Theme: Governance

  • Youj’re just storytelling as if you actually know the answer. Who did more for w

    Youj’re just storytelling as if you actually know the answer. Who did more for working class incomes in the past decades than trump, especially across the races? No one. His strategy was to end the burning the incomes of the laboring, working, lower middle, and middle classes, for the sake of globalism; to end wars that cost us but produced nothing but more costly conflict for us; to end european free-riding on our high military costs; to close or borders and protect the incomes of our working classes; and to end the free trade that benefitted the world at the expense of our working classes. He tried to end the entire class of people in our government who live off persisting this postwar strategy at the expense of our people. The fact is tnat you have little to no understanding of economics and we had the best economic policy in generations – and you kicked him out of office because he’s not ‘likeable’. Some of us are empiricists. We aren’t looking for political mommy’s and daddy’s to tell us nice stories. We want material difference for us, our children and the generations to come. And the fact that you’re as conformative, suggestable, influencable, and manipulable by simple emotions is the reason our people are abused and suffer this condition of decline. And that behavior, your behavior, is exactly why we were so deeply warned about the inclusion of women in the voting pool. Because women, and specifically ethinically white women, decide national votes, brecause they are the only block that votes emotionally and against the national interest. The rest of us suffer from your simplicity, emotional immaturity, and economic and political ignorance. We are powerless against those of you who are little more than children in matters public.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 23:56:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643764533549301760

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643760027378016257

  • Nonsense. It’s a payment to a blackmailer to not expose infidelity. Meanwhile th

    Nonsense. It’s a payment to a blackmailer to not expose infidelity. Meanwhile this prosecutor drops nearly every felony charge in front of him letting vast numbers of violent criminals go free.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 22:02:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643735886503243777

    Reply addressees: @Tee4EjamiNDays @crcwilkinson @JesseBWatters @dbongino

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643731851603787777

  • “Then we have scandinavia, that is mostly independent city states that masquerad

    –“Then we have scandinavia, that is mostly independent city states that masquerade as countries”– Peter Zeihan (@PeterZeihan)

    Well, aside from the humorous hyperbole, that’s the ideal size and organization for a country, and federations (formal alliances) of such city states is the optimum alternative to the security of empires. And that’s why we all enviously want to ‘get to (imitate) Denmark’ as Francis Fukuyama has kindly reminded us.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 13:02:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643599934871023617

  • “Then we have scandinavia, that is mostly independent city states that masquerad

    –“Then we have scandinavia, that is mostly independent city states that masquerade as countries”– Peter Zeihan (@PeterZeihan)

    Well, aside from the humorous hyperbole, that’s the ideal size and organization for a country, and federations (formal alliances) of such city states is the optimum alternative to the security of empires. And that’s why we all enviously want to ‘get to (imitate) Denmark’ as Francis Fukuyama has kindly reminded us.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 13:02:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643599934975889408

  • The smart money is on this going nowhere. IMO this might end up meaning ex-presi

    The smart money is on this going nowhere.
    IMO this might end up meaning ex-presidents can only be prosecuted by the congress just to prevent a repetition.
    Because the activist lawfare begun in the sixties has resulted in the supreme court reversing on lawfare cases and ending the practice – most notably on abortion and 2nd amendment. We’ve seen them end bureaucratic lawfare with constraints on regulators ending the managerial state. And now they have their sights set on lawfare in political prosecutions. I mean, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person thinking of the best Amicus Brief to submit to the court. And the argument I would make is merely the one outlined here. And as far as I know it’s a slam dunk for the court.

    Reply addressees: @mandisuzanne3 @GimelAnthony @crcwilkinson @JesseBWatters @dbongino


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:18:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643468218604847105

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is relevant, and that it’s meaningful. I am, and others will, make the case that its not a violation under federal and supreme court interpretation, and that it’s not meaningful. Why? Because it breaks the federal prohibition on prosecution of presidents unless for high crimes. Why? To prevent political prosecutions.
    So this case will be interesting in that it attempts to circumvent federal constraints on political prosecution of presidents past and present.
    In other words we should not have tolerated the prosecution of Clinton for his nonsense, nor trump for his nonsense. These are not high crimes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

  • The smart money is on this going nowhere. IMO this might end up meaning ex-presi

    The smart money is on this going nowhere.
    IMO this might end up meaning ex-presidents can only be prosecuted by the congress just to prevent a repetition.
    Because the activist lawfare begun in the sixties has resulted in the supreme court reversing on lawfare cases and ending the practice – most notably on abortion and 2nd amendment. We’ve seen them end bureaucratic lawfare with constraints on regulators ending the managerial state. And now they have their sights set on lawfare in political prosecutions. I mean, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person thinking of the best Amicus Brief to submit to the court. And the argument I would make is merely the one outlined here. And as far as I know it’s a slam dunk for the court.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:18:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643468218709712898

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is relevant, and that it’s meaningful. I am, and others will, make the case that its not a violation under federal and supreme court interpretation, and that it’s not meaningful. Why? Because it breaks the federal prohibition on prosecution of presidents unless for high crimes. Why? To prevent political prosecutions.
    So this case will be interesting in that it attempts to circumvent federal constraints on political prosecution of presidents past and present.
    In other words we should not have tolerated the prosecution of Clinton for his nonsense, nor trump for his nonsense. These are not high crimes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584

  • Trump ruined your illusions because he threatened the corruption of the bureaucr

    Trump ruined your illusions because he threatened the corruption of the bureaucracy and congress, but he fixed the geostrategy and the economy anyway. If you had been patient enough to tolerate the hate propaganda and let that change complete we would have at least an economy, and no threat of war. Unfortunately there is a overwhelming tendency of women to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ a president rather than care about the consequences of his or her policies. It’s unfortunate that women are proving exactly what our ancestors said would happen of women were added to the polity. And for those of us who understand the great mechanisms of this world it’s exausting and frustrating to grasp that those of you whose feels confuse the reals means we are victims of your emotions.

    Reply addressees: @lovedoveclarke


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-04 21:50:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643370541661732864

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643330159066648577

  • Trump ruined your illusions because he threatened the corruption of the bureaucr

    Trump ruined your illusions because he threatened the corruption of the bureaucracy and congress, but he fixed the geostrategy and the economy anyway. If you had been patient enough to tolerate the hate propaganda and let that change complete we would have at least an economy, and no threat of war. Unfortunately there is a overwhelming tendency of women to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ a president rather than care about the consequences of his or her policies. It’s unfortunate that women are proving exactly what our ancestors said would happen of women were added to the polity. And for those of us who understand the great mechanisms of this world it’s exausting and frustrating to grasp that those of you whose feels confuse the reals means we are victims of your emotions.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-04 21:50:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643370541791731714

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643330159066648577

  • Hardly. No need. Problems: Low trust – this is the funndamental source of all RU

    Hardly. No need.
    Problems:
    Low trust – this is the funndamental source of all RU issues, and only fixed by ROL and Transparency.
    Rule of Law not applied or respected.
    Weak constitution insufficently articulated.
    FSB power.

  • Hardly. No need. Problems: Low trust – this is the funndamental source of all RU

    Hardly. No need.
    Problems:
    Low trust – this is the funndamental source of all RU issues, and only fixed by ROL and Transparency.
    Rule of Law not applied or respected.
    Weak constitution insufficently articulated.
    FSB power.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-04 05:18:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643120812390490113

    Reply addressees: @JeremyR_Pearson @Book_of_Cyril

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643114451753730050