Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About servo75

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday 04/09/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Spokane, WA
  • Interests
    “Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.” ― Andrew Breitbart

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have you read my posts? My average post is almost as long as a George RR Martin book already, I can't possibly respond in detail to, nor would I even have an opinion on, every statement. Again, in the Jefferson vs. Hamilton feud, if I were in Washington's cabinet I would side with Jefferson almost every time, he's definitely in my top five Presidents. That doesn't mean I have to internalize everything he says. But I'll respond to it now. I can see how in Jefferson's time a renewable Constitution would make sense. What I think he overlooked was that once the founding generation was dead and gone, that generation by generation, America would become more successful. Success leads to apathy. In short, as Americans we've forgotten our founding standards. In 2019, I would opine that only people who have actually lived under British colonial rule can appreciate the freedoms that America brings, and the reasons why this or that amendment is present in the Constitution. Americans for at least the past 100 years have stopped passing this wisdom down to the next generation, and that's one reason why we're in such decline now. The social conservatives like @Reagan04 may talk about the increase of secularism, but it's pretty much a parallel argument. It's something called the Tytler Cycle, or the phases that each society goes through: Bondage Spiritual Faith Courage Liberty Abundance Selfishness Complacency Apathy Dependence Then starting over with Bondage In Jefferson's time we went from Bondage to Liberty and were just getting started on Abundance, which peaked in the gilded age and brought selfishness. Since then we've advanced up to selfishness in the progressive movement 20s and 30s, complacency in the 50s, apathy in the 70s-80s, and I believe that dependence which is where we are now - we've become more dependent on the Federal government than ever and have people judge a government by how much free stuff and welfare programs it gives away, how much wealth is stolen from one group to give to another. That type of a system creates dependence out of apathy because we forgot where we came from. I remind myself of that every time I watch "The Patriot" and see the horrors that colonial American patriots were subject to. So a modern-day constitutional convention would not have the insights that the Founders had, they'd draft it from a totally different viewpoint, which would bring us in to bondage, and that's where most of the far-left legislation like Green New Deal is leading us. So in short, I think Jefferson was wrong with that statement, but I can see his logic for making it at that time. And again I don't know why you even brought it up, since it has nothing to do with my original point of why we have the EC. As great as Jefferson was, it's still one man's opinion and I shouldn't be bound to it 200 years later just because of my admiration for him.
  2. See, this is exhibit A of why I find it difficult to have conversations with you. Because whenever I make a policy point, your immediate gut reaction is to take it to the nth power, as though you're accusing me of speaking in absolutes and speaking for everyone.* Ummm no. When I said non-negotiable, it does not mean that I personally am asserting a right to impose it on the populous. It already IS imposed on the population because it's in the Constitution. To remove it does not require my permission. What it would require is almost as impossible - a Constitutional amendment which would have as much of a chance of passing as you would voting for Ted Cruz. I mean that I, me, personally, je suis, IN MY OPINION consider it indispensable. I remember when we in this group were having a hypothetical Constitutional convention, the EC was a part of the constitution that I would not give up on. Because in my view, removing the Electoral College from our Constitution would be like removing half the foundation from a skyscraper, a belief that I hold deep down. I won't elaborate further on my reasons here, I and others have stated them many times, do a forum search. By the way, I do assert that it not only fulfills all its original needs, if anything it's needed now more than ever, because America has a much more geographically diverse population. Also, I am not a fan of Alexander Hamilton, but I'd say he's dead wrong on that. If you think the job of the EC is to keep any type of candidate (including a Democrat) out of office then you really have no idea what its purpose is. * The other reason is that, take my avatar quote for an example. Your gut reaction was, "Well it was said by Breitbart..." The author is immaterial, in other words you attack the messenger instead of debate the message.
  3. Not to spoil a good moment... but I feel obliged to mention that when I said the system was broken I was in no way referring to the Electoral College. That's non-negotiable. I was mainly referring to having more parties and newer systems of voting like ranked choice, and reducing the two-party vice grip on our elections like ballot and debate stage access.
  4. The reason I say the GOP is shifting left... well it's not a recent shift it's been happening for some time now, is mainly on fiscal issues. They run on low taxes, cutting the budget, some even talk about a balanced budget amendment, but when they get to Washington they never live up to that. Yeah they'll throw in a minor tax break here and there to keep the business establishment base happy, but they're simply Democrat-lite when it comes to spending. Last session with a majority, the GOP passed a spending bill that would make Obama jealous. When Rand Paul brought his penny plan to reduce the debt to the floor, it was overwhelmingly and bi-partisanly voted down.
  5. I'm going to ignore that ill-informed hyperbolic jab at Trump, especially since no where in my post did I mention him. It's ridiculous but won't get into that here. The fact is 15% of Americans voted for Trump and Clinton COMBINED in the primaries! Let that sink in for a minute. If the GOP truly wanted a good solid fiscal constitutional conservative, they could have selected Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, who were my first choices. If Democrats really wanted Democratic Socialism they'd have selected Bernie Sanders. But they didn't. So you could say that GOP voters did feel Trump was the answer and respective parties nominate who they nominate for good reasons, or they didn't but were too lazy to get off the couch and vote otherwise. Americans have the choices they put in front of themselves. If you don't get involved in the primary process you deserve who gets put in front of you. Our election and party system is broken and we're too jaded to try and fix it.
  6. especially from the heart attack he gets from seeing cars and highways
  7. There is of course a difference between the responsibilities of state vs. federal governments, so I can't comment on SC's activities, but the national GOP has been failing its voters for quite some time now. They run as conservatives, but when they get in Washington they melt under the pressure of the Democrats and news media (but I repeat myself). "I know I said I'd vote for a balanced budget amendment but if I do then CNN will call me mean names." I've said several times the Republicans are spineless and have no balls, and maybe it is time for them to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced with Libertarians or the Constitution Party. I'm afraid that with the Democrats going so far left, it's creating a vacuum at the center and center left that the GOP is drifting left to fill. If we had a reliable center-left party, that would force Republicans to stay in their lane more. But I fear that in our lifetimes there will never be a serious push toward fiscal conservatism unless we get more parties and coalition governments (can you imagine Congressional elections with Republicans, Democrats, Socialists/Greens, Libertarians, Conservatives, all ending up with seats?), which will require conservatives to act like conservatives in order to differentiate themselves. Note I don't use the term "RINO" because I absolutely detest that term. Republican IS a name, it's a party, not an ideology. If you indicate so on a voter registration form, and say you're a Republican, then you're a Republican, even if you are left of Bernie Sanders.
  8. Nothing wrong with being a little incendiary. As I've stated before, I realize I come across as strongly and forcefully opinionated. @Reagan04 and I and the other conservatives, or let's just say non-liberals for I'm actually libertarian, are badly outnumbered on this forum. I don't really know anyone here of a pure libertarian bent, maybe @ThePotatoWalrus. This does not mean that my opinions aren't sincere, but if I sound defensive that's why. Conservative thought is so outnumbered in these forums (and outside), I sometimes feel as though I had to represent the entire right side of the aisle by myself. I'm actually very humble and introverted in real life. I don't say anything to get a rise out of anyone (at least not on these forums). I'm forceful because I feel I have to be, that in and out of these forums, there are precious few challenges to the prevailing left-wing thought coming out of major media, academia, and popular culture. I don't care if it makes me popular or not. That's what my avatar quote is all about.
  9. I have to confess I'm rather enjoying this race to the left the Dems are doing, as it just makes GOP victory more likely (not that they'd be much better, as all the Republicans do will slow down the rate of bleeding for 2 years at a time). Even if you want to , as @Patine says, remove all ideological labels, I think it's pretty safe to say (and some polls support this) that the Democrat Party has some very extreme views that are not registering with the voters. American voters, even the ones believing in single-payer (which would be an umitigated disaster on itself) do NOT want to give it to illegal aliens. They want a strong border, even if they don't want the wall itself. They want lower taxes, even if they believe the wealth gap is an issue. They realize that the government, like themselves, must live with a budget, even if they might disagree on how that money's spent. They want equal treatment for transgenders, even if they don't want boys to be able to compete on girls' teams and gobble up all the records, and be able to shower in the girls' locker room just on their say-so that they're "really" a girl. They don't want to abolish ICE and they have some skepticism about race relations, even though they believe police that are generally good and are not out hunting black teenagers. The key, however, is can the GOP take advantage of this? That's far from certain. They've been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before.
  10. It's only natural. Very few people are pure left or pure right. I believe the views of @Reagan04 are genuine, even though we'll disagree greatly on Trump's presidency and social policy, we'd probably agree 95% on almost everything else. My mixed views are just as genuine. I'm very far right on some issues like budget, economy, taxes, the Constitution, SCOTUS originalists, and very far left on SOME social issues such as the war on drugs and same-sex marriage, and a centrist on abortion. I actually look at not only issues, but politicians on a case-by-case basis. That's also the way I feel about President Trump (and most other politicians). I can defend him on the ridiculous charge of obstruction of justice and yet still have grave concerns about his tariffs and incessant tweeting. It's all about moderation and balance.
  11. Wow, I'm just finding this topic now... I don't know who @koneke is, but if even I'm beat him by 70 there's someone who's even more controversial than me. 😁
  12. IQ is so overrated, just like almost any standardized tests. The SAT is a joke. I've qualified for Mensa and I don't feel any smarter than the average populace. And of course too many people confuse intelligence, education, and wisdom.
  13. *Sigh* I'm not a social scientist, simply a dumb deplorable flyover yokel giving my opinion. I'm allowed to speak in absolutes when I see fit and relatives when I see fit. I don't see why you keep harping on that. I'm sick and tired of defending myself on that respect and will not do so further! Now who's speaking in absolutes? Look, you're welcome to that opinion. What you call denial of doom, I call optimism. Six of one half a dozen of the other. We've got a lot of problems, but if people on the left complain about our country descending into hate and division they should LOOK IN THE DAMN MIRROR!! Yeah I said it, live with it. Tell me what groups of conservatives are rioting on college campuses, trying to ban liberal speakers? How many groups of Republicans are dressing up like ninjas and taking over the streets of Portland, throwing quick-dry plaster at people they disagree with? How many Republican members of Congress are openly inciting violence against members of the opposing administration, hounding them at home, chasing them out of restaurants? It must be all those conservative-run social media companies that are systematically shadow-banning liberal thought, right? Conservative speakers can't come to college campuses any more without armed security!! 99% of all the hate and violence and intolerance is coming from one side of the aisle, that's barely deniable. Yet DESPITE all the chaos, I'm a glass-half-full type. Couples will fight even in the best of marriages, and I still believe in the fundamental goodness of my country despite any unrest. I will NOT walk that back, and I don't believe things really are as bad as you're saying, it's all hype being generated by the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself). Now there I agree with you, but I'm not worried. I'm sure that Bill Barr will get to the bottom of the illegal scheme to utilize the intelligence community to spy on Trump's campaign and ruin his Presidency with fake "crimes." So it's all good. I assume that's what you're referring to, right? Citation needed. Here I actually do sincerely agree with you, though I will point out that you accuse me of speaking in absolutes and then you use phrases like "EVERYONE knows". I do sense however that you're roundabout referring to the Electoral College. That is here to stay and it's a damn good thing. It does exactly what the Founders intended and far from being outdated, quite the opposite - it's needed now more than ever. I've opined on that many times and will not repeat myself here. Mmmmmkaaaay, so I'm going to take a wild stab here and say you don't like capitalism. This is me being shocked. 😴 I basically stopped reading at this point, as the rest of your post is just a rant about how unfair everything is, corporations are bad and evil, making money is wrong, blah blah blah, everyone should just give up all their money and private possessions and we'll all live in our little communist utopia. Patine, I have to say this, I truly, honestly feel sorry for you that you're so jaded by our capitalist system that all you can do is tear it down. Socialism is nothing more than jealousy and greed. And "Democratic" socialism is merely another means to the same end - the loss of personal and economic freedom. Whoa, did I just call socialism greedier than capitalism? Hell yes! After all, who is more greedy, the person who works hard and wants to keep the fruits of his/her labor, or the person who thinks they're entitled to money they didn't earn just because the other person has more than him? You're missing the point that what's great about America is that ANYONE CAN JOIN THE 1% IF THEY WANT TO AND ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR IT. That's what I'm trying to do. Will I succeed? Who knows? But I'm not going to make excuses for my bad circumstances, I'm trying to improve them for myself. And I'm not going to let the media tell me that every one of my problems are someone else's fault. It's the patriarchy, it's the 1%, it's the corporations. Enough with the excuses! No other nation has provided so many opportunities for so many people. How many other countries can you say that about? White, black, male, female, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist, there's ample opportunity for everyone. Capitalism is the ONLY system that's EVER brought large groups of people out of poverty. That's a fact. You cannot give me any counter-examples to that. And don't say Norway. We have the middle class and a 40-hour work week not because of unions, but because of the industrial revolution making fewer man-hours necessary, and the free market allowing people to freely sell their goods and labor. If you still can't see why we're the greatest, I can only say I sincerely pity you. I would invite you to spend some time touring abroad - Europe, Asia, South America, then come back here and see if you feel the same.
  14. In truth, I really hope Jay Inslee gets the nomination... ... that way at least we get him out of our state for 6 months.
  15. He wasn't 17th, I'd say he was pretty far from the top. My preferences in order were Paul, then Cruz, then Fiorina, then Christie (sorry I'm a native New Jerseyan). I even referred to Trump as a buffoon unfit for Presidency as late as mid-August. Ultimately I voted for Gary Johnson since hell, I live in a deep blue state that was pre-destined for Hillary anyway. But I have been pleasantly surprised, and to anyone who claims to be a conservative, I have to ask, what choice do you have? Sometimes you have to hold your nose and pull the lever, put rhetoric aside and think about who at least comes closer to your interests. Yeah it stinks, but I think it speaks more to our broken election system. We need more (or zero) parties, and voting reforms like ranked-choice voting so we're not always left with this choice. If we truly had a situation where there were 3-4 candidates all with a chance of winning, that would fix things real fast, but then you could easily run into a deadlocked Electoral College so we'd need a Constitutional amendment allowing for a runoff if no one gets to 270. We don't need a repeat of 1800 or 1824. (not-so) fun fact: in the primary elections, out of all eligible voters, a TOTAL of 15% voted for Clinton and Trump combined. Let that sink in...
  • Create New...