10th 2024 6:52AM MST
PS: Mr. Hail, I can remember that time of the hand-over, so to speak, of Hong Kong. Even then I figured, official 50-year agreement or not, China is taking the place back, and they will do what they want when they want.
If was fortunate that Xi only came only recently, as HK had a nice period during which to left partly alone. (They still had their own border control - very hard for your average mainlander to immigrate there - I know of some of this from a friend). Wise Chinese officials still understood why HK was running rings around the rest of China economically and had been under the British.
It helped that they let them alone, but then how much of it was the British rule of law that may have had a long aftereffect there (perhaps as in India)? Had the HK people actually changed to the mentality of rule-of-law people culturally like the British? I kind of doubt it - I'm just bringing up a few things that might be good for your upcoming post.
Anyway, yes, I remember the huge riots/violence in Hong Kong for that year or more before the PanicFest. There were some kind of "umbrella people", IIRC, or something. I remember thinking that it's hard to tell the bad guys from the good and the real reporting from the propaganda in this day and age. If you recall, there was also the big move by the UK to allow importation of maybe millions of HK Chinese (not sure how many took them up on this).
Was China's version of the PanicFest ginned up for the purposes of squashing the rebellion against Chinese Totalitariansim in HK or at least as a distraction? The timeline fits - I think that could have been part of it, but then too, the health scores, etc. on the apps, from what I've read were all the intended result of the PanicFest there too - use it to push more Orwellian stuff onto a more willing people.
If was fortunate that Xi only came only recently, as HK had a nice period during which to left partly alone. (They still had their own border control - very hard for your average mainlander to immigrate there - I know of some of this from a friend). Wise Chinese officials still understood why HK was running rings around the rest of China economically and had been under the British.
It helped that they let them alone, but then how much of it was the British rule of law that may have had a long aftereffect there (perhaps as in India)? Had the HK people actually changed to the mentality of rule-of-law people culturally like the British? I kind of doubt it - I'm just bringing up a few things that might be good for your upcoming post.
Anyway, yes, I remember the huge riots/violence in Hong Kong for that year or more before the PanicFest. There were some kind of "umbrella people", IIRC, or something. I remember thinking that it's hard to tell the bad guys from the good and the real reporting from the propaganda in this day and age. If you recall, there was also the big move by the UK to allow importation of maybe millions of HK Chinese (not sure how many took them up on this).
Was China's version of the PanicFest ginned up for the purposes of squashing the rebellion against Chinese Totalitariansim in HK or at least as a distraction? The timeline fits - I think that could have been part of it, but then too, the health scores, etc. on the apps, from what I've read were all the intended result of the PanicFest there too - use it to push more Orwellian stuff onto a more willing people.
Hail
Wednesday - January 10th 2024 4:02AM MST
PS
-- On Hong Kong's hostile (early-)annexation, and the Corona-Lockdown-Panic Origins Question, ca. 2018-2020; and Taiwan 2020s-2030s --
(take the below as a draft for a future essay of mine; remind me to get back to it if you don't see it up by some later date)
The Hong Kong situation, as I would see it, is more complicated than the 1997 handover from the UK. The reason is that PRC-China had promised, during that "handover" negotiation, that it would NTOT interfere until 2047. That was as part of the agreement, which all parties understood. It was a credit to China, which seemed generous at the time and by such assurances.
PRC-China held to that "2047" agreement essentially fully, throughout the late 1990s, 2000s, and into the 2010s, i.e., that it did NOT interfere with Hong Kong's internal affairs until 2047, except for nominally claiming it and being in charge of its foreign policy (in a previous era's terminology, Hong Kong under this fifty-year period,1997-2047, could be called a "protectorate" or some such similar term). In 2047, Hong Kong would only then smoothly integrate into PRC-China as a normal province, or city within its adjacent land-province.
Then, in 2012, in comes Xi. He would go on to renege on the deal of his predecessors, to betray the agreement, to maneuver to turn "2047" into something like "2017 to 2022," especially perhaps because he expected to be in power only max two terms, i.e., 2012-22; though now he has maneuvered into being president-for-life, like a Winnie-The-Pooh-shaped North Korean headman). Twenty-five to thirty years early. He was in position to do so by 2018-19.
Xi killed the long-hallowed "One Country, Two Systems" policy. Anti-PRC forces in Hong Kong had been derided for arguing that China would eventually do this, and called conspiracy-theorists. I'll get back to those dissidents shortly, and the real point I want to make, related to the "Corona" disaster.
You say that it is not our concern what happens in Hong Kong. A purer version of that argument would apply best if were were talking about Ulaan Batoor, or Timbuktu, and not a political-entity with such long ties to the West and Western commerce. But the argument is legitimate. The more-important thing for us all, though, is that China did something dangerous in world-affairs there, betraying an agreement to a degree that could (and did) frighten other actors and neighbors.
The precedent for Taiwan is there. And the entire East Asian world-economic situation could be hit, which would affect the whole world-economy. China doing wars or maneuvering into hostile-takeover/annexations around its periphery -- as with an invasion of Taiwan, or giving Japan a bloody-nose in one of the Japan-China territorial disputes, or others, -- could trigger a world economic recession and many other unpredictable results. Some believe it could start an unraveling of the world-trade system, and when all is said and done U.S.GDP per capita could be slashed by a hefty percent.
China has disputes with every neighbor that it has, some of them simply absurd claims to our mind (the South China Sea claims). But because of U.S.-fuelled China growth of the past thirty years, in which the resentment-fuelled CCP still runs a one-party state without legal opposition, and as the system they run is nationalistic in character, they are an in a position to play the bully.
So it was that the PRC, in typical oldtyme Imperial-Chinese-bullyboy fashion, did a hostile-annexation of Hong Kong, leading up to 2019, and laughed all the way to the bank. It's the kind of ambiguous or cheap victory that also totally fuels people like Xi to really want to take Taiwan in a similar hostile-takeover, and also impose its policy of demanding tribute from every sea-neighbor in the South China Sea, and direct PRC control over the entire sea, elbowing out about eight Southeast Asian countries from their own waters("exclusive economic zones," in international law).
It may be now forgotten, in 2024, that this "Hong Kong hostile takeover" business of the 2010s climaxed in 2019, and at the end of that year was still red-hot, simmering with resentments. And the disorienting and dangerous situation of a shock caused by the sudden annexation (thirty years early), which the move gave to the people there, and other observers. Then the calendar turned to the fateful year 2020. Within twenty days of the new year, China imposes brutal, unprecedented, and outrageous lockdowns and it begins Panic-pushing.
So China started the Corona-Panic of 2020-2022. The Panic was an international event with some serious geopolitical implications. China's biggest single geopolitical worry at the moment was how bad its hostile-annexation of Hong Kong looked, and then just in the previous months.
I have commented on this before: specifically, China's geopolitical situation when the fateful events of the Corona-Panic were thrust on us all. Back there in early 2020. In early 2020 it was still not quite a settled thing whether Hong Kong's independent-system really was crushed -- its system free of the PRC's arbitrary judicial system and its secret-police, free of its explicitly-controlled media (no independent media; the right by the Communist Party to meddle with all media and fire editors, kill stories, even jail journalists; its usual actions), and all the rest. But them, by late January 2020, the issue died completely, both locally and internationally, as people began playing out a cool-zombie-movie script in their heads, able to follow this real-life movie using their devices and the magic Internet, the purveyor of the Corona-Panic.
In Hong Kong itself, using the lockdowns over an Apocalypse-Virus as justification, all public-gatherings were banned, the huge anti-PRC crowds of 2019 yielded to empty streets and masks and those bizarre anti-virus spray-mist trucks and all the rest. There were still huge numbers willing to protest openly. Without the Corona shutdowns -- and the effects on the culture besides just the lockdown orders per se -- one senses that a "Tiananmen Square 1989"-like event was possible, if both sides kept pushing it. The anti-PRC protestors of 2019 had publicly flogged men they alleged were PRC agents or spies etc. And PRC thugs sent in by the thousand, wearing police uniforms, began beating people. But then everything stopped. Everyone locked down. People began disappearing by ones and twos, so no need for more embarrassment.
I have not hear too many people argue that the Hong Kong Controversy of the late 2010s, lingering fresh as of early 2020, may have been one of the main causes of the Corona-Panic, China's role in starting it. I will have to assemble these comments for a full statement of this theory hosted at HailToYou.wordpress.com at some time upcoming.
-- On Hong Kong's hostile (early-)annexation, and the Corona-Lockdown-Panic Origins Question, ca. 2018-2020; and Taiwan 2020s-2030s --
(take the below as a draft for a future essay of mine; remind me to get back to it if you don't see it up by some later date)
The Hong Kong situation, as I would see it, is more complicated than the 1997 handover from the UK. The reason is that PRC-China had promised, during that "handover" negotiation, that it would NTOT interfere until 2047. That was as part of the agreement, which all parties understood. It was a credit to China, which seemed generous at the time and by such assurances.
PRC-China held to that "2047" agreement essentially fully, throughout the late 1990s, 2000s, and into the 2010s, i.e., that it did NOT interfere with Hong Kong's internal affairs until 2047, except for nominally claiming it and being in charge of its foreign policy (in a previous era's terminology, Hong Kong under this fifty-year period,1997-2047, could be called a "protectorate" or some such similar term). In 2047, Hong Kong would only then smoothly integrate into PRC-China as a normal province, or city within its adjacent land-province.
Then, in 2012, in comes Xi. He would go on to renege on the deal of his predecessors, to betray the agreement, to maneuver to turn "2047" into something like "2017 to 2022," especially perhaps because he expected to be in power only max two terms, i.e., 2012-22; though now he has maneuvered into being president-for-life, like a Winnie-The-Pooh-shaped North Korean headman). Twenty-five to thirty years early. He was in position to do so by 2018-19.
Xi killed the long-hallowed "One Country, Two Systems" policy. Anti-PRC forces in Hong Kong had been derided for arguing that China would eventually do this, and called conspiracy-theorists. I'll get back to those dissidents shortly, and the real point I want to make, related to the "Corona" disaster.
You say that it is not our concern what happens in Hong Kong. A purer version of that argument would apply best if were were talking about Ulaan Batoor, or Timbuktu, and not a political-entity with such long ties to the West and Western commerce. But the argument is legitimate. The more-important thing for us all, though, is that China did something dangerous in world-affairs there, betraying an agreement to a degree that could (and did) frighten other actors and neighbors.
The precedent for Taiwan is there. And the entire East Asian world-economic situation could be hit, which would affect the whole world-economy. China doing wars or maneuvering into hostile-takeover/annexations around its periphery -- as with an invasion of Taiwan, or giving Japan a bloody-nose in one of the Japan-China territorial disputes, or others, -- could trigger a world economic recession and many other unpredictable results. Some believe it could start an unraveling of the world-trade system, and when all is said and done U.S.GDP per capita could be slashed by a hefty percent.
China has disputes with every neighbor that it has, some of them simply absurd claims to our mind (the South China Sea claims). But because of U.S.-fuelled China growth of the past thirty years, in which the resentment-fuelled CCP still runs a one-party state without legal opposition, and as the system they run is nationalistic in character, they are an in a position to play the bully.
So it was that the PRC, in typical oldtyme Imperial-Chinese-bullyboy fashion, did a hostile-annexation of Hong Kong, leading up to 2019, and laughed all the way to the bank. It's the kind of ambiguous or cheap victory that also totally fuels people like Xi to really want to take Taiwan in a similar hostile-takeover, and also impose its policy of demanding tribute from every sea-neighbor in the South China Sea, and direct PRC control over the entire sea, elbowing out about eight Southeast Asian countries from their own waters("exclusive economic zones," in international law).
It may be now forgotten, in 2024, that this "Hong Kong hostile takeover" business of the 2010s climaxed in 2019, and at the end of that year was still red-hot, simmering with resentments. And the disorienting and dangerous situation of a shock caused by the sudden annexation (thirty years early), which the move gave to the people there, and other observers. Then the calendar turned to the fateful year 2020. Within twenty days of the new year, China imposes brutal, unprecedented, and outrageous lockdowns and it begins Panic-pushing.
So China started the Corona-Panic of 2020-2022. The Panic was an international event with some serious geopolitical implications. China's biggest single geopolitical worry at the moment was how bad its hostile-annexation of Hong Kong looked, and then just in the previous months.
I have commented on this before: specifically, China's geopolitical situation when the fateful events of the Corona-Panic were thrust on us all. Back there in early 2020. In early 2020 it was still not quite a settled thing whether Hong Kong's independent-system really was crushed -- its system free of the PRC's arbitrary judicial system and its secret-police, free of its explicitly-controlled media (no independent media; the right by the Communist Party to meddle with all media and fire editors, kill stories, even jail journalists; its usual actions), and all the rest. But them, by late January 2020, the issue died completely, both locally and internationally, as people began playing out a cool-zombie-movie script in their heads, able to follow this real-life movie using their devices and the magic Internet, the purveyor of the Corona-Panic.
In Hong Kong itself, using the lockdowns over an Apocalypse-Virus as justification, all public-gatherings were banned, the huge anti-PRC crowds of 2019 yielded to empty streets and masks and those bizarre anti-virus spray-mist trucks and all the rest. There were still huge numbers willing to protest openly. Without the Corona shutdowns -- and the effects on the culture besides just the lockdown orders per se -- one senses that a "Tiananmen Square 1989"-like event was possible, if both sides kept pushing it. The anti-PRC protestors of 2019 had publicly flogged men they alleged were PRC agents or spies etc. And PRC thugs sent in by the thousand, wearing police uniforms, began beating people. But then everything stopped. Everyone locked down. People began disappearing by ones and twos, so no need for more embarrassment.
I have not hear too many people argue that the Hong Kong Controversy of the late 2010s, lingering fresh as of early 2020, may have been one of the main causes of the Corona-Panic, China's role in starting it. I will have to assemble these comments for a full statement of this theory hosted at HailToYou.wordpress.com at some time upcoming.
Moderator
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 9:33PM MST
PS: Mr. Hail, at least with Hong Kong, the Brits had honored the 99 year time limit of their treaty allowing them to run the place. The arrangement that was made for after mid-1997 was not guaranteed by any power (at that point) to be permanent. Taiwan is a somewhat different deal, with the over half-century guarantees by the US to defend it.
I think, just as with the S. Koreans, we need to bug out and let a country that isn't quite so broke defend one group of Chinamen from another, and one group of Koreans from another. We have big trade deficits with both, so I believe they can handle their defenses themselves.
"A lot of the Unz-commenter (and especially Unz-writer) types seem to side against Taiwan just as a way to throw sand in the eye of the U.S.,..." Indeed, their are a lot of this type - anti all things American.
"... but a total collapse of Taiwan and hostile-annexation by PRC-China would be bad indeed, with chain-reactions all across Asia that those who want peace and stability cannot predict." I guess it wouldn't be as bad if America just stayed out of it. That sounds brutal against the Free Chinese (as it used to be), I know, but again, we can't keep this World Policemen bit up. (Didn't the left used to say that? Yes, but it was because we were fighting Communism.)
"Why won't Xi and co. let Taiwan be a minor ethnic-Chinese state beyond its central control?" Pride, is all, IMO.
I think, just as with the S. Koreans, we need to bug out and let a country that isn't quite so broke defend one group of Chinamen from another, and one group of Koreans from another. We have big trade deficits with both, so I believe they can handle their defenses themselves.
"A lot of the Unz-commenter (and especially Unz-writer) types seem to side against Taiwan just as a way to throw sand in the eye of the U.S.,..." Indeed, their are a lot of this type - anti all things American.
"... but a total collapse of Taiwan and hostile-annexation by PRC-China would be bad indeed, with chain-reactions all across Asia that those who want peace and stability cannot predict." I guess it wouldn't be as bad if America just stayed out of it. That sounds brutal against the Free Chinese (as it used to be), I know, but again, we can't keep this World Policemen bit up. (Didn't the left used to say that? Yes, but it was because we were fighting Communism.)
"Why won't Xi and co. let Taiwan be a minor ethnic-Chinese state beyond its central control?" Pride, is all, IMO.
Moderator
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 9:26PM MST
PS: Mr. Blanc, I was basically praising DeSantis efforts in fighting back, though I agree that the bumping of these candidates off ballots in these particular States is probably silly. His effort though, may get the other side to consider stopping their stupid actions.
Adam Smith
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 6:14PM MST
PS: Good evening, everyone,
Mr. Alarmist,
https://i.ibb.co/2kXRhXV/Giant-Meteor-24.jpg
Cheers! ☮️
Mr. Alarmist,
https://i.ibb.co/2kXRhXV/Giant-Meteor-24.jpg
Cheers! ☮️
The Alarmist
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 3:47PM MST
PS
I see that some of the lib media (MS-BS) have started referring to J6 as a “violent insurrection.”
If that was a violent insurrection, I don’t want to see one where people show up with arms and a willingness to use them.
The US Left is over-egging the pudding, and in the process is turning the dissolution of the US into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ron De Sanctimonius should be content with where he is.
As for Trump, he was a disappointing POTUS, but he’s still not one of them (the Uniparty), so he’s the cleanest dirty shirt.
Still rooting for Giant Earth-Killing Asteroid in 2024.
🕉😔
I see that some of the lib media (MS-BS) have started referring to J6 as a “violent insurrection.”
If that was a violent insurrection, I don’t want to see one where people show up with arms and a willingness to use them.
The US Left is over-egging the pudding, and in the process is turning the dissolution of the US into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ron De Sanctimonius should be content with where he is.
As for Trump, he was a disappointing POTUS, but he’s still not one of them (the Uniparty), so he’s the cleanest dirty shirt.
Still rooting for Giant Earth-Killing Asteroid in 2024.
🕉😔
J1234
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 1:23PM MST
PS-
Thanks Hail.
“Some core number of the DJT personality-cult do believe he will save White-Christian America. But that is not a rational, evidence-based belief.”
Very true. I wonder how Trump views all this persecution against him? Does he see it mostly as an assault on America and the democratic process? Or mostly an affront to The Donald? I ask because he’s made enemies of many people who could’ve/should’ve been his allies on the right, and the movement to help save White-Christian America won’t thrive without allies and coalitions. I.e. his big picture isn’t very big at times (it’s kind of Donald-centric.)
Achmed said:
….since SS and arguably the Fed Income Tax started up, the privacy thing is a moot point now. More importantly, we won't be arguing about the Constitution if/when our nation is 50% hard-core foreigners - "What is this 'rule-of-law' of which you speak?"
Also very true. Legal and moral perspectives have deep roots in culture. I believe the founders left this very important idea unsaid in our essential documents/law because they thought it should be glaringly obvious to everyone.
Thanks Hail.
“Some core number of the DJT personality-cult do believe he will save White-Christian America. But that is not a rational, evidence-based belief.”
Very true. I wonder how Trump views all this persecution against him? Does he see it mostly as an assault on America and the democratic process? Or mostly an affront to The Donald? I ask because he’s made enemies of many people who could’ve/should’ve been his allies on the right, and the movement to help save White-Christian America won’t thrive without allies and coalitions. I.e. his big picture isn’t very big at times (it’s kind of Donald-centric.)
Achmed said:
….since SS and arguably the Fed Income Tax started up, the privacy thing is a moot point now. More importantly, we won't be arguing about the Constitution if/when our nation is 50% hard-core foreigners - "What is this 'rule-of-law' of which you speak?"
Also very true. Legal and moral perspectives have deep roots in culture. I believe the founders left this very important idea unsaid in our essential documents/law because they thought it should be glaringly obvious to everyone.
MBlanc46
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 11:00AM MST
PS What’s the point? Then the Left can say, “Well, you do it, too”. Keeping Trump off the ballot in Colorado or Maine is pointless. He’s not going to win those states. Keeping Totally Legit Joe off the ballot in Florida is pointless. He’s not going to win Florida. Not in 2024, anyway. Keep those Haitians and Dominicans coming, though, and 2028 or 2032 are possible, or even likely. Of course, when Texas finally goes, it’s all over for the Repubs. (And good riddance to them.) As far as 2024 is concerned, what matters are GA, PA, MI, WI, and AZ. Keep the BOM off the ballot in a couple of those, and stick a fork in him. However, I’m skeptical that this ballot banning will amount to anything. What will amount to something is good old ballot-box stuffing. Which is what postal voting is. Coming to a precinct near you. Especially if you live in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, or Phoenix.
Moderator
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 7:27AM MST
PS: J1234, all good points. Regarding your final question/dilemma, even I figure I'll somewhat support - not with money, but a hat maybe? - Trump at this point. I mean, I'll vote for DeSantis in the primary, but I don't expect much of a result for him.
As I wrote, this lawfare that brings continuous publicity to Trump has only helped him with those who think, per Mr. Hai, that the most important thing is to put down the ctrl-left in some way. (It does, or at least the left pretends to be apoplytic - ephapenectic? whatever it is, about him?) They're not wrong, but they discount those others like DeSantis who don't have the mouth and the platform to get through to the masses of patriots. Were Trump to die right now and DeSantis take a leading role, I think the ctrl-left would be all over him the same way, bringing him much more support.
Going on to what Mr. Hail wrote:
"In this sense, it's not a positive vision. It's often a "Yeah, that'll show them; screw the other team; we'll make a statement.""
True, but I think they are also under the impression that Trump has learned a whole lot (maybe) and will do a much more capable job this time (I doubt it but am still hopeful). These are people that have never known of many of the stupid moves Trump did in those 4 years, many of which I've already forgotten. However, I remember he did a LOT of them!
I'll write back regarding Xi and Taiwan - running out of time for now.
As I wrote, this lawfare that brings continuous publicity to Trump has only helped him with those who think, per Mr. Hai, that the most important thing is to put down the ctrl-left in some way. (It does, or at least the left pretends to be apoplytic - ephapenectic? whatever it is, about him?) They're not wrong, but they discount those others like DeSantis who don't have the mouth and the platform to get through to the masses of patriots. Were Trump to die right now and DeSantis take a leading role, I think the ctrl-left would be all over him the same way, bringing him much more support.
Going on to what Mr. Hail wrote:
"In this sense, it's not a positive vision. It's often a "Yeah, that'll show them; screw the other team; we'll make a statement.""
True, but I think they are also under the impression that Trump has learned a whole lot (maybe) and will do a much more capable job this time (I doubt it but am still hopeful). These are people that have never known of many of the stupid moves Trump did in those 4 years, many of which I've already forgotten. However, I remember he did a LOT of them!
I'll write back regarding Xi and Taiwan - running out of time for now.
Moderator
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 7:16AM MST
PS: Well, Alarmist, there's a little bit more to it. Obviously this tit-for-tat thing is DeSantis not only demonstrating the sheer unc]Consitutionality and brazenness of what Colorado and Maine have done, but it's in support of Trump too. As one article notes, he's not taking HIS name off the ballot in solidarity or anything ...
However, if this kind of thing goes on in the general election*, then DeSantis may yet follow through with this threat. The thing is, it's up to other officials in Florida. That just shows what DeSantis does a whole lot better than Trump does, that is, gather like-minded competent people around him (as State officials), people who will actually go along with and follow through on his policies.
Something like this would have a fighting chance in Florida. Of course, your straight-arrow Jeff Sessions types may rightly claim that the idea is unConstiutional, but that reminds me of Ron Paul and eVerify. He's still against it for privacy/Constitutional reasons. No argument, except, since SS and arguably the Fed Income Tax started up, the privacy thing is a moot point now. More importantly, we won't be arguing about the Constitution if/when our nation is 50% hard-core foreigners - "What is this 'rule-of-law' of which you speak?" More like "no comprende, Senor" or something in Chinese to that effect. "Ming bai, bu ming bia?" ("Understand, or not?) NOT.
Way off the subject, but, anyway, I think Ron DeSantis gets that you can't play by the official rules and win when the other side doesn't comply with them.
* For the primaries, it's a farce anyway. There's no reason these States can just move to a caucus or some other older way of picking the GOP candidate. None of it has Constitutional basis, as the Founders didn't plan for (might have expected but surely didn't WANT) political parties.
However, if this kind of thing goes on in the general election*, then DeSantis may yet follow through with this threat. The thing is, it's up to other officials in Florida. That just shows what DeSantis does a whole lot better than Trump does, that is, gather like-minded competent people around him (as State officials), people who will actually go along with and follow through on his policies.
Something like this would have a fighting chance in Florida. Of course, your straight-arrow Jeff Sessions types may rightly claim that the idea is unConstiutional, but that reminds me of Ron Paul and eVerify. He's still against it for privacy/Constitutional reasons. No argument, except, since SS and arguably the Fed Income Tax started up, the privacy thing is a moot point now. More importantly, we won't be arguing about the Constitution if/when our nation is 50% hard-core foreigners - "What is this 'rule-of-law' of which you speak?" More like "no comprende, Senor" or something in Chinese to that effect. "Ming bai, bu ming bia?" ("Understand, or not?) NOT.
Way off the subject, but, anyway, I think Ron DeSantis gets that you can't play by the official rules and win when the other side doesn't comply with them.
* For the primaries, it's a farce anyway. There's no reason these States can just move to a caucus or some other older way of picking the GOP candidate. None of it has Constitutional basis, as the Founders didn't plan for (might have expected but surely didn't WANT) political parties.
Hail
Tuesday - January 9th 2024 6:08AM MST
PS
-- Trump, DeSantis, Taiwan, and the grim Late 2020s --
J1234, I commend you for a right-on assessment in your comment on DeSantis vs Trump and support for them.
Trump support is, as I reflect on it, an example of what's wrong with White-Christian core-America in the past few generations: Reactive. No fault of our own, really, but not a good thing.
Whatever his qualities, Trump is not actually a good political leader in terms of managing things, setting an agenda and seeing it through, running effective teams, whatever; getting things done. Rather, it's all about images. This excites friend and for, in the digital-media world especially, but it doesn't restore footing to our people.
The support is all outrage over "what the other guys are doing to him." In this sense, it's not a positive vision. It's often a "Yeah, that'll show them; screw the other team; we'll make a statement." See the common Trump-2024 slogans out there, which include: TRUMP-2024: NO MORE BULLSHIT. What is that supposed to mean? The flippant and unserious tone do, at least, suit the phenomenon.
Some core number of the DJT personality-cult do believe he will save White-Christian America. But that is not a rational, evidence-based belief. As comforting as it is, and as easy it is to fade back into that plush chair and turn off thinking, or just do it all "for the laughs" (which explains why a non-trivial number of Trump supporters have been with him all along; especially the huge social-media presence of the 2015-17 period).
A Trump presidency in Jan 2025 to Jan 2029, in POLICY terms (not "that'll show the other guys" sports-fan-like politics), would not be a good idea ----- that is if we take Past as Prologue, as Shakespeare put it (or as "Edward DeVere, The Earl of Oxford" put it, opinions differ; but don't ask Steve Sailer about this, for he will make fun of him who so suggests).
Meanwhile, and speaking of the approaching "late 2020s," a lot of talk about Taiwan this week as their election is days away. People close to Chairman Xi say he wants to bring Taiwan under the PRC-Chinese thumb, similar to the hostile-takeover of Hong Kong of recent memory, by end of year 2027. Xi is a dangerous leader (those who make themselves presidents-for-life tend to be).
A lot of the Unz-commenter (and especially Unz-writer) types seem to side against Taiwan just as a way to throw sand in the eye of the U.S., but a total collapse of Taiwan and hostile-annexation by PRC-China would be bad indeed, with chain-reactions all across Asia that those who want peace and stability cannot predict. Why won't Xi and co. let Taiwan be a minor ethnic-Chinese state beyond its central control?
-- Trump, DeSantis, Taiwan, and the grim Late 2020s --
J1234, I commend you for a right-on assessment in your comment on DeSantis vs Trump and support for them.
Trump support is, as I reflect on it, an example of what's wrong with White-Christian core-America in the past few generations: Reactive. No fault of our own, really, but not a good thing.
Whatever his qualities, Trump is not actually a good political leader in terms of managing things, setting an agenda and seeing it through, running effective teams, whatever; getting things done. Rather, it's all about images. This excites friend and for, in the digital-media world especially, but it doesn't restore footing to our people.
The support is all outrage over "what the other guys are doing to him." In this sense, it's not a positive vision. It's often a "Yeah, that'll show them; screw the other team; we'll make a statement." See the common Trump-2024 slogans out there, which include: TRUMP-2024: NO MORE BULLSHIT. What is that supposed to mean? The flippant and unserious tone do, at least, suit the phenomenon.
Some core number of the DJT personality-cult do believe he will save White-Christian America. But that is not a rational, evidence-based belief. As comforting as it is, and as easy it is to fade back into that plush chair and turn off thinking, or just do it all "for the laughs" (which explains why a non-trivial number of Trump supporters have been with him all along; especially the huge social-media presence of the 2015-17 period).
A Trump presidency in Jan 2025 to Jan 2029, in POLICY terms (not "that'll show the other guys" sports-fan-like politics), would not be a good idea ----- that is if we take Past as Prologue, as Shakespeare put it (or as "Edward DeVere, The Earl of Oxford" put it, opinions differ; but don't ask Steve Sailer about this, for he will make fun of him who so suggests).
Meanwhile, and speaking of the approaching "late 2020s," a lot of talk about Taiwan this week as their election is days away. People close to Chairman Xi say he wants to bring Taiwan under the PRC-Chinese thumb, similar to the hostile-takeover of Hong Kong of recent memory, by end of year 2027. Xi is a dangerous leader (those who make themselves presidents-for-life tend to be).
A lot of the Unz-commenter (and especially Unz-writer) types seem to side against Taiwan just as a way to throw sand in the eye of the U.S., but a total collapse of Taiwan and hostile-annexation by PRC-China would be bad indeed, with chain-reactions all across Asia that those who want peace and stability cannot predict. Why won't Xi and co. let Taiwan be a minor ethnic-Chinese state beyond its central control?
J1234
Monday - January 8th 2024 9:35PM MST
PS-
"Had Trump not been getting pounded for years now by Potomac Regime Lawfare and the entire Regime media arm, I think Ron DeSantis would have much better chances. He is plain smarter than Donald Trump when it comes to ... well, thinking."
I agree. Smarter and more politically savvy. Currently, DeSantis is our effective policy warrior and Trump is our empathy garnering victim. Generally speaking, Trump is more of a talker and DeSantis is more of a doer, but Trump has been the target of more unjust, undemocratic and illegal interference than any other presidential candidate (and probably president) in American history (and I'm not even including the controversial 2020 election results.)
Republicans/conservatives/patriots have a choice: do they back DeSantis as the most effective conservative leader or do they back Trump as a vehicle for tasking a stand against the rising tyranny of the left? It's not an easy choice, but for the moment, conservatives have clearly chosen the latter, and that's understandable. The problem is that the malignant left is partially correct about one thing: there are elements of a personality cult within the Trump camp. Such things can ruin larger movements, and this movement must survive.
"Had Trump not been getting pounded for years now by Potomac Regime Lawfare and the entire Regime media arm, I think Ron DeSantis would have much better chances. He is plain smarter than Donald Trump when it comes to ... well, thinking."
I agree. Smarter and more politically savvy. Currently, DeSantis is our effective policy warrior and Trump is our empathy garnering victim. Generally speaking, Trump is more of a talker and DeSantis is more of a doer, but Trump has been the target of more unjust, undemocratic and illegal interference than any other presidential candidate (and probably president) in American history (and I'm not even including the controversial 2020 election results.)
Republicans/conservatives/patriots have a choice: do they back DeSantis as the most effective conservative leader or do they back Trump as a vehicle for tasking a stand against the rising tyranny of the left? It's not an easy choice, but for the moment, conservatives have clearly chosen the latter, and that's understandable. The problem is that the malignant left is partially correct about one thing: there are elements of a personality cult within the Trump camp. Such things can ruin larger movements, and this movement must survive.
The Alarmist
Monday - January 8th 2024 9:25PM MST
PS
FYE ...
https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/883a677b-2f89-4cb6-b0c5-6d3cf78b63cd_320x329.png
FYE ...
https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/883a677b-2f89-4cb6-b0c5-6d3cf78b63cd_320x329.png
The Alarmist
Monday - January 8th 2024 8:50PM MST
PS
This is just Ron blowing sunshine up our nether regions. He’d have better luck making a Flexit happen.
This is just Ron blowing sunshine up our nether regions. He’d have better luck making a Flexit happen.