Remember that Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is responsible for surrendering more of our common-sense human rights in exchange for absolutely nothing in pushing that sweeping gun control abomination and suggested that Trump is unelectable earlier this year.
What the hell is going on in the US Senate? Hours after Donald Trump wins the most conclusive mandate in 40 years, Mitch McConnell engineers a coup against his agenda by calling early leadership elections in the senate. Two of the three candidates hate Trump and what he ran on. One of them, John Cornyn, is an angry liberal whose politics are indistinguishable from Liz Cheney’s. The election is Wednesday, it’s by secret ballot, and it will determine whether or not the new administration succeeds. Rick Scott of Florida is the only candidate who agrees with Donald Trump. Call your senator and demand a public endorsement of Rick Scott. Don’t let McConnell get away with it again.
Yeah if we go to Liberty Scorecard Conservative Review, both JOHNS get an F ... a score in the 50s. Scott gets a B+. I dont call them liberal, but way too establishment to be 'fighters'. Trump is a fighter, and we who elected him are fighters.
Conservative score card he is pro-guns, low taxes, against DEI, Against ACA., secure borders, no regulations, pro-oil so most of his stances are VERY conservative.
No, allowing yourself to be manipulated and intimidated by an angry activist is indicative of a person who will cave on key legislation if the pressure is strong enough.
The problem is we don't have the money to commit to another war, so we are basically capitulating from the start. The military doesn't have the manpower or infrastructure for a protracted war, and he even highlights it.
I will just drop in my ideas for a package of Constitutional Amendments that would, I think, make it difficult for the Far Left to ever again get so close to being able to "temporarily" suspend democracy. Some of the proposals I make should probably just be laws. I have not regarded agonizing over line-drawing a good use of time.
In no particular order ...
1) Senate 1: 10 smallest states get one senator, 10 largest states get three. It is ridiculous that Wyoming and Vermont get the same number of Senators as California and Texas.
2) Senate 2: writing the current filibuster into the Constitution (except for the Supreme Court).
3) States: no adding new states.
4) Supreme Court 1: Number of members to be fixed at 9.
5) Supreme Court 2: filibuster to be applied. This would lead to more moderate justices.
6) Not counting of illegals in the census.
7) “Sue for enforcement”: any entity should be allowed sue to demand enforcement of laws. Any official that loses such a case can be removed by a 2/3 vote of the relevant Supreme Court. (Yes, this would replace impeachment of the President in such cases. But impeachment has become a dead letter.)
8) Children of illegal mothers not citizens till 18.
9) No “chain migration”.
10) No citizenship for illegals.
11) No non-citizens in the military. (See: Fall of the Roman Empire.)
12) No blocking enforcement of laws against non-citizens voting.
13) No blocking of speech (by social media companies).
14) No political discrimination in hiring or firing, except for views that are anti-democratic. Some examples would be supporting censorship or true “privileges” for members of certain groups.
15) No gerrymandering. Every county that has enough population to justify a given number of seats must have that number of seats within its boundaries. Beyond that, a plan with a lower distance of boundaries must be accepted any alternative. Some “donut” districts would result.
16) Campaign Finance (Legal Bribery …): restoring the previous limits, which these days would be about $25,000. To be applied by election, not candidate. Matching one “small” donation. $100? No laundering. All values to be indexed for inflation, as defined by the Federal Reserve.
17) Getting rid of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. If that clause is going to be mis-used in order to get all or almost all members of a party off the ballot, it has to go.
18) No primaries, except for President. Instead, (modified) ranked choice voting; only highest finishing D and R eligible to win, votes from other candidates added to vote for these, if either has been indicated as a second choice. As for why, the primary system, with its very low turnout of “True Believers”, has resulted in political candidates having to become more and more extreme
19) No federal student loans.
20) No forgiveness of loans except 1) “across the board”, 2) applying only to individuals, and 3) by an act of Congress.
21) Reinstituting, as a Constitutional Amendment, the "pay as you go" rules we had in the 90s, before Congress wiggled out of them. There would be a temprorary exception for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I suggest special bonds for all three.
22) No printing money above 2% per year, as defined by the Federal Reserve.
23) No Civil Service protection. In order to prevent redevelopment of “the Spoils System”, promotion (except for entry level jobs) would be from among “underlings”.
How Democrats would react is dependent on 1) how popular the proposal is, and 2) how much the Demos want to move to the middle, after being Far Left didn't really work that well ...
Most of the "red" states are completely out of reach for Demos. Demos trying to win them would be no more sensible than Repos trying to win New York and California. The "red" states could only be in reach for Demos if poor Whites started voting for them.
But that's just not happening. Demos cannot be both the party of poor Whites (which is what they used to be) and the party of rich Whites (which is what they have now become). The Demos have made their choice: they are the party of both the ordinary rich (top 1/3) and the extraordinary rich (top 1%). Poor Whites too have made their choice: they are not voting for the Demos.
But to return to what I was talking about, it can be just as good, or better, to "have the issue" as to have the win. For example, if Demos refuse to go along with delaying (not denying) birthright citizenship, Repos could turn the mid-terms into a referendum on Anchor Babies. Politics is always politics.
They said that about Georgia, Virginia, Arizona before they become winnable for Democrats. Democrats problem they dont even try. The outreach is designed for urban city democrats and they zero outreach to rural voters. Many people NEVER see a politician. I know you hate Democrats and liberals to their core but trying to appeal to non-voters is the best way forward. Also if GOP try to make the mid-terms on anchor babies it will be a blowback to them.
It's why many of us voted for Trump- the need to stop these impending wars. Only Trump can stop the Democrat and RINO drive to conflict.
I am praying for peace.
Remember that Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is responsible for surrendering more of our common-sense human rights in exchange for absolutely nothing in pushing that sweeping gun control abomination and suggested that Trump is unelectable earlier this year.
Tucker Carlson
@TuckerCarlson
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1855344652422951054
What the hell is going on in the US Senate? Hours after Donald Trump wins the most conclusive mandate in 40 years, Mitch McConnell engineers a coup against his agenda by calling early leadership elections in the senate. Two of the three candidates hate Trump and what he ran on. One of them, John Cornyn, is an angry liberal whose politics are indistinguishable from Liz Cheney’s. The election is Wednesday, it’s by secret ballot, and it will determine whether or not the new administration succeeds. Rick Scott of Florida is the only candidate who agrees with Donald Trump. Call your senator and demand a public endorsement of Rick Scott. Don’t let McConnell get away with it again.
HL3 should be looking to her own comments before making assessments like that.
John being called a liberal is dumbest stupidest comment I have ever heard of.
Only because you can't hear your own comments. Go away.
How is John a liberal? If you cant answer that you are a troll.
Thx SStone!
BTW....ACTION ALERT!
LameDuck M.McConnell is rushing a vote for SenateMajorityLeader THIS WEEK, cuz he wants a John ...Cornyn or Thune.
TUCKER hisself has already spoke out aginst this.
Call/write your GOP senator NOW, to demand a vote for Trump ally RICK SCOTT.
Do it now, alert your friends.
NO JOHNS as Senate leader!!!
Its funny Labeling Sen John a liberal and he has zero liberal stances.
Yeah if we go to Liberty Scorecard Conservative Review, both JOHNS get an F ... a score in the 50s. Scott gets a B+. I dont call them liberal, but way too establishment to be 'fighters'. Trump is a fighter, and we who elected him are fighters.
Conservative score card he is pro-guns, low taxes, against DEI, Against ACA., secure borders, no regulations, pro-oil so most of his stances are VERY conservative.
John Cornyn gave us the absurd “Juneteenth” Federal Holiday, that’s reason enough to never trust him.
Okay then... yea one unity bill undoes decades of conservatism...
No, allowing yourself to be manipulated and intimidated by an angry activist is indicative of a person who will cave on key legislation if the pressure is strong enough.
Still does not make him a liberal just quit while you are ahead on this one.
smart ppl know not to poke the bear...
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH
and get woke trannies outta the military!
Interesting insight and hopefully will have a major role in our NSA.
The problem is we don't have the money to commit to another war, so we are basically capitulating from the start. The military doesn't have the manpower or infrastructure for a protracted war, and he even highlights it.
Don’t let this addle-brained man be in charge of anything.
Tucker “I love the taste of Putin’s ass” Carlson?
Make Russia part of NATO.
Dismantle NATO
Russia could invade NATO nations and America would have no answers besides Nukes since BRICS wont care and hates NATO just as much.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Excellent interview!
Hey Sash, please see if you can get Ryan to unban me. Hiker
I will just drop in my ideas for a package of Constitutional Amendments that would, I think, make it difficult for the Far Left to ever again get so close to being able to "temporarily" suspend democracy. Some of the proposals I make should probably just be laws. I have not regarded agonizing over line-drawing a good use of time.
In no particular order ...
1) Senate 1: 10 smallest states get one senator, 10 largest states get three. It is ridiculous that Wyoming and Vermont get the same number of Senators as California and Texas.
2) Senate 2: writing the current filibuster into the Constitution (except for the Supreme Court).
3) States: no adding new states.
4) Supreme Court 1: Number of members to be fixed at 9.
5) Supreme Court 2: filibuster to be applied. This would lead to more moderate justices.
6) Not counting of illegals in the census.
7) “Sue for enforcement”: any entity should be allowed sue to demand enforcement of laws. Any official that loses such a case can be removed by a 2/3 vote of the relevant Supreme Court. (Yes, this would replace impeachment of the President in such cases. But impeachment has become a dead letter.)
8) Children of illegal mothers not citizens till 18.
9) No “chain migration”.
10) No citizenship for illegals.
11) No non-citizens in the military. (See: Fall of the Roman Empire.)
12) No blocking enforcement of laws against non-citizens voting.
13) No blocking of speech (by social media companies).
14) No political discrimination in hiring or firing, except for views that are anti-democratic. Some examples would be supporting censorship or true “privileges” for members of certain groups.
15) No gerrymandering. Every county that has enough population to justify a given number of seats must have that number of seats within its boundaries. Beyond that, a plan with a lower distance of boundaries must be accepted any alternative. Some “donut” districts would result.
16) Campaign Finance (Legal Bribery …): restoring the previous limits, which these days would be about $25,000. To be applied by election, not candidate. Matching one “small” donation. $100? No laundering. All values to be indexed for inflation, as defined by the Federal Reserve.
17) Getting rid of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. If that clause is going to be mis-used in order to get all or almost all members of a party off the ballot, it has to go.
18) No primaries, except for President. Instead, (modified) ranked choice voting; only highest finishing D and R eligible to win, votes from other candidates added to vote for these, if either has been indicated as a second choice. As for why, the primary system, with its very low turnout of “True Believers”, has resulted in political candidates having to become more and more extreme
19) No federal student loans.
20) No forgiveness of loans except 1) “across the board”, 2) applying only to individuals, and 3) by an act of Congress.
21) Reinstituting, as a Constitutional Amendment, the "pay as you go" rules we had in the 90s, before Congress wiggled out of them. There would be a temprorary exception for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I suggest special bonds for all three.
22) No printing money above 2% per year, as defined by the Federal Reserve.
23) No Civil Service protection. In order to prevent redevelopment of “the Spoils System”, promotion (except for entry level jobs) would be from among “underlings”.
Some good ideas most are DOA and unless either party kills the filibuster its not going to change.
1. GOP will never agree to it
2. Democrats will never agree to it
3. Democrats will never agree to it
4. Democrats will never agree to it
5. GOP will never agree to it
6. Democrats will never agree to it
7. No point
8. Democrats will never agree to it
9. Democrats will never agree to it
10. They already dont and ending birthright citizen Democrats will never to it
11. Possible
12 possible
13 Democrats will never agree to it
14 Right to work supporters will never agree to it
15. Neither party will agree to it
16 Neither party will agree to it
17 Possible
18 not possible
19 Democrats will never agree to it
20 Democrats will never agree to it
21 Democrats will never agree to it and its not possible
22 see 21
How Democrats would react is dependent on 1) how popular the proposal is, and 2) how much the Demos want to move to the middle, after being Far Left didn't really work that well ...
Neither party moves to the middle but Democrats should stop being the party of Hollywood only instead focus on 50 states like GOP currently tries.
Most of the "red" states are completely out of reach for Demos. Demos trying to win them would be no more sensible than Repos trying to win New York and California. The "red" states could only be in reach for Demos if poor Whites started voting for them.
But that's just not happening. Demos cannot be both the party of poor Whites (which is what they used to be) and the party of rich Whites (which is what they have now become). The Demos have made their choice: they are the party of both the ordinary rich (top 1/3) and the extraordinary rich (top 1%). Poor Whites too have made their choice: they are not voting for the Demos.
But to return to what I was talking about, it can be just as good, or better, to "have the issue" as to have the win. For example, if Demos refuse to go along with delaying (not denying) birthright citizenship, Repos could turn the mid-terms into a referendum on Anchor Babies. Politics is always politics.
They said that about Georgia, Virginia, Arizona before they become winnable for Democrats. Democrats problem they dont even try. The outreach is designed for urban city democrats and they zero outreach to rural voters. Many people NEVER see a politician. I know you hate Democrats and liberals to their core but trying to appeal to non-voters is the best way forward. Also if GOP try to make the mid-terms on anchor babies it will be a blowback to them.
The states you mentioned fall far short of 50.
I think the concept of Anchor Baby is not popular. Why have the Dems tried to get it banned, if its use would help them?