Actually, I tried. Faded when we got to the always there Greek reference. I suspect even folks living in Athens don't visit the Parthenon as often as Mr Kenney.
Though before fading, I did note some interesting twists and turns in his Sophistic logic. That he, of course, exists in the precise, exact middle of modern life. And anyone not revolving around his Sun is wanting. Lacking in moral fibre, so they say....
And if only everyone will recognize that, at that time we will all live in a land of plenty and of peace.
Huh.
Somehow, Biden, Obama, Hillary are all on the same moral level as Trump.
If only we Democrats were all more like Moynihan. But Moynihan dealt with Reagan and HW Bush. Both honorable men. I don't recall either of them being charged with felonies, many of which involve either flagrant disregard for national security - or direct attempts to overthrow the Constitution. Did I miss something?
I can't help but wonder if there is anything in which he accepts personal accountability. For himself, or his avowed party.
It is the Democrat's fault that they won't continue moving to the right to accommodate ever more outrageous demands? To the point of defaulting on debt? Ignoring violence? Torture? Trampled rights?
Democrats and really, everyone not in the midst of this cultish nightmare has realized that eventually, if you continually compromise with someone who never compromises with you, you're no longer in the middle.
So you're against book burning, are you?
Not so much to disavow the party you belong to when they do it; but enough to not be happy about it?
Wow, way to take a stand...get that man a Nobel prize. Gandhi ain't got nothing on him.
But I guess my favorite part - was this little tidbit.
"Cancel culture is not a facet of the right but remains distinctly one of the left, where dissent becomes betrayal...."
Oh really?
Really?!?
Want to explain that to Liz Cheney or Denver Riggleman? They should have plenty of time to listen, after being primaried out. All of the Lindsay Grahams and Kevin McCarthys who suddenly decided they didn't mind being attacked, if it meant they could stay in power a while longer. DeSantis going after Disney for popularity points in the culture wars? Youngkin pardoning an accused criminal before he went to trial in Loudon County? Another to appease the no-mask groups? (You know, in beloved Spotsy?). Trump and Gosar calling for executions of those who stood against their excesses? Michael Fanone ostracized by his fellow DC police officers after standing against the conspiracy? All of those you've doxxed, threatened, attacked on right wing media thru Tucker, and Hannity, and Alex Jones, and Bannon, and Gingrich?
Dude, check the meds.
No one, but no one does cancel culture like today's Republican party.
NO ONE.
Joe McCarthy would hide his head in shame, not out of morality - but realizing his efforts - as arrogant, ignorant, and hateful as they were in the day - were like a child's random scribblings compared to Michealangelo's Sistine Chapel.
Then again, the fact that is true, and yet you seriously show up here claiming that somehow - you, through your party are a victim, and insist that everyone else change to suit you, THAT shows how far we have devolved.
Again, wow.
You want to save us from demagogues.
Fine.
You first.
Donald Trump is currently approved by the majority of the Republican Party to be President in 2024. A man charged with over 90 felonies, who has promised to overturn many Constitutional protections, after a serious attempt to do so in 2020.
Here's a simple question for you, Mr Kenney. Answer this one, if no other.
If he is the Republican Party's nominee, will you support him?
A couple of times you've brought up the idea that the "government" is bad. (Except, for some reason, when Republicans are in charge).
Go figure. That we should rather, depend upon "culture" to lead us, rather than laws. I wonder whose, perchance? Somehow, I'm guessing your own. With a healthy dose of Pericles?
In a representative democracy, our government is us.
The school teacher making less than she could in the private market to teach your children does so because she cares, as much as for the money. How dare you presume otherwise, without proof beyond your own prejudices.
Likewise the lawyer defending the accused, the inspector checking for fire code violations, or the chemist inspecting the water. They are us.
And just about every law or rule they are enforcing, every standard - is due to there being a need. Usually because someone took advantage. It seems like it is only those enjoying those unfair advantages, who are profiting at their neighbor's expense who would object to there being limits.
And our Constitution was not written in stone. It was a great document, but it has and has needed to evolve from an idea that it was revolutionary for landed white gentry men slave labor camp operators to be considered equal to English nobility; which has evolved to the idea today that ALL people are created equal.
I admit freely that I like the idea of laws, knowledge, Constitutions and ideals, administered by those who dedicate their lives to service of our people being our mechanism for government as being how we choose to live as a people - rather than something as ephemeral as "culture" administered by those who make their decisions based upon whether it keeps up with the Kardashians, sold shoes on the Apprentice, or became a chant at a Nascar race.
And I think that guy plowing the road so you can get to work or writing up the supermarket for selling your kids bad milk have value as well.
Our government is not some vast conspiracy looking to hold us back. Rather it has been the instrument under which our capitalistic society has thrived. With a stable money, stable until recently - due to you - governments, investments in technology, learning, security, health, wealth. It ain't perfect, that I'll grant you.
But before you throw it out, to be replaced by your cultural theocracy, I think I'd rather follow the advice given by Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
In summary:
Republicans don't believe in cancel culture, and we can all be in the middle - once those believing in democracy agree to compromise with us a little more.....just like last time. And the time before that, and the time before that, and.....
TL;DR... and yet you read the entire thing. Congratulations!
You ask the question whether or not I have or will support Donald J. Trump for POTUS. I am sorry to disappoint you... but I have been remarkably consistent on this question for years longer than most Democrats:
No, I'm afraid I did fade when you drifted into the Aegean Sea once again. We used to play kultklan bingo back home, waiting to see when one of the faithful would invoke Hillary, Soros, LIV, or whatever the Foxspeak of the day happened to be.
I'm thinking of starting a new one. If you ever avoid mentioning the Peloponnesian peninsula during one of your articles, I expect I'll lose. Anyhoo.
So, as with so many of your other presumptions - you are, sadly, wrong.
I AM happy to hear of your positions on both Trump and book burnings. So thank you for providing. Though I do find your stalwart defense of those engaging in both to be puzzling.
Though with that being the case, I would argue whether you truly are "The Republican Standard" as you insist.
I did agree and do agree with your comment in 2016 that Republican and conservative are no longer synonymous.
" That many of our elected officials do not have the moral backbone to stand up to the populist wave is disappointing indeed, but from the rank and file conservatives?"
I don't know who wrote that, but I certainly agree with it. Personally, I feel that I am more conservative than most Republicans - and yet in their eyes, I am as exteme a leftist as there is. Go figure.
The Republican Party of today is a personality cult, built upon fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No platform, fungible morals, etc. In essence - it has evolved to represent many of the traits that you and I both despised in Trump in 2016. And it shows every indication of keeping those traits when he is gone.
Personally, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz, whom I saw as the Republican version of Hillary, willing to say anything in order to get elected - I would have voted for any of the Republican potential nominees over Hillary in 2016. With the exception of Donald Trump. For many of the reasons you yourself noted. Easiest choice I've ever made. As much as I saw her not being as good as say, a Jeb Bush, she was light years ahead of the draft dodging bankrupt slumlord from Queens. On every level.
So now, in 2023, the majority of Republicans having already decided that he is their choice for President - is it really any more than wishful thinking to claim that YOU are the Republican standard?
The numbers say otherwise, if your opposition to Trump remains. You are not.
So when you have so studiously avoiding mentioning that opposition, up to this point, while purporting to be "The Republican Standard" I found it worth asking.
Because again, the party that you purport to represent - clearly sees it differently. I guess I could have done internet searches, etc. But I figure the best way to get a question answered is to ask it.
FWIW, and realizing the feeling is unlikely to be mutual - having been so informed - I am willing to discuss matters with you when you write your columns. You have much more of my respect than you would have otherwise.
Whereas, those who did try to violently overthrow our Constitution and would do so again, thru Trump - I do take them at their word when they say I am their enemy. Based upon their words and their actions. I swore to protect that Constitution. How could it be otherwise?
I'm just not so sure that you do represent them as you claim.
Personally, I am a fan of exposing ignorance, in myself as well as others. I call it learning.
I've heard of lot of teachers take an active interest in the process. Even encourage it.
Is that wrong? (That's my Socrates for the day....) GTG.
You really don't like the title of my publication, do you? LOL.
More than happy to discuss things. Appreciate the respect in turn.
Would love to see more of a turn from left-right towards the center fighting the extremes, but that seems awfully hard for folks to do nowadays. Maybe we will figure it out?
FWIW - to further my claim - the latest "mainstream" (I use that term tongue-in-cheek) Republican who was nominated to lead the House went down in a blaze of flames.
His crime?
He was one of the few Republicans to stand against Trump. Trump vetoed him by text message. He wasn't "loyal" enough.
You know, sorta like yourself.
Again, I admire that of you. I do. But to pretend that your view is the "Republican" view is just that, pretending. The sooner you accept that, the better we'll all be.
To me, I'd say your choice is either to continually compromise your ethics in some Devil's bargain, as so many former Republicans have done over the last 7 years. So eventually, if it hasn't already happened, you'll have compromised them to the point of non-existence.
Or to admit today's Republican party is not conservative. If it ever was.
I mean, y'all talk a good game, but I'd also say that the fact you never follow thru is probably what led to Trump. Good politics, bad governance.
You want term limits, balanced budget, less government, abortion outlawed, yada, until you get in power. Then you get amnesia for some reason.
The reason being that you know that no one will stand for it.
Why didn't we get term limits proposed in 2017, when you had complete control of Congress and the Presidency? The same reason the budget didn't get balanced, or a national abortion law.
You knew you'd pay at the polls.
So again, your choice is to serve the cult, because even if you personally "object" to their many misdeeds - if you are empowering them, you are culpable. Or to abandon and reject them. Either by joining Democrats who are doing so. Or by creating a new party, free of their taint. Much akin to how the Republican party itself was born.
Fact is though, you are no more Republican than me. Donald Trump is running that party from his trial bench.
If you continue to pretend otherwise, what does it say about you?
Oh I dunno... I'll take the party of Jefferson and Reagan over the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive Resistance, welfare and abortion-on-demand any day of the week.
The Democrats have been wrong on every major social justice question from Andrew Jackson to Chuck Schumer. Hard to scold the rest of us on social justice on a pile of dead babies... and even if Republicans need to rediscover Jack Kemp, there is a totalitarian problem inside the modern-day Democratic Party which I am not entirely convinced they are even aware of or care to fix.
Even their progressive wing is starting to push back -- and once conservatives and progressives realize that they are fighting for the same things against the institutions? Well... Teddy Roosevelt might have had the right idea after all, eh?
Would be more than happy to discuss my own political viewpoints over a cup of coffee, if you'd prefer. Seems like a better venue for our discussions than here anyhow!
You see yourself as nobly fighting against slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive resistance - we'll circle back around to the last two - as they are dissimilar enough (at least to me, so I beg your indulgence) to deserve their own discussion.
That Republicanism is a fight against slavery and racism in all its forms. I'll grant you, that was its history. Under which it did noble things. Though possibly not for as noble of reasons as they or you would admit.
Were Northerners fighting the Civil War to end slavery? Some were. No doubt. Just as many, based upon extant maps showing the "Interior United States" or the Northeast textile mills dependence upon King Cotton would say, like most wars, their willingness to fight had an economic basis as much or more than a moral one. VA was the only state to lose territory as a result of the war. 1st thing the Union did was carve off the two counties that had the C&O RR running through it. Lincoln didn't feel politically capable of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until after the horrid losses of Antietam made it clear there was no turning back. Even then, he saw a return to Africa as more palatable than living alongside Frederick Douglass as his fellow citizen.
The Compromise of 1876 doesn't happen if the Republican Party isn't willing to sell its principles regarding equality for political expediency. Dred Scott may not be a Republican ideal, but Plessy v Ferguson certainly was.
The point being, history isn't as clear as you prefer. Or state. Where you see only black and white, with certitude and righteousness; I see a multitude of colors, which gives me pause. We all live within our own closed box, sensing our own umwelt.
And more recently, it is true the Republican Party as a whole stood against Jim Crow. Though even in the 30's, an argument can and should be made how much of that was based upon morality, and how much upon needing to have another labor force to pit against poor whites lest they unionize.
Desegregated schools happened much later in Northern/Republican strongholds than they did in the South. Redlining, housing covenants, etc. Those things happened and happen as much in Minnesota or Iowa as they do in Atlanta.
So you presume by being a Republican in 2023, that, in and of itself is proof that you are against racism.
How do you reconcile that with someone like Barack Obama becoming President as a Democrat? Kamala Harris? Jennifer McClellan? Did they, or do they not know that is the party of the Klan?
Or is it possible that they aren't as stupid as you presume? And they've noted little things like white flight, cities losing annexation power, or how often the Republican Party's policies align with those of white supremacy? Nixon's Southern Strategy. The actual Klan filing for celebratory parade permits when Trump won. That there were good people on both sides of a tiki torch parade.
Could it be possible that they are capable of, (dare I say it).....READING, THINKING, INDEPENDENT THOUGHT? Or that "they" as a group or as or individuals, same as everyone else, also are capable of making decisions based upon their own best interests?
Is it possible that you are NOT saving them from their ignorant selves, as you seem to presume?
I believe so.
And yet, no one can talk about our children about Saint Jefferson running a slave labor camp until those children are 18 and have spent all of that time up until then never discussing the fact, or worse - if they choose (which you posit is the holy parent's right) have been indoctrinated into believing that either it didn't happen - or it wasn't that bad?
We hide truth from children for the parent's convenience? Why?
For who?
How you reckon ol' Saint Tom's DNA got into Sally Hemmings bloodline?
Osmosis? And yet he still saw a 4% return per annum on his "investment"? That's your ideal?
Look, I'm not saying those things to bust your chops. Including by Jefferson. But he was not a god. Merely a man, doing the best as he could in the context of his era, belief, and knowledge. But if we presume that was the end for either the capability or the need to evolve, I would say you do neither him nor us and good service.
There have been good things achieved by Republicans and your party. Eisenhower was underrated. Nixon did some good. And Reagan, HW and GW Bush all served with honor. Though I would posit that the Republican party of today is a far cry from that of the 1980's, much less the 1860's.
Noel C Taylor comes to mind in my city, as well as Holton and John Warner. Really didn't have that much issue with McDonnell.
That is my point.
This is not that party. You can't bring yourself to find any good in democracy or Democrats? So be it. That doesn't mean you have to remain in lockstep with Trump. Have him decide who leads you, who speaks for you, even when he is not the President.
Do you really think that will improve, should he return to power?
Like you once said, his principles are not conservative principles anyway. Never were. Even less, now. Yet his are the ones leading the party you claim as your own. Such as they are. As easily changed by circumstances or impulse as they are by any core principles, beyond self preservation, self promotion, corruption, or greed. Pretty much like YOU said, not me.
If you accept that, and yet choose to empower him - rather than either forming or joining a party which does align with your ideals, you are enabling him through your support. Whether you like it or not. Whether you admit it or not.
BTW - before you go to put ol' Teddy's face on a mountaintop, you might want to read River of Doubt by Candice Millard.
Certainly more ethical than Trump, but he had more than a touch of the racist megalomaniac in him as well....." In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
Surely you know that the Democratic Party that gave us the Civil War has evolved into the Republican Party. That shift occurred back in the 60s after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act through and Nixon followed up with his Southern Strategy. If you know this and make this statement anyways, shame on you. If you truly don't know your history, then how does any argument you make hold water?
Perhaps I'm a little dull but I'm scratching my head about this paragraph. "I’m no fan of banning books. I’ve gone on the record as opposing it, I have a long history of opposing book burning. Yet the very idea that the Spotsylvania School Board has to be hamstrung out of the gate rather than be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits strikes me as utterly un-democratic and a total repudiation of what self-declared defenders of democracy claim themselves to be."
1. How is the school board being "hamstrung out of the gate?" It seems to me that those whose rights have been violated are the many parents who have asked for the books that were found by committees of parents and citizens appropriate to remain in our high school libraries but were removed by Mark Taylor are those who have been hamstrung.
It seems to me that the three women who sit on the minority and cannot even add items to the school board agenda and their constituents who, in fact, no longer have representation on the school board because of the way policies have been enacted are hamstrung.
Please humor me. How has our school board been hamstrung? Or am I totally missing your point?
2. How many Spotsylvania County Public School Board meetings have you attended in person the past two years?
1. That it is okay for Democrats to behave like Democrats, provided that Republicans never behave like Democrats.
2. The answer is precisely zero... but I've watched (or struggled to watch) plenty.
Bear in mind that the conservative majority on the school board is behaving precisely as the left and the institution did towards conservatives for the last 30+ years. This is nothing new.
As for the failure to adhere to Roberts Rules of Order? I'm struck that no one in the SCPS administration offered to hold a work session to train the board on RONR (as most newly elected board members are offered). Instead, they were set up for failure knowing they would fail... which again, strikes me as utterly un-democratic to the core.
I have a long list of gripes with the actions of this school board, believe me. Yet in any democratic system, they should be allowed to fail on their own merits and demerits, not hamstrung by the institution itself. We talk a good game about civility in politics... yet when this sort of reality presents itself? It becomes clear that this is about raw power, not education.
That bothers me. Bothers a whole lot of other people, too. Can you see why it would bother the rest of us?
You’ve used a lot of words to but have not answered my question. Exactly how is the board’s majority hamstrung. Only they bring items to the agenda. All significant votes pass or fail 4/3? I’m typically not a dense person. How are they hamstrung? Examples!
So you are unwilling to see how it bothers the rest of us.
That's a pity -- and yes, a lot of words on your behalf, but the unwillingness to even consider the opposition? That's a moral failure indeed (unless, of course, you're willing to give it a try?)
I simply asked you to explain exactly how the current Spotsy school board majority are hamstrung. I can accept that you agree with their philosophy and/or ideology. I may not agree but I support your right to your views and opinions. What I’m asking, and what you seem unable or unwilling to answer , is how are they hamstrung, with examples. They’ve managed to hire a superintendent and other highly paid staff, change policy, win every significant vote with a 4/3 majority, and remove dozens of books from school libraries. My point isn’t whether it bothers the opposition. My question is, how is this school board majority hamstrung?
Follow up question to your response here, which I think aligns with what Ms Murray is asking.
Again, if this is common knowledge to you, please forgive my ignorance - as a newcomer to the area and the issue.
I won't even get into how exactly you feel in this issue that "Democrats ...behave like Democrats..." - though I'm sure there is a perceived grievance(s) implied. Let's just take that as a given, just to move the conversation along. That is your perception, whether it is true or not.
My question is this, and I think it aligns with Ms Murray's. If there is or has been a failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order, what has prevented this Board, or it's members from correcting that problem on their own - without it being someone else's responsibility to train them on it?
Isn't true conservatism about personal accountability and responsibility?
If they learn that they are, or may be, committing an error to correct that error when brought to their attention?
For a man who complains of others making presumptions when criticized, you seem to be awful spare in specifics to support your own statements.
Did the left (whatever that is) also prevent minority board members from speaking, etc? How so?
Serious question. Please elaborate. With specifics, not hyperbole.
You want someone like me to listen to you, lead with facts and allow me to draw my own conclusions based upon them - rather than your conclusions without facts to support them.
I consider that a reasonable request. Which appears to be what Ms Murray is also requestion.
HOW is this majority board "hamstrung" by the institution itself. I see your claim. I do not see what facts you have to support it.
The answer to that question was properly explained in the op-ed. The problem is that some readers go so blind with rage they stop considering and start emoting.
Which begs the question. Is it really that impossible to consider the opposition's view? I'm afraid the answer for some is yes... which bothers me tremendously (and is not a disease of one party or the other, but most certainly that of the extremes).
Is it possible that some writers are so convinced that their definition of those they would talk down to is so correct, that THEY/he, refuses to answer their questions and starts emoting, rather than the other way around?
Again, as with Ms Murray, I am unable to see how any majority is hamstrung in a governing body, much less one which appears to give so little respect or credence to their minority.
Again, when they are not a minority of one, but a mere majority of one. Which until recently, apparently has only ruled rarely, and seems to be clearly showing why that was/is the case.
You insist that others (Democrats) should convince you, not berate you, with an argument - yet are unwilling to extend others the same courtesy.
Why?
You complain of the muddle of the current state based upon it being what the "public" rewards, yet who in the last 40 years, and particularly since the days of Gingrich and Roger Ailes, has embraced it more completely, more devoutly than Republicans?
Who? How?
It's not poor folk or the common man buying those big signs that have been posted throughout, supporting Tara Durant, is it? Might want to check out Mr Davis's article today, before answering. Though I suspect you already knew.
Money is free speech, Newtown was a hoax, corporations are people, if you give an RV to a judge, it's not a bribe, you can't lead the Republican party unless you denied and continue to deny Biden won in 2020.
You see those as positions that Republicans are rewarding more, or Democrats?
Who's benefitting from the muddle?
Again, both the lady and myself asked you to explain a fact, which to me at least, having reread your column - I have still been unable to determine.
From which, you conclude can only be asked if it is based upon rage, a deficit upon my part, which makes me unworthy of any receiving any further clarification.
That's your definition of meeting in the middle?
I freely admit that I am often not the swiftest duck in the pond. So mightn't it at least be possible, that my question is due to genuine befuddlement (again, freely conceding that such befuddlement can only be due to my complete lack of upbringing, knowledge, or proper education - rather insinuating in ANY way as to be impugning your obviously perfect written expression of the English language)?
And if that is even a possibility, (again, acknowledging aforehand that at least I, as I would not presume to speak for Ms Murray, am not worthy); is it too much to ask for you to clarify that remark?
Maybe not in Hamlet-like soliloquys, Chaucer poems, or Socratic riddles; but in plain, old 21st century American English. To steal a line from Denzel Washington, if I dare, "To explain it like you would to a 5 year old?"
Or how you would when filling out a warrant for a magistrate. Who, what, when, how, why, where?
Because as I have mentioned before - if you are of that part of the Republican Party that has and is attacking the laws and Constitution which I swore on and with my life to defend, you ARE my enemy.
And though, even then, I wish it weren't so, and I hope there can be someday be a reconciliation, accommodation, and resolution - I do take you or them at their word when they say and do accordingly.
Yet, what continues to befuddle me, beyond the straightforward question raised above by Ms Murray, and again, by myself regarding this little brand of Republicanism/cultism in Spotsy County - is how - time and again - folks such as yourself - who claim to oppose the excesses of such folk at least as much, or not more than me - continue to be willing to align themselves with them.
Why? How? Is there any excess you won't excuse by them? Because I haven't seen it yet?
Is there anything they can do, to which you would say, "No more?"
Is it possible THAT is the solution, rather than blaming me for their actions, in someway, again - I truly do not understand? And then demanding that I change, when for 40 years, it seems like all we have done is change to accommodate conservatives?
We don't fund education like we did 40 years ago, particularly not higher education. Wealth inequality, inequality in CEO vs worker pay, tax rates, corporate power, etc. We are a poor nation with rich people living among us. OECD rankings, longevity, etc. It hasn't trickled down as promised. The immigration policies of H Bush and Reagan would get you run out of today's party as quick as supporting gay marriage, or rule of law.
So maybe the refusal to accept it any longer, to say "enough" to your party's lies, excesses, and promises - that rich people need welfare - IS the solution.
I see it at the national level in there being a Speaker Johnson. That doesn't happen if folks such as yourself do not agree to it. You made a conscious choice as a party - Rob Wittman's vote counted just as much as Bob Good's - that you would empower someone who did and does take an active part in that event. In fact, the only 5 people on the final ballot were election deniers. That was your party's choice. Not Hakeem Jeffries, not Nancy Pelosi's.
Yet, having empowered them, you want to know why the 50+% who choose against Trump, and the even higher percentage when you consider Republicans who vote in private against him - that know he is unfit - choose not to trust you.
And when they ask you to explain yourself, giving you that courtesy, that respect, that opportunity - as Ms Murray did here, you choose not to answer. As a party, or as individuals.
And yet, you see the problem as being totally the fault of the emotional "rage" of those asking?
Really?
I promise you, it's not rage - disgust, befuddlement, confusion. While doing my best to cover it with courtesy to allow a response, even if when that response is inadequate, or unsatisfying. To ask, yet again.
But when you cannot deign to do that, to clearly answer when asked, I would posit that maybe others aren't as big of the problem as you presume.
Still, at this point - moving on. Things to do, people to see.
Again, monologue not dialogue. Again, presumptions.
Hard to have a conversation when one person does all of the assuming and talking and presuming without really considering the ideas of the other person.
That's not how this works. Educated people can express the arguments of their opposition in their best possible light precisely for the reason that if you do not understand the argument, then you do not have the right to hold a counterpoint of your own.
So again -- let's demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don't get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.
Harder still when the other refuses to answer questions that would allow others to understand what he is trying to say.....based upon his own presumptions.
Please don't give up your subscription just yet. I once knew an instructor who reveled more in causing his students' confused looks than in facilitating their comprehension. It said a lot about him. Let's just hope some personal growth eventually takes place.
I've always found it hilarious when the definition of "disrespect" is not surrendering to a monologue.
So again -- let's demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don't get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.
TLDR.
Actually, I tried. Faded when we got to the always there Greek reference. I suspect even folks living in Athens don't visit the Parthenon as often as Mr Kenney.
Though before fading, I did note some interesting twists and turns in his Sophistic logic. That he, of course, exists in the precise, exact middle of modern life. And anyone not revolving around his Sun is wanting. Lacking in moral fibre, so they say....
And if only everyone will recognize that, at that time we will all live in a land of plenty and of peace.
Huh.
Somehow, Biden, Obama, Hillary are all on the same moral level as Trump.
If only we Democrats were all more like Moynihan. But Moynihan dealt with Reagan and HW Bush. Both honorable men. I don't recall either of them being charged with felonies, many of which involve either flagrant disregard for national security - or direct attempts to overthrow the Constitution. Did I miss something?
I can't help but wonder if there is anything in which he accepts personal accountability. For himself, or his avowed party.
It is the Democrat's fault that they won't continue moving to the right to accommodate ever more outrageous demands? To the point of defaulting on debt? Ignoring violence? Torture? Trampled rights?
Democrats and really, everyone not in the midst of this cultish nightmare has realized that eventually, if you continually compromise with someone who never compromises with you, you're no longer in the middle.
So you're against book burning, are you?
Not so much to disavow the party you belong to when they do it; but enough to not be happy about it?
Wow, way to take a stand...get that man a Nobel prize. Gandhi ain't got nothing on him.
But I guess my favorite part - was this little tidbit.
"Cancel culture is not a facet of the right but remains distinctly one of the left, where dissent becomes betrayal...."
Oh really?
Really?!?
Want to explain that to Liz Cheney or Denver Riggleman? They should have plenty of time to listen, after being primaried out. All of the Lindsay Grahams and Kevin McCarthys who suddenly decided they didn't mind being attacked, if it meant they could stay in power a while longer. DeSantis going after Disney for popularity points in the culture wars? Youngkin pardoning an accused criminal before he went to trial in Loudon County? Another to appease the no-mask groups? (You know, in beloved Spotsy?). Trump and Gosar calling for executions of those who stood against their excesses? Michael Fanone ostracized by his fellow DC police officers after standing against the conspiracy? All of those you've doxxed, threatened, attacked on right wing media thru Tucker, and Hannity, and Alex Jones, and Bannon, and Gingrich?
Dude, check the meds.
No one, but no one does cancel culture like today's Republican party.
NO ONE.
Joe McCarthy would hide his head in shame, not out of morality - but realizing his efforts - as arrogant, ignorant, and hateful as they were in the day - were like a child's random scribblings compared to Michealangelo's Sistine Chapel.
Then again, the fact that is true, and yet you seriously show up here claiming that somehow - you, through your party are a victim, and insist that everyone else change to suit you, THAT shows how far we have devolved.
Again, wow.
You want to save us from demagogues.
Fine.
You first.
Donald Trump is currently approved by the majority of the Republican Party to be President in 2024. A man charged with over 90 felonies, who has promised to overturn many Constitutional protections, after a serious attempt to do so in 2020.
Here's a simple question for you, Mr Kenney. Answer this one, if no other.
If he is the Republican Party's nominee, will you support him?
A couple of times you've brought up the idea that the "government" is bad. (Except, for some reason, when Republicans are in charge).
Go figure. That we should rather, depend upon "culture" to lead us, rather than laws. I wonder whose, perchance? Somehow, I'm guessing your own. With a healthy dose of Pericles?
In a representative democracy, our government is us.
The school teacher making less than she could in the private market to teach your children does so because she cares, as much as for the money. How dare you presume otherwise, without proof beyond your own prejudices.
Likewise the lawyer defending the accused, the inspector checking for fire code violations, or the chemist inspecting the water. They are us.
And just about every law or rule they are enforcing, every standard - is due to there being a need. Usually because someone took advantage. It seems like it is only those enjoying those unfair advantages, who are profiting at their neighbor's expense who would object to there being limits.
And our Constitution was not written in stone. It was a great document, but it has and has needed to evolve from an idea that it was revolutionary for landed white gentry men slave labor camp operators to be considered equal to English nobility; which has evolved to the idea today that ALL people are created equal.
I admit freely that I like the idea of laws, knowledge, Constitutions and ideals, administered by those who dedicate their lives to service of our people being our mechanism for government as being how we choose to live as a people - rather than something as ephemeral as "culture" administered by those who make their decisions based upon whether it keeps up with the Kardashians, sold shoes on the Apprentice, or became a chant at a Nascar race.
And I think that guy plowing the road so you can get to work or writing up the supermarket for selling your kids bad milk have value as well.
Our government is not some vast conspiracy looking to hold us back. Rather it has been the instrument under which our capitalistic society has thrived. With a stable money, stable until recently - due to you - governments, investments in technology, learning, security, health, wealth. It ain't perfect, that I'll grant you.
But before you throw it out, to be replaced by your cultural theocracy, I think I'd rather follow the advice given by Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
In summary:
Republicans don't believe in cancel culture, and we can all be in the middle - once those believing in democracy agree to compromise with us a little more.....just like last time. And the time before that, and the time before that, and.....
Man ol' man. There's a chuckle for the day.
Thanks.
TL;DR... and yet you read the entire thing. Congratulations!
You ask the question whether or not I have or will support Donald J. Trump for POTUS. I am sorry to disappoint you... but I have been remarkably consistent on this question for years longer than most Democrats:
https://bearingdrift.com/2016/02/19/a-closed-and-contemptuous-letter-to-trump-supporters/
Also pretty firm against book burning and have been since the controversy started:
https://fredericksburg.com/opinion/columnists/commentary-american-illiteracy-not-books-is-whats-to-fear/article_e6e4a201-5644-5bea-bd95-061db1faa60f.html
Typically I'm not a fan of exposing ignorance, but Leo... c'mon, dude.
No, I'm afraid I did fade when you drifted into the Aegean Sea once again. We used to play kultklan bingo back home, waiting to see when one of the faithful would invoke Hillary, Soros, LIV, or whatever the Foxspeak of the day happened to be.
I'm thinking of starting a new one. If you ever avoid mentioning the Peloponnesian peninsula during one of your articles, I expect I'll lose. Anyhoo.
So, as with so many of your other presumptions - you are, sadly, wrong.
I AM happy to hear of your positions on both Trump and book burnings. So thank you for providing. Though I do find your stalwart defense of those engaging in both to be puzzling.
Though with that being the case, I would argue whether you truly are "The Republican Standard" as you insist.
I did agree and do agree with your comment in 2016 that Republican and conservative are no longer synonymous.
" That many of our elected officials do not have the moral backbone to stand up to the populist wave is disappointing indeed, but from the rank and file conservatives?"
I don't know who wrote that, but I certainly agree with it. Personally, I feel that I am more conservative than most Republicans - and yet in their eyes, I am as exteme a leftist as there is. Go figure.
The Republican Party of today is a personality cult, built upon fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No platform, fungible morals, etc. In essence - it has evolved to represent many of the traits that you and I both despised in Trump in 2016. And it shows every indication of keeping those traits when he is gone.
Personally, with the possible exception of Ted Cruz, whom I saw as the Republican version of Hillary, willing to say anything in order to get elected - I would have voted for any of the Republican potential nominees over Hillary in 2016. With the exception of Donald Trump. For many of the reasons you yourself noted. Easiest choice I've ever made. As much as I saw her not being as good as say, a Jeb Bush, she was light years ahead of the draft dodging bankrupt slumlord from Queens. On every level.
So now, in 2023, the majority of Republicans having already decided that he is their choice for President - is it really any more than wishful thinking to claim that YOU are the Republican standard?
The numbers say otherwise, if your opposition to Trump remains. You are not.
So when you have so studiously avoiding mentioning that opposition, up to this point, while purporting to be "The Republican Standard" I found it worth asking.
Because again, the party that you purport to represent - clearly sees it differently. I guess I could have done internet searches, etc. But I figure the best way to get a question answered is to ask it.
FWIW, and realizing the feeling is unlikely to be mutual - having been so informed - I am willing to discuss matters with you when you write your columns. You have much more of my respect than you would have otherwise.
Whereas, those who did try to violently overthrow our Constitution and would do so again, thru Trump - I do take them at their word when they say I am their enemy. Based upon their words and their actions. I swore to protect that Constitution. How could it be otherwise?
I'm just not so sure that you do represent them as you claim.
Personally, I am a fan of exposing ignorance, in myself as well as others. I call it learning.
I've heard of lot of teachers take an active interest in the process. Even encourage it.
Is that wrong? (That's my Socrates for the day....) GTG.
You really don't like the title of my publication, do you? LOL.
More than happy to discuss things. Appreciate the respect in turn.
Would love to see more of a turn from left-right towards the center fighting the extremes, but that seems awfully hard for folks to do nowadays. Maybe we will figure it out?
FWIW - to further my claim - the latest "mainstream" (I use that term tongue-in-cheek) Republican who was nominated to lead the House went down in a blaze of flames.
His crime?
He was one of the few Republicans to stand against Trump. Trump vetoed him by text message. He wasn't "loyal" enough.
You know, sorta like yourself.
Again, I admire that of you. I do. But to pretend that your view is the "Republican" view is just that, pretending. The sooner you accept that, the better we'll all be.
To me, I'd say your choice is either to continually compromise your ethics in some Devil's bargain, as so many former Republicans have done over the last 7 years. So eventually, if it hasn't already happened, you'll have compromised them to the point of non-existence.
Or to admit today's Republican party is not conservative. If it ever was.
I mean, y'all talk a good game, but I'd also say that the fact you never follow thru is probably what led to Trump. Good politics, bad governance.
You want term limits, balanced budget, less government, abortion outlawed, yada, until you get in power. Then you get amnesia for some reason.
The reason being that you know that no one will stand for it.
Why didn't we get term limits proposed in 2017, when you had complete control of Congress and the Presidency? The same reason the budget didn't get balanced, or a national abortion law.
You knew you'd pay at the polls.
So again, your choice is to serve the cult, because even if you personally "object" to their many misdeeds - if you are empowering them, you are culpable. Or to abandon and reject them. Either by joining Democrats who are doing so. Or by creating a new party, free of their taint. Much akin to how the Republican party itself was born.
Fact is though, you are no more Republican than me. Donald Trump is running that party from his trial bench.
If you continue to pretend otherwise, what does it say about you?
Matthew 6:24
Oh I dunno... I'll take the party of Jefferson and Reagan over the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive Resistance, welfare and abortion-on-demand any day of the week.
The Democrats have been wrong on every major social justice question from Andrew Jackson to Chuck Schumer. Hard to scold the rest of us on social justice on a pile of dead babies... and even if Republicans need to rediscover Jack Kemp, there is a totalitarian problem inside the modern-day Democratic Party which I am not entirely convinced they are even aware of or care to fix.
Even their progressive wing is starting to push back -- and once conservatives and progressives realize that they are fighting for the same things against the institutions? Well... Teddy Roosevelt might have had the right idea after all, eh?
Would be more than happy to discuss my own political viewpoints over a cup of coffee, if you'd prefer. Seems like a better venue for our discussions than here anyhow!
Ay, there's the rub.
As happens so often in history.
You see yourself as nobly fighting against slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Massive resistance - we'll circle back around to the last two - as they are dissimilar enough (at least to me, so I beg your indulgence) to deserve their own discussion.
That Republicanism is a fight against slavery and racism in all its forms. I'll grant you, that was its history. Under which it did noble things. Though possibly not for as noble of reasons as they or you would admit.
Were Northerners fighting the Civil War to end slavery? Some were. No doubt. Just as many, based upon extant maps showing the "Interior United States" or the Northeast textile mills dependence upon King Cotton would say, like most wars, their willingness to fight had an economic basis as much or more than a moral one. VA was the only state to lose territory as a result of the war. 1st thing the Union did was carve off the two counties that had the C&O RR running through it. Lincoln didn't feel politically capable of issuing the Emancipation Proclamation until after the horrid losses of Antietam made it clear there was no turning back. Even then, he saw a return to Africa as more palatable than living alongside Frederick Douglass as his fellow citizen.
The Compromise of 1876 doesn't happen if the Republican Party isn't willing to sell its principles regarding equality for political expediency. Dred Scott may not be a Republican ideal, but Plessy v Ferguson certainly was.
The point being, history isn't as clear as you prefer. Or state. Where you see only black and white, with certitude and righteousness; I see a multitude of colors, which gives me pause. We all live within our own closed box, sensing our own umwelt.
And more recently, it is true the Republican Party as a whole stood against Jim Crow. Though even in the 30's, an argument can and should be made how much of that was based upon morality, and how much upon needing to have another labor force to pit against poor whites lest they unionize.
Desegregated schools happened much later in Northern/Republican strongholds than they did in the South. Redlining, housing covenants, etc. Those things happened and happen as much in Minnesota or Iowa as they do in Atlanta.
So you presume by being a Republican in 2023, that, in and of itself is proof that you are against racism.
How do you reconcile that with someone like Barack Obama becoming President as a Democrat? Kamala Harris? Jennifer McClellan? Did they, or do they not know that is the party of the Klan?
Or is it possible that they aren't as stupid as you presume? And they've noted little things like white flight, cities losing annexation power, or how often the Republican Party's policies align with those of white supremacy? Nixon's Southern Strategy. The actual Klan filing for celebratory parade permits when Trump won. That there were good people on both sides of a tiki torch parade.
Could it be possible that they are capable of, (dare I say it).....READING, THINKING, INDEPENDENT THOUGHT? Or that "they" as a group or as or individuals, same as everyone else, also are capable of making decisions based upon their own best interests?
Is it possible that you are NOT saving them from their ignorant selves, as you seem to presume?
I believe so.
And yet, no one can talk about our children about Saint Jefferson running a slave labor camp until those children are 18 and have spent all of that time up until then never discussing the fact, or worse - if they choose (which you posit is the holy parent's right) have been indoctrinated into believing that either it didn't happen - or it wasn't that bad?
We hide truth from children for the parent's convenience? Why?
For who?
How you reckon ol' Saint Tom's DNA got into Sally Hemmings bloodline?
Osmosis? And yet he still saw a 4% return per annum on his "investment"? That's your ideal?
Look, I'm not saying those things to bust your chops. Including by Jefferson. But he was not a god. Merely a man, doing the best as he could in the context of his era, belief, and knowledge. But if we presume that was the end for either the capability or the need to evolve, I would say you do neither him nor us and good service.
There have been good things achieved by Republicans and your party. Eisenhower was underrated. Nixon did some good. And Reagan, HW and GW Bush all served with honor. Though I would posit that the Republican party of today is a far cry from that of the 1980's, much less the 1860's.
Noel C Taylor comes to mind in my city, as well as Holton and John Warner. Really didn't have that much issue with McDonnell.
That is my point.
This is not that party. You can't bring yourself to find any good in democracy or Democrats? So be it. That doesn't mean you have to remain in lockstep with Trump. Have him decide who leads you, who speaks for you, even when he is not the President.
Do you really think that will improve, should he return to power?
Like you once said, his principles are not conservative principles anyway. Never were. Even less, now. Yet his are the ones leading the party you claim as your own. Such as they are. As easily changed by circumstances or impulse as they are by any core principles, beyond self preservation, self promotion, corruption, or greed. Pretty much like YOU said, not me.
If you accept that, and yet choose to empower him - rather than either forming or joining a party which does align with your ideals, you are enabling him through your support. Whether you like it or not. Whether you admit it or not.
BTW - before you go to put ol' Teddy's face on a mountaintop, you might want to read River of Doubt by Candice Millard.
Certainly more ethical than Trump, but he had more than a touch of the racist megalomaniac in him as well....." In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:"
Shaun,
Surely you know that the Democratic Party that gave us the Civil War has evolved into the Republican Party. That shift occurred back in the 60s after LBJ got the Civil Rights Act through and Nixon followed up with his Southern Strategy. If you know this and make this statement anyways, shame on you. If you truly don't know your history, then how does any argument you make hold water?
False advertising to the 1st.
Probably not to the last - but still - passes the time.
Perhaps I'm a little dull but I'm scratching my head about this paragraph. "I’m no fan of banning books. I’ve gone on the record as opposing it, I have a long history of opposing book burning. Yet the very idea that the Spotsylvania School Board has to be hamstrung out of the gate rather than be allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits strikes me as utterly un-democratic and a total repudiation of what self-declared defenders of democracy claim themselves to be."
1. How is the school board being "hamstrung out of the gate?" It seems to me that those whose rights have been violated are the many parents who have asked for the books that were found by committees of parents and citizens appropriate to remain in our high school libraries but were removed by Mark Taylor are those who have been hamstrung.
It seems to me that the three women who sit on the minority and cannot even add items to the school board agenda and their constituents who, in fact, no longer have representation on the school board because of the way policies have been enacted are hamstrung.
Please humor me. How has our school board been hamstrung? Or am I totally missing your point?
2. How many Spotsylvania County Public School Board meetings have you attended in person the past two years?
So here's what I am taking from this critique:
1. That it is okay for Democrats to behave like Democrats, provided that Republicans never behave like Democrats.
2. The answer is precisely zero... but I've watched (or struggled to watch) plenty.
Bear in mind that the conservative majority on the school board is behaving precisely as the left and the institution did towards conservatives for the last 30+ years. This is nothing new.
As for the failure to adhere to Roberts Rules of Order? I'm struck that no one in the SCPS administration offered to hold a work session to train the board on RONR (as most newly elected board members are offered). Instead, they were set up for failure knowing they would fail... which again, strikes me as utterly un-democratic to the core.
I have a long list of gripes with the actions of this school board, believe me. Yet in any democratic system, they should be allowed to fail on their own merits and demerits, not hamstrung by the institution itself. We talk a good game about civility in politics... yet when this sort of reality presents itself? It becomes clear that this is about raw power, not education.
That bothers me. Bothers a whole lot of other people, too. Can you see why it would bother the rest of us?
You’ve used a lot of words to but have not answered my question. Exactly how is the board’s majority hamstrung. Only they bring items to the agenda. All significant votes pass or fail 4/3? I’m typically not a dense person. How are they hamstrung? Examples!
So you are unwilling to see how it bothers the rest of us.
That's a pity -- and yes, a lot of words on your behalf, but the unwillingness to even consider the opposition? That's a moral failure indeed (unless, of course, you're willing to give it a try?)
I simply asked you to explain exactly how the current Spotsy school board majority are hamstrung. I can accept that you agree with their philosophy and/or ideology. I may not agree but I support your right to your views and opinions. What I’m asking, and what you seem unable or unwilling to answer , is how are they hamstrung, with examples. They’ve managed to hire a superintendent and other highly paid staff, change policy, win every significant vote with a 4/3 majority, and remove dozens of books from school libraries. My point isn’t whether it bothers the opposition. My question is, how is this school board majority hamstrung?
So still -- you remain totally unwilling to see it from the other side?
That's a shame.
Actually you are dodging a very straightforward question. That’s a shame and very telling.
Follow up question to your response here, which I think aligns with what Ms Murray is asking.
Again, if this is common knowledge to you, please forgive my ignorance - as a newcomer to the area and the issue.
I won't even get into how exactly you feel in this issue that "Democrats ...behave like Democrats..." - though I'm sure there is a perceived grievance(s) implied. Let's just take that as a given, just to move the conversation along. That is your perception, whether it is true or not.
My question is this, and I think it aligns with Ms Murray's. If there is or has been a failure to follow Roberts Rules of Order, what has prevented this Board, or it's members from correcting that problem on their own - without it being someone else's responsibility to train them on it?
Isn't true conservatism about personal accountability and responsibility?
If they learn that they are, or may be, committing an error to correct that error when brought to their attention?
For a man who complains of others making presumptions when criticized, you seem to be awful spare in specifics to support your own statements.
Did the left (whatever that is) also prevent minority board members from speaking, etc? How so?
Serious question. Please elaborate. With specifics, not hyperbole.
You want someone like me to listen to you, lead with facts and allow me to draw my own conclusions based upon them - rather than your conclusions without facts to support them.
I consider that a reasonable request. Which appears to be what Ms Murray is also requestion.
HOW is this majority board "hamstrung" by the institution itself. I see your claim. I do not see what facts you have to support it.
Where's the beef?
The answer to that question was properly explained in the op-ed. The problem is that some readers go so blind with rage they stop considering and start emoting.
Which begs the question. Is it really that impossible to consider the opposition's view? I'm afraid the answer for some is yes... which bothers me tremendously (and is not a disease of one party or the other, but most certainly that of the extremes).
Is it possible that some writers are so convinced that their definition of those they would talk down to is so correct, that THEY/he, refuses to answer their questions and starts emoting, rather than the other way around?
Again, as with Ms Murray, I am unable to see how any majority is hamstrung in a governing body, much less one which appears to give so little respect or credence to their minority.
Again, when they are not a minority of one, but a mere majority of one. Which until recently, apparently has only ruled rarely, and seems to be clearly showing why that was/is the case.
You insist that others (Democrats) should convince you, not berate you, with an argument - yet are unwilling to extend others the same courtesy.
Why?
You complain of the muddle of the current state based upon it being what the "public" rewards, yet who in the last 40 years, and particularly since the days of Gingrich and Roger Ailes, has embraced it more completely, more devoutly than Republicans?
Who? How?
It's not poor folk or the common man buying those big signs that have been posted throughout, supporting Tara Durant, is it? Might want to check out Mr Davis's article today, before answering. Though I suspect you already knew.
Money is free speech, Newtown was a hoax, corporations are people, if you give an RV to a judge, it's not a bribe, you can't lead the Republican party unless you denied and continue to deny Biden won in 2020.
You see those as positions that Republicans are rewarding more, or Democrats?
Who's benefitting from the muddle?
Again, both the lady and myself asked you to explain a fact, which to me at least, having reread your column - I have still been unable to determine.
From which, you conclude can only be asked if it is based upon rage, a deficit upon my part, which makes me unworthy of any receiving any further clarification.
That's your definition of meeting in the middle?
I freely admit that I am often not the swiftest duck in the pond. So mightn't it at least be possible, that my question is due to genuine befuddlement (again, freely conceding that such befuddlement can only be due to my complete lack of upbringing, knowledge, or proper education - rather insinuating in ANY way as to be impugning your obviously perfect written expression of the English language)?
And if that is even a possibility, (again, acknowledging aforehand that at least I, as I would not presume to speak for Ms Murray, am not worthy); is it too much to ask for you to clarify that remark?
Maybe not in Hamlet-like soliloquys, Chaucer poems, or Socratic riddles; but in plain, old 21st century American English. To steal a line from Denzel Washington, if I dare, "To explain it like you would to a 5 year old?"
Or how you would when filling out a warrant for a magistrate. Who, what, when, how, why, where?
Because as I have mentioned before - if you are of that part of the Republican Party that has and is attacking the laws and Constitution which I swore on and with my life to defend, you ARE my enemy.
And though, even then, I wish it weren't so, and I hope there can be someday be a reconciliation, accommodation, and resolution - I do take you or them at their word when they say and do accordingly.
Yet, what continues to befuddle me, beyond the straightforward question raised above by Ms Murray, and again, by myself regarding this little brand of Republicanism/cultism in Spotsy County - is how - time and again - folks such as yourself - who claim to oppose the excesses of such folk at least as much, or not more than me - continue to be willing to align themselves with them.
Why? How? Is there any excess you won't excuse by them? Because I haven't seen it yet?
Is there anything they can do, to which you would say, "No more?"
Is it possible THAT is the solution, rather than blaming me for their actions, in someway, again - I truly do not understand? And then demanding that I change, when for 40 years, it seems like all we have done is change to accommodate conservatives?
We don't fund education like we did 40 years ago, particularly not higher education. Wealth inequality, inequality in CEO vs worker pay, tax rates, corporate power, etc. We are a poor nation with rich people living among us. OECD rankings, longevity, etc. It hasn't trickled down as promised. The immigration policies of H Bush and Reagan would get you run out of today's party as quick as supporting gay marriage, or rule of law.
So maybe the refusal to accept it any longer, to say "enough" to your party's lies, excesses, and promises - that rich people need welfare - IS the solution.
I see it at the national level in there being a Speaker Johnson. That doesn't happen if folks such as yourself do not agree to it. You made a conscious choice as a party - Rob Wittman's vote counted just as much as Bob Good's - that you would empower someone who did and does take an active part in that event. In fact, the only 5 people on the final ballot were election deniers. That was your party's choice. Not Hakeem Jeffries, not Nancy Pelosi's.
Yet, having empowered them, you want to know why the 50+% who choose against Trump, and the even higher percentage when you consider Republicans who vote in private against him - that know he is unfit - choose not to trust you.
And when they ask you to explain yourself, giving you that courtesy, that respect, that opportunity - as Ms Murray did here, you choose not to answer. As a party, or as individuals.
And yet, you see the problem as being totally the fault of the emotional "rage" of those asking?
Really?
I promise you, it's not rage - disgust, befuddlement, confusion. While doing my best to cover it with courtesy to allow a response, even if when that response is inadequate, or unsatisfying. To ask, yet again.
But when you cannot deign to do that, to clearly answer when asked, I would posit that maybe others aren't as big of the problem as you presume.
Still, at this point - moving on. Things to do, people to see.
Again, monologue not dialogue. Again, presumptions.
Hard to have a conversation when one person does all of the assuming and talking and presuming without really considering the ideas of the other person.
You have not answered how the board’s majority is hamstrung. ( Hamstrung: to make ineffective or powerless - Merriam-Webster). Examples? So far zero
That's not how this works. Educated people can express the arguments of their opposition in their best possible light precisely for the reason that if you do not understand the argument, then you do not have the right to hold a counterpoint of your own.
So again -- let's demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don't get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.
Harder still when the other refuses to answer questions that would allow others to understand what he is trying to say.....based upon his own presumptions.
Like I remind my students… you have to read the text first.
And maybe that's it. In that you see us as your students; like some guru, saint or martyr imparting wisdom to the benighted masses.
Rather than a discussion.
I guess that's the difference between adult learning and the methods of pedagogues.
Huh.
Wow. What a disrespectful response. As an early paid subscriber I may consider this when it’s time to renew.
Please don't give up your subscription just yet. I once knew an instructor who reveled more in causing his students' confused looks than in facilitating their comprehension. It said a lot about him. Let's just hope some personal growth eventually takes place.
Must have been a Jesuit!!
I've always found it hilarious when the definition of "disrespect" is not surrendering to a monologue.
So again -- let's demonstrate that this is a dialogue and not a monologue. You don't get to start a new thread in order to avoid the conversation either.
I answered your questions. Now extend the courtesy of answering mine.