Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts

Saturday, October 17, 2026

Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the vote edition.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the v...:  I have now voted. October 13, 2026. I went down to the old county courthouse and caste my votes.  I've now weighed in for 2026. In some...

The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the vote edition.

 I have now voted.


October 13, 2026.

I went down to the old county courthouse and caste my votes.  I've now weighed in for 2026.

In some ways, it wasn't easy for me.  I knew who I wanted to vote for, but I was a bit tortured between not voting for Chuck Gray and Harriet Hageman and leaving my ballot blank, or for casting a vote for one of their opponents.

I did the latter.

The situation facing the country is just too dire.  We are, effectively, in the 1932 German election where the choices are boiling down to a desperate few.  Or, perhaps, we're in the June and November 1946 French election where the Catholic Christian Democrats were in a coalition with the Communists, which shows how dire the situation was in the Fourth Republic.  The choice now is to vote against a rising force of bloody fascism and acknowledge that the opponents retain some real taints, or to allow the country to do down the Via dei Fori Imperiali.

It's that dire.

The last few days made up my mind for me.  A government that makes an open spectacle of execution and then sides with Vladimir Putin.

I'm not going there, and I cannot tolerate going there.

Nien, Non, No.

In two years I'll reassess.  Chances are that at least one of the candidates I voted for I won't vote for again.

So, how did I vote?

Let's look at the state elections, that was easy.

Governor:1

Eric Barlow.  He's the only real choice, and he's a good one.  Rebecca Bextel thinks she's a conservative, but she's a Dixiecrat through and through. She needs to go home to Sweet Home Alabama, where she is literally from.  Kenneth Casner is an overdone, baked in the sun, left out to dry, joke of a candidate.  He symbolizes the pathetic state the Wyoming Democratic Party is in.  The Democrats used to have some fine candidates, and it wasn't all that long ago that they were in the Governor's chair.  Casner? Give me a break.

Barlow's election will be the death of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, whose Bittereinders are already retreating to the Constitution Party Redoubt.

Good riddance to them.

So, here, I voted for a straight Republican ticket.

The other state races.

Other than Governor, we had a host of uncontested or barely contested races in which incumbents sought reelection. Fortunately for all of us, they are all really good candidates.

The one contested one is Superintendent of Public Instruction.  In that race Ana Cordova, a Democrat, contests with Steve Harshman, a Republican.

There's' no doubt that Harshman, an local educator of long and respected standing, is an excellent choice. Still, I thought about voting for Cordova, a young educator with an impressive background.  Harshman is 62 or 63, Cordova much younger.  I suspect that Harshman might look at running for Governor, but he'll be 72 years old at least before he can, given that Barlow will win two terms.

Again, here, on state races, I voted a straight Republican ticket.

The property tax initiatives

There is a Freedom Caucus ballot initiative to cut residential property taxes in half, which benefits the carpetbagger class.  It would but local governments like a fish, but hey, hey, the carpetbaggers have already educated their children and live behind walls, so they'll be okay.

I actually had a county commissioner explain this one to me in detail.  Rank and file property owners voting for it, given the other deductions a property owner is eligible for, are screwing themselves.

I voted against it.

Frankly, I'd impose a tax, if I could, on the property of the carpetbaggers, which drives up property values for anyone else. Raise your kids in California? Well, you weren't here while we were enduring the ups and downs of the Wyoming economy and now you can pay for it. Stay in California if you don't like it. Even if you do, stay in CAlifornia.

Anyway you look at it, I'm not for giving the Bextels and Biens an advantage in taxes at our expense.

Representation in Washington D.C.

It was this set of choices that were difficult for me.

There was never any question that I would never vote for Chuck Gray.  I never have, and I never will. Chuck needs to go back to Los Angeles and work for a good twenty years at a convenience store in Watts so he knows who real people are.  Likewise, there was never any question I'd vote for my law school near contemporary Harriet Hageman, whose evolution from farm girl, polo shirt wearing, cute student to dressed in black lawyer for the rich and powerful is a disappointing memory of a very long career.

She didn't have to turn out like this.  If she'd gone to work for one of the real civil firms in the state, she would not have.

No, the question was whether I'd vote for Kinney, Johnson, or Byrd or nobody at all.

In the end, given the dire situation, I voted for the Democratic candidates.

Now, I'll note that I think Byrd is an excellent candidate. Better than Hageman in every way, save perhaps for two ways.  

Gray symbolizes everything wrong with the GOP in Wyoming except that instead of being a carpetbagger from the Confederacy, he's a carpetbagger from Los Angeles, and a pathetic one. California conservatism was real conservatism.  Gray's father was an admirer of Reagan, not Strom Thurmond.  Gray is an example of how Sun Yat-Sen tragically gave us Mao Tse-Tung.  A movement gone preversely wrong, although Reagan's embrace of the fowl Dixiecrats made that predictable.  And Gray, about whom we know very little, is still young enough that he can be forced into evading the fate of Donald Trump, a rich kid who publicly putrefies to the detriment of us all.

Gray's only platform is that he loves Donald Trump more than Trump loves Trump, that he's a latter day opponent of wind energy, for what appears to be opportunistic, and that as a 36 year old man whose not married and not known to have a publicly acknowledged interest in any identified female, he's opposed to transvestites in women's sports.

Seems like populist bullshit.

Gray would support Trump in anything, which in the next two years is going to be extremely dangerous.  I could not vote for him.

Which left me voting for Kinney.  

Kinney is a moderate left Democrat, and I'm not. I'm sure she's for "choice" or "reproductive rights', which infanticide, and I am not.  I suspect this would be Byrd's position as well  Should she be elected, in two years I'm voting for whichever rational Republican emerges.  If a better GOP candidate emerges for the Senate, abortion would be my defining issue there as well, in six years.  The next two years are the key, however. The Democrats are going to take the House and its necessary they do so.  Giving Chuck Gray a titanic dope slap, or better yet send him crying in his knee pants back to Los Angeles, is necessary.

As for the Hageman/Byrd contest, Byrd would make a really good Senator.  If the Democrats take the Senate, we couldn't be better represented.  He has the same, I assume, pro choice problem, but my guess is that isn't deep with Byrd, but I base that on nothing other than instinct.  He would be a real voice for Wyoming and we're going to need one, should the Democrats take the Senate, and leave John Barrasso wandering around the halls of Congress giving deep stares at John Thune, or whomever.

Do I think the Democrats can take these races?  Frankly, no.  But if they do well, that sends a message to at least Hageman, who probably would moderate her positions.  Gray, if elected, will face a challenger in 2028 and be sent packing.

So here I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

The local races

I haven't said much about these.

My City of Casper ward race featured a guy with a business background facing a young women with fishing tackle on her face.  I'm not voting for fishing tackle.

The county commission race featured one incumbent, Dallas Laird, one former commissioner who was later assessor, who was not great in either role, Matt Keating, one former Casper mayor, Ray Pacheco, one Evansville former mayor, Candace Machado, and somebody else.

I had to vote for three.

I voted for Keating, Pacheco, and Machado. Two Republicans and one Democrat.

On this race, I frankly voted against Laird, who is as old as dirt.  He's been in local politics since Sitting Bull was in grammar school and it was time for him to go.  Besides, he came into office promising to do something about the county selling the hospital to Banner health, which was by then impossible to do anything about, and he didn't do anything about it. He never could have, once something is sold, it's sold. As a lawyer, he knew that, or should have known that.

I'm not keen on that sort of misrepresentation.

Pacheco I have reservations about, but he tries to please people in the best way, so I'm okay with him.

Machado is a gadfly, but down at the county, which is sort of a geezer reservoir in transition, I figure that might be a good thing.

Governor Gordon wrote an op ed opposing the property tax initiative.

(OPINION) Why passing Prop. 1 would have a devastating impact on Wyoming

As noted, I voted against this initiative which would have the impact of mostly benefitting people with really high dollar residences.

This entire cutting property tax movement strongly resembles something that was done in California some decades ago and really hurt it.  It's notable that it's strong in the Freedom Caucus camp, which is heavily populated by carpetbaggers.  They don't have the same connections to their communities that real Wyomingites do. A prime mover in the initiative was failed Gubernatorial candidate Brent Bien whom, as we've noted, spent most of his adult life sucking on the Federal Government's tit which means he didn't have to worry about local services and education like the rest of us did and do.  The element of Solidarity seems to be completely lacking in the populist far right

And that, frankly, is not a very Wyomingite or Western way of looking at things.

cont:

FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION:

Why Passing Prop. 1 Would Have A Devastating Impact On Wyoming

Byline: Governor Mark Gordon

Word Count: 799

On December 10, 1869 our first Territorial Legislature approved, “An act to provide a territorial and county revenue.”  In doing this Wyoming modelled the Framer’s ideal of local control, of decisions and responsibilities kept at the local level where citizens can have a direct impact on how those decisions are shaped and financed. 

Wyoming voters are faced with the proposition on this November’s ballot to reduce the property tax in our state by 50%.  This initiative, called Proposition One is the first step in what could be a further call to completely dismantle a system of taxation Wyoming has relied upon since before statehood. The reduction by 50% would have an immediate and devastating effect on the services most Wyoming citizens rely upon in their communities.

Property taxes are not always ideal. But they do provide a direct mechanism for citizens - not politicians - to decide on and pay for the services they desire and benefit from.  Wyoming saw rapid increases in residential valuations and those increases have been hard to bear for some.  Accordingly, the legislature, with my support over the past few sessions, enacted meaningful property tax relief while preserving citizens’ rights to determine what and how best to fund the services they see as essential.  

Nevertheless, property tax as a mechanism for building and maintaining our communities is not improper. It is the cost that has become burdensome. Tax reform is fundamentally different from destroying a tax base or relying on the legislature to fund essential services.

Some things are universal - safe neighborhoods depend on services such as firefighting, emergency responses, good schools, and maintained roads.  All of these are essential to Wyoming’s long term strength and vitality.  They make our communities places where families can stay, businesses can grow, and the next generation can build a future they can call home.

Local control is a conservative principle - it means that decisions about community needs should rest as close as possible to those people who live there, who pay the taxes there, and who can hold their local elected officials accountable.  How responsible do we find Congress these days? Our communities need both the authority and the financial ability to meet those needs. Every property owner having “skin in the game” helps to assure the citizenry pays attention and demands accountability at the local - very most responsive - level. 

In my time in office, in successive budgets, I have seen the legislature continuously reduce its commitment to towns and counties, to make them fight harder for Cheyenne’s attention.  Property tax does not go to the state - it stays at the local level. Reducing and/or eliminating an essential obligation’s funding does not eliminate it, and remarkably this ill conceived Proposition lacks any plan to cover those costs other than counting on the fickleness of future legislatures. 

Wyoming families deserve affordable taxes and a disciplined government, and during my terms as your governor you have gotten both. We cut government, streamlined regulations, provided tax relief, and ensured a healthy and strong state. We did not cut the legs out from under communities and counties. 

They also deserve ambulances when they call, firefighters when their homes are threatened, safe roads to work and school. They expect meaningful taxpayer relief that maintains strong communities.  "The Wyoming people have already benefited from powerful property tax relief like the 25% homeowner exemption or the 50% long-term homeowners exemption among other relief measures." Cutting just to cut is not a responsible way forward for Wyoming.

Wyoming can, has, and will continue to help reduce tax bills to homeowners, but smaller local revenue does not make essential services less expensive.  Fuel, emergency equipment, road repairs, and the people who protect our communities still cost money.  All but our most wealthy local governments are feeling the same pain we are in paying for fuel, the same decisions on what we can afford. 

For the past half century, Wyoming has worked to protect her communities from the booms and busts of a commodity economy. It has been good work and we have all benefitted from those who laid solid groundwork. 

If the only answer for the loss of locally derived revenues that fund essential services like educating our children, should Proposition One pass, is for the state to “backfill” local communities from limited funds depending on favorable markets, we must also prepare ourselves for hard times ahead and remind ourselves, dependency on state government in Cheyenne weakens our local communities opportunity  to set their own destiny.  

Protecting the essentials means protecting Wyoming’s capacity to govern itself.  We must never walk away from that fundamental, conservative principle. If you care about the essential services in your communities, join Jennie and I in voting No on Proposition One. 

For more information:

Amy Edmonds, Communications Director, amy.edmonds@wyo.gov

October 14, 2026

Frank Eathorne, who was the head of the State's GOP when it turned full Freedom Caucus, and who was such a MAGA that he went to DC with Bob Ide to be there on the day of the insurrection rally (he missed the insurrection himself, as did Ide), has endorsed Dixiecrat Alabama Becky Bextel.  

What hypocrisy.

Eathorne was part of the group that brought in the absolute loyalty to the GOP era, which meant absolute loyalty to the Dixiecrats.  The voters tossed out the Confederates in the last election, but there's still a lot of them in county committees, and they've been sulking ever since.  Going into into the election Meine Ehre heißt Treue was their motto, but since then they've wandered around mostly pouting.  Some have endorsed Alabama Becky.  

Eathorne owed an apology to Joanna True.  She won't be getting one, of course.

As we've noted before, there's a good side to this.  Becky, Frank, Allemand, Sanchez-Williams, Bear, Bien and their ilk are not Republicans and they are not Conservatives, a least not of the normal type. They're Populist Dixiecrats with more in common with the pre 1970s South than anything in Wyoming.  A couple of them are in fact bonafide Southerners and show strongly Southern beliefs.  Some are Wyomingites showing a pretty strong streak of narrow-minded ignorance.  They deserve their own party, and the Constitution Party, which believes in a double secret Constitution only they know about, is their natural home. The more than de facto migrate over to it, the better.

An example of Republicans moving over to the Constitution Party is given by an old friend of mine. We don't discuss politics.  He's a really nice guy who moved in here from Kansas in the 80s and has fallen off the WFC deep end.  He was, or is, a figure in his county's organization and it was clear heading into the race he was beginning to get upset by how things were going.  One thing that upset him was that Hageman, endorsed by Trump, knew where her bread was buttered and didn't endorse the official GOP sanctioned Brent Bien, who ended up going down in flames.  That caused him to abandon Hageman.

Now, doing the same thing that Hageman did that upset him so much, he's backing Constitution Party Tamara Trujillo for Secretary of State.  This is all the more remarkable as Robert Short, a really good candidate, is from the same county.

Trujillo is so unknown that she'll be lucky if she recognizes her own name on the ballot.  But what's interesting here is that a diehard MAGA member of the GOP is going for a Constitution Party candidate who will lose so badly that nobody will ever remember her name.  The WFC Dixiecrats are actually moving over to the Constitution Party.  If they muster 10% of the vote, which isn't a wholly good thing, they'll probably bolt en masse before they come crawling back in 2028 as defeated lap dogs.

Trujillo is originally from Cheyenne, and indeed reading her biography, she's from the district in Cheyenne that's heavily Hispanic.  Her biography is pretty minimal, but it's clear that she married somebody who was in the Navy and seems to have had a 17 year career in that service.  She notes that she was a registered Democrat.  Without it really being clear, it seems she's a Catholic, and she certainly would have been originally.  Her position statements and issues are so bland they literally could apply to a person running from any party whatsoever.  I can understand what brought her over to the GOP from the Democratic Party, but what drew her to the Constitution Party is a complete mystery.

Alabama Becky has an op ed in the Oil City News in favor of Prop 1. 

Prop 1 would gut local governments like a fish.  She doesn't believe that but instead believes that "spending priorities" will make it all okay.

People who say that about local governments are naive or ignorant.  Wyoming's local governments are stretched to the financial limit right now.  The Tribune ran an article on it asking the following question:

Prop. 1 could slash Wyoming fire budgets. What happens when help can’t get there in time?

I'll make a prediction here on what the answer to this is if Prop 1 passes.

As long as the property destroyed and the residences burned up belong to regular people, or people living in trailers, etc., the WFC will be happy.  If schools get slashed, they don't believe in education anyway.  Education causes people to realize that things like Global Warming are real, which can't be true as they don't want it to be.  Fire that burn up trailers are burning up the homes of peasantry whom they don't hang out with even though they depend on their support.

But as soon as one Carpetbagger McMansion is destroyed. . .that'll matter.  They'll demand something be done, and that something will probably be a large increase in sales taxes, or an income tax.

And we'll regret passing Prop 1.

And, on tonight:


I've already voted, of course.

The most notable thing about these debates is that there won't be a Senatorial one as Hageman won't show up.  

What a brave lass.

Chuck Gray won't show up either.

Rebecca Bextel, who apparently will be there, should be asked if Chuck's failure to show up means that not only does not have big balls one of her favorite topics, but perhaps no balls at all.

Back to Gray, somebody I know who is on the periphery of the Gray campaign, and somebody I know who thinks they're a conservative Republican while actually being a fairly ignorant MAGA Dixiecrat, have been posting cartoons from the "Rino Rocket". They have the same general theme, Republicans are smart, Democrats are evil, etc.  They seem to have the same panicky "oh crap, we're going to lose" feel to them, which makes me wonder if Republican circles feel that they stand a chance of going down in Wyoming.

One, by the Gray acolyte, shows MAGA/WFC in the way it sees itself.  A cartoon busy women who is overflowing her shirt but who has a cross handing down into her cleavage warns that its cheaper to vote Republican than to move when the Democrats take over.

The person who posted that has been in the region his entire life.  Our migrant problem here is the Dixiecrats moving in.  It'd be cheaper to go back to the real GOP and protect the state, which they claim they want to do, than to bring in Nathan Bedford Bextel Forest and Confederate things up.  But the image is interesting.  As I've noted before the Daisy Duke image of female Republican came in with Carpetbagger Foster Friess.  A cartoon, however, warning you not to vote for Democrats sporting an image of Christianity between overflowing cartoon tits is sending a rather peculiar message.

Branching out to a local sheriff's race, probably for the first time, incumbent Sheriff, Democrat Aaron Appelhans faces a challenge from carpetbagging Daron L. Wyatt, a retired  Anaheim California police officer. Wyatt and his wife, Misty, permanently moved to Albany County around 2019 after buying property there some time earlier.

An interesting thing about this race is that Sheriff Appelhans is the first African American sheriff elected into office in Wyoming.  His race wasn't an issue in his first campaign at all.  He seems well liked, and he came into office at a time that Albany County was having some controversial law enforcement issues.

Wyatt's campaign, whether he means for it to or not, really seems to have the "I'm from ________, which I hated, and I'm here to tell you how to run things.

It's nice that Wyatt wants to continue his law enforcement career.  He should move back to Orange County and run for sheriff there.

In Mississippi, Democrat Scott Collom is lampooning Cindy Hyde-Smith's suggestion that if beef is too high, you can choose another protein.


October 14, 2026

I haven't watched it, so I have no comments, yet.

It sounds like Alabama Becky was into name calling.

Nor have I watched this one, and I very well might not.

cont:

Some initial debate comments.

Kenneth Casner looks absolutely ancient. Way older than his campaign photo.  He sounds ancient too, and looks like a very elderly man in his daily loungy clothes.

Casner keeps babbling about the "money situation".  He doesn't seem to grasp what he's talking about.

Becky has learned how to pose.  

Becky's understanding of municipal budgets is dim and, additionally, shows that she lives in wealthy Teton County.  Like a lot of WFC members, she oddly wants central control over municipal expenditures.

Bextel's accent is thick.  She can't pronounce the word "Wyoming". It come across as "Wyooomin"

Bextel hates the Wyoming Business Council.  She seems to have a beef with the University of Wyoming and specifically referenced wiping out "German studies", which UW doesn't have.  Did she mean the German department?  The German study abroad program?  

A lot of the specific things she claimed about Barlow were false, based on subsequent reporting.

Bextel, of course, is a graduate of the University of Alabama.

Barlow basically ignored Bextel's taunts and answered the questions.

Casner doesn't understand how judges are appointed.  Bextel said the nominees are chosen by "deep state swamp creature lawyers".

I gave up on the debate at about that point.

October 16, 2026

Before I move on, I'll note my final observations on the half of the debate I watched. 

Bextel isn't impressive intellectually.  She repeats the usually far right bromides about how the government is a fat calf that needs to be slaughtered so that a golden age of, well, they'll be no servivces.

Casner is embarrassingly old.  Dressed like an inmate at a nursing home, the Democrats should be ashamed.

Barlow didn't rise to the bait and he will win the election, but he's not a good speaker. Stilted is how I would describe his performance.

Another view:

Four takeaways from the Wyoming governor’s debate

Now, on to a candidate avoiding debate, Harriet Hageman. She gave a town hall in Evanston where she oddly took the position that the November elections will break the deadlock in Congress.

They might, but only because the Democrats might take control of both houses.

On that, the Republicans since King Donald the Usurper took control of the country and started ruling by decree have been amazingly ineffective.  The one piece of legislation they can point to is the Big Ugly Bill Bankrupting the Country, and that was forced upon him by the Orange Monarch.

But, oddly, the Senate, where's she's attempting to camp, might have had a bit of a back door role, in the GOP, in keeping things from getting any worse.  That might be a partial positive legacy, even though it certainly isn't a spectacular one, of the Republicans in the 119th Congress.  If they turn out to have been a reluctant clandestine guerilla army, I wonder if we'll even ever know.

Of course, that's supposing a lot.  More likely, they were a bunch of toady cowards.

The House debate happened, with one notable candidate missing.

On the debate that Chuck Gray avoided:

The Education Super debate occured as well.

And the mail is apparently about to get ugly.

Better Wyoming PAC Attack Mailers Targeting Republicans Hit This Week

October 17, 2026

Five takeaways from Wyoming’s superintendent of public instruction debate

Two good candidates. 

As noted, I've already voted.  If I had not, this debate would have changed my mind, and I would have voted for Cordova.

The Cornfederates can't seem to grasp the connection between property tax revenue and local services.

Prop 1 Supporters Blast Fire Dept's Cancellation Of Trunk Or Treat As 'Propaganda'

An an extremely interesting sign of the times:

Is the GOP so screwed that Wyoming flips?

I sense that possibility is more real than people might imagine.

In 2024 the election for the House looked like this: Hageman: 70.61%, Cameron:23.24%.

And Cameron was a complete unknown.

In 2022, when people were mad at Liz Cheney, the race looked like this: Hageman: 68.18%, Grey Bull: 24.37%.

So the Democrats pull about 24% of the vote no matter what.

Lots of people hate Chuck Gray.  A lot of people who don't hate him hold him in contempt.  Only the real Cornfederates like the guy.

So, what we know is that in any normal year, Kinney would pull 24% of the vote.

This isn't a normal year.

I'd guess that Kinney will pull at least 35% of the vote bare minimum.  

Then there's Johnson, who is an effective speaker.  The Libertarian is going to pull at least 5% of the vote, I'd guess.

And this year, there's a Constitution Party candidate who might pull in about 4% simply because he speaks fairly well and the Constitution Party is making a lot of noise.  

Now, if that's right, that would mean that Gray opponents would pull 44% of the vote.  Gray would still slide into Washington.

But. . . .

The level of Gray contempt is epic.  The legal community and professional business class despise him.   So if these numbers adjust just a bit.

It's not impossible that Kinney might pull down 40% of the vote, Johnson 10% and Haggit 5%.  That would leave Gray with 45%.  He's still win.

But adjust it just a tad, say Johnson 15%, maybe Haggit at 10%, and Gray is out on his ear going back to Daddy's radio station.

What about the Senate Race.

This race is to fill Lummis' seat.  In 2020, when she was elected to the Senate, the tally was: Lummis, 72.85% to Ben David 's 26.76%

Byrd will do better than Ben David.

Look again, therefore, to Hageman.  She's never done better than 71% of the vote.  That's good, mind you.  She's also never faced a candidate as tough and good as Byrd.  Byrd will pull in at least 30% of the vote even if Hageman doesn't move.  But can he pull down more?

Getting to 51% is really a stretch.  But these are extraordinary times. 

And with that, we'll close out this edition.

Footnotes:

1.  As always, I'm going with the conventional color conventions. Blue is conservative, red left of center.  This is how it is the world over.

Orange, well I used that for a distributist sort of view.  It's the color of Christian Democracy.

Last edition.

The 2026 Election, 24th Edition. Voting for Gray and Hageman is morally unconscionable. So what to do?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Additional Labels:

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

Lex Anteinternet: Giving up completely on the GOP.

Lex Anteinternet: Giving up completely on the GOP.: I've noted my political history here before. I'm a Westerner and an Irish Catholic.  That informs my vote pretty heavily. When I fir...

Giving up completely on the GOP.

I've noted my political history here before.

I'm a Westerner and an Irish Catholic.  That informs my vote pretty heavily.

When I first registered to vote Ronald Reagan was President.  Marine Corps Raider veteran Ed Herschler, a Democrat, was the Governor of Wyoming.  D-Day veteran Teno Roncolio, also a Democrat, was our Congressman.  Republicans Malcolm Wallop and Alan Simpson were our Senators.  

That was sort of the political landscape here at the time.   More Republicans than Democrats, but there were still Democrats, and those Democrats tended to be pretty tough conservative people.  Republicans were already tacking off into batshit crazy economic theories but they weren't completely bathed in them yet.

I registered as a Republican.

I didn't stay a Republican for a really long time.  I don't recall when exactly I switched parties, but by the time I was at the University of Wyoming, I had registered Democratic.  I stayed in the Democratic Party for a long time.  I was still a Democrat when I became a lawyer and I know that I was when I was married.  However, sometime after that, I couldn't stand the sea of blood the Democratic Party had become.  I became an independent.

As an independent you missed the primaries pretty much, however, and starting in the Clinton era in general Wyoming Democrats began to drift over to the GOP.  After all, the mainstream of the Democratic Party wasn't all that different from the traditional mainstream of the local GOP.  After awhile, I registered as a Republican.

Little far right Dixiecrats like Chuck Gray like to scream that people like me are "RINOs", when in fact they're the malignant innovation into the GOP.  That element hadn't entered the GOP at the time I was first in it, and didn't for a long time.  Gray himself, who nobody really knew anything about, was probably the first, followed by Jeanette Ward, who served one term in the legislature before losing a bid to retain her seat.  While she lost, that showed the direction things were headed in.  Carpetbaggers who knew nothing about their state moved in and wanted to convert it into pre 1964 Alabama.

It's not as if the Democrats stood still.  As moderate Wyoming Democrats left the party, it too became delusional.  If the Republicans became increasingly fascistic or Dixiecratic, the Democrats lived intellectually in the Greenwich Villages' Stonewall Inn in 1969.  It made going back into the Democratic Party an outright impossibility for people like myself, particularly as they lashed themselves increasingly to abortion and perversion. 

More recently, I'll note, that seems to be wearing off.  The Democrats are still "pro choice", but they don't talk much about it.  For that matter Republicans who were really gung ho on being pro life have sort of lost their fire for that as well, following the lead of Orange Mussolini.

What the Republican Party, nationally, has become is flat out insane.  No thinking person can be a member of it and be comfortable.

There are still good Republicans here in Wyoming.  They began a big fight against the Dixiecrats prior to the legislature and largely prevailed this session, in spite of the fact that the diehard adherents of The Lost Cause were theoretically in control of the solons.  That should give local Republicans who aren't literally whistling Dixie some hope.

But with the current national Trumpites in control, the line has been drawn. 

For years people like Dixiecrat Chuck Gray, or Dixicrat Bextel, have claimed that the Republican Party here was infiltrated with Democrats. Well, it was. They're the Democrats.  Democrats from 1960 Alabama. They just don't know it.  But the screaming lunacy that they've espoused does have an effect after awhile.  Yell at people that "you are a RINO" for long enough, and they'll take it up.

I'm remaining registered in the GOP.  Chuck Gray's efforts to disenfranchise voters has been enough for me in and of itself not to change registrations.  Frankly, if I was to take a run at the House of Representatives, and I've thought about it, I would switch parties as right now that would give a person a place in the November election no matter what.  But I'm not going to do that.  I'm old, worn out, and very tired. 

So I'm remaining in the GOP in no small part so that I can vote for the decent primary candidates, of which there are some right now.

At this point, merely stating that you are "pro Trump" will be enough to cross my vote for you off the list.  At least three House candidates are promising to be Trump's biggest lover, and they're all of the list.  I hope I run into some of them during their campaigns.  I probably will.

And I've already quit giving MAGAs in my midst slack.  Frankly, since the start of the assault on Iran, that's been easy, as the "never war" MAGAs can't explain that one without sounding like hypocrites, and they know it.  Even a few have begun to look as if Valentines to Trump weren't a good idea.

But in the Fall.  I'm not voting for any Republicans for anything.

That won't exactly be easy.  So far here only one candidate from the Democratic Party has signed on to run for a statewide office.  He has my vote even though I like the only Republican whose announced for the same position.  And just because I'm not voting for a Republican doesn't mean I will vote for Democrats.  In my state house district a really decent Republican holds the seat and a young woman from the Democratic Party has announced against him. She's already on the sea of blood ticket.  I can't vote for her, but I won't vote for the Republican I've voted for many times before.

To vote for Republicans in 2026 you have to accept that a low IQ, deranged, octogenarian should have complete dictatorial control over the Federal Government, can start major wars on his own, can demolish parts of the White House as he has the tastes of a bordello owner, can cause the hiding of files on a major pedophile ring, and can have a domestic army occupy the streets.  It also means you have to be willing to sacrifice the environment of the planet for scientific denial.  You have to be willing to endorse lies at a never before seen rate, which makes you a liar yourself if you do. 

I can't go there.

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

Lex Anteinternet: Bookends

Lex Anteinternet: Bookends: 

Bookends


I probably should have guessed, but I didn't.

I'd never met him before, and couldn't even place him in the set of people related to people I knew.  He was, or is rather, the grandson of a rancher I've known for eons, but I'd never seen him at a rural gathering.  He was dressed in a rural fashion, with the clothes natural to him, but wearing a ball cap rather than a cowboy hat.  I probably was too.  It was unseasonably cold, I remember that.

He was holding forth boldly on what was wrong on higher education.  All the professors were radical leftist.  

I figured he was probably right out of high school, in part no doubt as I'm a very poor judge of younger ages.  It was silly, so I just ignored him, although I found his speech arrogant.  The sort of speech you hear from somebody who presumes that nobody else has experienced what you have. 1  I.e., we were a bunch of rural rubes not familiar with the dangerous liberals in higher education.

I figured he'd probably get over it as he moved through education.  

Yes, there are liberals in higher education. Frankly, the more educated a class is, the more likely that it is at least somewhat liberal.  That reflects itself in our current political demographic.  The more higher education a person has, the more likely they are to vote for the Democrats.  It's not universally true, but it's fairly true. And the Republicans, having gone populist, which is by definition a political stream that simply flows the "wisdom of the people", is a pretty shallow stream.  Conservatism isn't, but it's really hard to find right now.

I heard earlier this year that he'd obtained a summer position in D.C. with one of our current public servants there, and thought that figured, given the climate of the times.  Recently, his grandfather told me he'd just taken the LSAT.  

I didn't quite know what to say.  

I didn't have any idea he was that old.  And I didn't realize that was his aspiration.  I asked his progenitor if being a lawyer was his goal, and was informed that it was.  I did stumble around to asking what his undergraduate major was, thinking that some have multiple doors to the future, and some do not.

"Political science".

"Well, he doesn't have any place else to go then".2

Not the most encouraging response, I'm sure.

I've known a few lawyers that were of the populist political thought variety, but very, very few.  Of the few, one is in office right now, but I didn't know that person had that view until that person ran.  One is a nice plaintiff's lawyer who holds those views, but it's not his defining characteristic, like it tends to be with some people, and he's friends with those who don't.  One briefly was in the public eye and has disappeared.

He's going to find that most law professors, if you know their views at all, and most you won't, aren't populists.  Some are probably conservatives, and most are liberals.  A defining characteristic of the Post GI Bill field of law is that it's institutionally left wing.  As I've often noted before, there are in fact liberal jurists, but there really aren't "conservative" jurists in the true sense, in spite of what people like Robert Reich might think.

I suspect politics is the ultimate goal. By the time he's through with law school, and has some practice under his belt, the populist wave will have broken, a conservative politics will have reemerged and liberals will be back in power.3

So I hope that he likes the practice of law, as that's what law school trains you to do.  Not to save the world.  Not to "help people".  Not to provide opportunities for people who "like to argue".4 

I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

Recently, I ran this:

June 25, 2024

An article on Hageman's primary challenger in the GOP:

Democrat-turned-Republican challenges Wyoming’s Harriet Hageman for U.S. House seat

Helling has a less than zero chance of unseating Hageman.  What this item really reminded me of, however, is just how old these candidates are.  Helling is an old lawyer.  His bar admission date is 1981, which would make him about 70.  Hageman's is 1989, which I knew which would make her about 61, old by historical standards although apparently arguably middle-aged now.

Barrasso is 71.  Lummis is 69. John Hotz, who is running against Barrasso, has a bar admission date of 1978 which would make him about three years older than Helling.  Seemingly the only younger candidate in the GOP race this primary is Rasner.

This isn't a comment on any of their politics, but rather their age.  Helling is opposed to nuclear power, a very 1970ish view.  With old people, come old views, quite often, even if they're repackaged as new ones.

Right after I ran it, I went to a hearing where one of the opposing lawyers is approaching 70 and supposedly is getting ready to retire, but doesn't seem to be.  Right after that, I was in a court hearing in which there were two younger lawyers, but a host of ones in their late 60s or well into their 70s.  One of the late 60s ones appeared to be stunned and noted that there was at least 200 years of legal experience in the room.

I was noticing the same thing.

Lawyers have a problem and that's beginning to scare me, not quite yet being of retirement age.  I'm not sure if they don't retire, can't retire, don't think they can retire, or something else.

It's not really good for the profession, I'm sure of that.  While it's a really Un-American thing to say, a field being dominated in some ways by the elderly pushes out the young.  And it's also sad.

It's sad as it's usually the case that younger people have wide, genuine, interests.  Lawyers often, although not always, give a lot of those up early on to build their careers. Then they don't go back to them due to those careers.  By the time they're in their late 50s, some are burnt out husks that have nothing but the law, and others are just, I think, afraid to leave it.

I think that's, in part, why you see lawyers run for office.  Maybe some are like our young firebrand first mentioned in this tread.  But others are finding a refuge from a cul-de-sac.  A lawyer who is nearly 70 should not become a first time office holder, and shouldn't even delude themselves into thinking that's a good idea (or that it's feasible).  They should remind themselves of what interested them when they were in their 20s.  The same is true of office holders in general who are in their 70s, or older.  


Footnotes:

1.  I've often seen this with young veterans and old ones.  Some young veteran will be holding forth, not realizing that the guy listening to him fought at Khe Sanh or the likes.

2.  That wasn't the most politic thing to say, but I was sort of hoping that the answer was "agriculture" or something, that had some more doors out.  

Political science really doesn't.  Maybe teaching.  But if our young protagonist graduates with a law degree and finds himself not in the world of political intrigue making sure that the American version of Viktor Orbán rises to the top, but rather whether his client, the mother of five children by seven men gets one of them to pay child support, which is highly likely, he's going to have no place to go.

3.  Bold prediction, I know, but probably correct.

Right now, I suspect that Donald Trump will in fact win the Presidential election, and the country will be in for a massive period of turmoil.  By midterm, people who supported Trump will be howling with rage about the impact of tariffs and the like and demanding that something be done.  The correction will come in 2028, but by that time much of the damage, or resetting or whatever, will have been done.  The incoming 2028 Democratic regime will set the needle more back to the center.

4.  Being good at arguing, in a Socratic sense, makes you a good debator or speaker.  Liking to argue, however, just makes you an asshole.

Sunday, March 31, 2024

Lex Anteinternet: Easter Sunday, 2024. The Day Joe Biden lost the 2024 Election by choosing to lose it by lurching to the Progressive Left & Hurling Invectives.

Lex Anteinternet: Easter Sunday, 2024. The Day Joe Biden lost the 20...: 

Easter Sunday, 2024. The Day Joe Biden lost the 2024 Election by choosing to lose it by lurching to the Progressive Left.


Just below this post, is this one:

Hurling invectives.

That post isn't limited to the left or the right, although right now, invectives are coming more loudly from the Populist right.  They do come from the Progressive left as well.

I note that, as people may misinterpret the post below as being solely aimed at Populists.  Indeed, Populists are likely to look at it that way, as they tend to be very shallow in their political analysis. All their opponents are members of "the Radical Left", they believe. Even Conservatives who oppose them are members of the "Radical Left".

Not hardly.

The actual Radical Left is in the news today through its capture of much of the Democratic Party, which started before the Populists became as influential as they currently are in the GOP.  Indeed, as we discussed last week, the Progressives, which are not the same as the Liberals, have roots in the Democratic Party that go back at least as far as the collapse of the Progressive Party in 1912-1914.

I've often said here that Democrats don't lose elections, they throw them away.

When future historians go back and find the point at which Conservatives who were teetering on the edge of supporting Joe Biden determined to reluctantly give their votes to Donald Trump, they'll cite the issuance of this proclamation:

A Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility, 2024

On Transgender Day of Visibility, we honor the extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans and reaffirm our Nation’s commitment to forming a more perfect Union — where all people are created equal and treated equally throughout their lives.  

I am proud that my Administration has stood for justice from the start, working to ensure that the LGBTQI+ community can live openly, in safety, with dignity and respect.  I am proud to have appointed transgender leaders to my Administration and to have ended the ban on transgender Americans serving openly in our military.  I am proud to have signed historic Executive Orders that strengthen civil rights protections in housing, employment, health care, education, the justice system, and more.  I am proud to have signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring that every American can marry the person they love. 

Transgender Americans are part of the fabric of our Nation.  Whether serving their communities or in the military, raising families or running businesses, they help America thrive.  They deserve, and are entitled to, the same rights and freedoms as every other American, including the most fundamental freedom to be their true selves.  But extremists are proposing hundreds of hateful laws that target and terrify transgender kids and their families — silencing teachers; banning books; and even threatening parents, doctors, and nurses with prison for helping parents get care for their children.  These bills attack our most basic American values:  the freedom to be yourself, the freedom to make your own health care decisions, and even the right to raise your own child.  It is no surprise that the bullying and discrimination that transgender Americans face is worsening our Nation’s mental health crisis, leading half of transgender youth to consider suicide in the past year.  At the same time, an epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls, especially women and girls of color, continues to take too many lives.  Let me be clear:  All of these attacks are un-American and must end.  No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.  

At the same time, my Administration is working to stop the bullying and harassment of transgender children and their families.  The Department of Justice has taken action to push back against extreme and un-American State laws targeting transgender youth and their families and the Department of Justice is partnering with law enforcement and community groups to combat hate and violence.  My Administration is also providing dedicated emergency mental health support through our nationwide suicide and crisis lifeline — any LGBTQI+ young person in need can call “988” and press “3” to speak with a counselor trained to support them.  We are making public services more accessible for transgender Americans, including with more inclusive passports and easier access to Social Security benefits.  There is much more to do.  I continue to call on the Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify civil rights protections for all LGBTQI+ Americans.

Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans:  You are loved.  You are heard.  You are understood.  You belong.  You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2024, as Transgender Day of Visibility.  I call upon all Americans to join us in lifting up the lives and voices of transgender people throughout our Nation and to work toward eliminating violence and discrimination based on gender identity.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

Defenders of this will no doubt state that Joe is just honoring the "right to be yourself".  Maybe he thinks of it that way.  Indeed, the statement is sufficiently bland enought to nearly be calculated to attempt not to really offend.

This isn't how many will take it.  Many will take it as "you are forcing me to accept a radical fraud about yourself and pretend it's okay".

And frankly, they're right.  Words actually do have meaning, and not only the spoken ones, but what they suggest.

This comes down, in a way, to the essential difference between how conservatives, liberals and progressives see the world (yes I've left populists out of this intentionally).  Only Progressives believe in the Existential Me, or the Isolated Absolute. Everyone else believes that you are part of a community.  Indeed, Progressivism is, ironically, the ultimate extension of a belief that Progressives claim to hate, that being American Individualism written large.  You can' be just what you want to be, and ignore everyone else.  

In reality, Homo sapiens are a community animal with a fixed nature, and you can't.

I'd normally be reluctant to cite Jordan Peterson, the right wing Canadian pundit, but he is a psychologist and he and a reporter have an interesting podcast episode entitled The Biggest Medical Scandal Of Our Time.  I'm not going to link it in, people can simply look it up, but it does a good job of pointing out the degree to which the entire transgender thing is simply a fraud.  Peterson spends much of the podcast being outraged, as he's a very poor interviewer, but what you'd basically learn is that in the extraordinary rare instances in which gender confusion arises, it's confusion and nothing else.  The basic proper course for minors is not to treat it, with most who are generally afflicted, according to Peterson, coming into adulthood comfortable with their genders, but being homosexuals.

I'm no doubt more radical yet, as I don't believe that transgenderism actually even exists, but is rather a psychological affliction that is limited to the Western world and expresses something else going on in our culture.  It's deeply contrary to nature, as much of our society is in general.  It's a reaction to some sort of unnatural stress, not an expression of nature.

There's utterly no reason whatsoever for the Federal Government to recognize transgenderism and the fact that it does, and that it's even crept into surgeries being allowed within the Armed Forces, is in fact evidence of how deeply woke some elements of our society have become.  There's no reason to oppress people who express this, but going the next 100 miles and pretending everything about it is okay about it is frankly going a bridge too far, and most people instinctively know this.

People have become used to various months being declared to represent the history of one group of people or another.  Originally, it was a few definable groups who deserved to have their history brought forward.  Black History Month was a good example.  March is National Women's History Month, which was as well. 

November has become Transgender Awareness Month according to some, or there's a month in November that's been declared Transgender Awareness Week.  Now we're all learning that March 31, the last day of National Women's History Month, is Transgender Day of Visibility.

Some time ago I heard a podcast by somebody, I can't recall who, who discussed how transgender mutilation of men into women goes an extra level in being an existential insult to women.  That it's a fraud is self-evident.  You cannot change your gender, you can only surgically and chemically attempt to partially mask your actual gender.  

But what hadn't occured to me is that actual women go through, due to their natures, something that men can barely understand.  To experience in your youthful prime an event in which your young healthy body suddenly starts bleeding monthly and your hormonal system subjects you to a raging hormonal cyclonic storm is something men do not experience and cannot grasp.  To take pills and subject yourself to surgical butchery doesn't mimic that in any fashion.  Women's entire bodies, after a certain point in their teens, remind them of our species elemental genetic roles.  Boys have things turn on, but not in a way that can result in them bearing another human being, and in fact monthly demanding that they do so.

To have the Oval Office recognize something that, at this point, is basically hurled in everyone's face, and which all humans know at an elemental level to be existentially wrong, is insulting.

Do declare it on Easter Sunday is an insult beyond that.

That Biden did this is tone-deaf beyond belief.  His defenders are pointing out that this day is "always Transgender Day of Visibility", which is absurd on its face, as it hasn't "always" existed.  It's new, and it's misdirected.  Noting those who fall into this self-declared group is worthwhile, but to sympathize with their plight and seek to address it honestly, rather than to verify that their condition is a dandy one. But this is what we do now since the Progressive Left has become so inserted in our society.  We honor the afflicted in their affliction rather than seek to help.

Recently, an insulting event occured at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, in which a funeral that openly insulted conservative beliefs in general and the beliefs of the Catholic Church occured.  The tone-deaf appearance by those whose duty it is to protect the beliefs of the Church were widely discussed on the Catholic Blogosphere.  This, however, is wider yet.

No matter how imperfectly understood, a major element fueling Populist rage (and there are multiple ones, not just one) and horrifying genuine conservatives is the forced demand of acceptance of certain things that actually are part of somebody's "radical left agenda".  While much of the invectives that cite that are baloney, this much is in fact true.  When Justice Kennedy and his fellow robbed travelers insisted that Obergell didn't mean the onset of a societal revolution, they were obviously wrong at the time, and they set off the inevitable counter revolution.  We noted then:

These justices have perhaps assumed too much if they've assumed that they can now act so far that Marshall would be horrified, and I'd be surprised if, long term, this decision doesn't either mark the beginning of a Cesarian court and a retreat of American democracy, or the point at which the roles of the Court began to massively erode in favor of a more Athenian democracy.

Either result is really scary.

Well here we are.

So, with Joe Biden, who supposedly is an adherent Catholic (which based on his public positions, he obviously is not), having signed a proclamation that places a day honoring something that repels conservatives and enrages Populists, and which actually does offer insult to Christian tenants in general, and which places the honoring on Easter Sunday in an election year, he's sealed his doom in the Fall.  Those defending him that this "always" occurs on this day are essentially noting that Joe was too distracted to take note, which only fuels the fire that he doesn't know what he is doing.  Never mind that Trump either doesn't know what he is doing either, his adherents already know that the Führerprinzip means he'll follow their lead, as it gets him attention. And indeed, they are already.

And this points out once again the tragedy of a moronic "two party system". There's no reason that real conservatives, or real liberals, should have to vote for these two fallen parties and their ancient, unappealing candidates.  

Indeed, there's a good argument that thinking people shouldn't.

Related threads:

A Primer, Part I. Populists ain't Conservatives, and LIberals ain't Progressives. How inaccurate terminology is warping our political perceptions.


Hurling invectives.


This may seem like a strange thing to put up for Easter Morning, but maybe it isn't.

One of our major elected office holders in this state is a Catholic.  And yet, in spite of that, he makes vile accusations against entire classes of people constantly.  Other members of the "Freedom Caucus" claim to be Christian, but their speech sure doesn't indicate it.  One, the session before last, who claimed in her native state of Illinois that Muslims worship a different God than Christians (they don't, Allah is simply the Arabic word for "God", and while they may understand God's nature differently than we do, they worship the same God) claimed that "we are not our brother's keeper".  The hard populist right around here frequently cites to religion, even if they are not all the same religion.  

Christ could be angry, as his chasing the money changers out of the Temple indicates.  We have to wonder what will occur to a Presidential candidate, whose connection with Christianity is paper thin, will receive in the next life for hawking Bibles as part of his campaign. But for now, we can wonder how a group of people who claim to be the representatives of the culture can behave so badly.

People who do this routinely are not speaking intelligently, and in fact are attempting to distract from intelligent debate.

You should consider that when listening to public figures.

We live in an age in which intelligent debate has declined to an all-time low.  In its place, we have now what the Nazis and the Communist had, insulters who scream, while saying very little that's intelligent or worth considering. Their goal is to inspire hatred, as if love for an idea won't be forthcoming, hatred of a demonized class will do.

Politicians and figures who routinely insert words like "radical", "leftist", "fascist", "Marxist", and "Communist" into their speech are not arguing points, they're trying to inspire hatred and avoiding thought.   

For days, I've been getting emails from a figure I at least somewhat respected, and have voted for in the past, accusing the current administration of being "radical", sometimes in the most absurd ways.  One such missive asserts the Democrats are intentionally out to make things worse for Americans, which is flat out absurd.  It's constant.  The contest locally, right now, is in the GOP itself, and given that, as I'm still reluctantly registered as a Republican, I'll be struggling in regard to my vote in the primary, with the question being whether I should cast a vote at all.  I likely will, but come the general election, I'm going to weigh this behavior.

A current state office holder who is a co religious cannot speak without speaking of his opponents as "Radical leftists and liberal elites", whipping up ire towards imagined categories that simply really aren't here.  There are no Red bands roaming the prairies around Cheyenne.

For that matter, being an "elite" is a good thing.  In this context, "elite" implies highly educated and successful.  If the highly educated and successful think your position is dimwitted, it probably is.

More than one Populist, who are not Conservatives, now run around constantly accusing Governor Gordon of being a Democrat, by which they mean not a Populist. We're teetering on the brink of RINO meaning "not a fascist".  It already darned near means that the speaker is a Southern Populist with ideas that are not native to this state, and which are being spouted in an unthinking manner.

Taking it nationally, the former President, who apparently has so little grasp of political categories that he doesn't understand the difference between communism and fascism (Wharton School of Business. . . why are you respected?) recently stated “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections”.

A person who links all those categories together is, frankly, is either ignorant or bizarrely deluded.  People who swallow this up, are really ignorant.

Now, let's be honest.  At one time, particularly in the 60s and 70s, the far left did the same thing.  Everyone who opposed them or who wasn't with them was a "fascist".  And in more modern times, the far left progressives have done the same, often with really bizarro accusations that everyone who isn't with them is part of a widespread "white" and "male" conspiracy.  

But that's the point.  To a large degree, nobody really take the far left in the United States seriously, usually, because they are clowns.  Recently they have been successful, however, in a gender bending effort, which is helping to give rise to the Populist far right.

But both sides are anti-natural, anti-scientific, swimming in the toddler section movements.  They're unthinking.

And as we have real problems, we need real thought, now.

And at any rate, running around that your opponent must be a Communist, Marxist, Monarchist, Anarchist, Pedophile, Audiophile, Anglophile, RINO is not dignified. 

And for those who claim to be Christian, well you should reconsider your presentation. 

You might want to reconsider your personal lives also, particularly if you are one of the numerous members of the Christian Nationalist camp whom St. Paul might have a few things to address them about.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the vote edition.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2026 Election, 25th Edition. The casting the v... :  I have now voted. October 13, 2026. I went down to the old county...