570 Comments
User's avatar
Scott Butler's avatar

There is no shame in being a Republican. There is also no requirement that you be in lockstep on every issue.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

What are these controversial GOP positions? reducing national debt? Against govt fraud and waste of taxpayer resources? getting rid of crime? protecting American borders? protecting the American worker? pushing back on unfair trade practices and reducing the trade deficit (which is another way to protect blue collar workers)? respecting freedoms like speech, religion, sexual/gender choices? I think the ONLY controversial position is the Pro-Life initiative.

Expand full comment
Scott Butler's avatar

I don't see where I said there were controversial positions.. That being said, everything you listed above could be viewed without controversy in the abstract, but different people have different views on how exactly you carry these policies out in practice. Sasha mentioned being pro gay marriage. Some Republicans are in agreement with that, and others aren't. Some think all Republicans are anti-gay, even though they should see that gay people keep getting nominated to high positions in the government. Keep in mind that people who are coming over from the dark side will come over with many preconceived ideas of what it means to be a Republican. I think it helps to say that there is more diversity of ideas on the Republican side than on the Democrat side.

Expand full comment
Barry Lederman, “normie”'s avatar

I call it Common Sense coalition. Starting with Trump, all who joined him were Democrats at one time. Trump was smart to form this amazing group under the Republican umbrella, otherwise MAGA would have been eaten alive by the “glob” of Dems and RINOs and neocons who have been stealing our country blind.

Expand full comment
AJoy's avatar

My cousin works for the Log Cabin Republicans. Very big gay organization that supports DJT.

Expand full comment
Dena's avatar

For the most part, the disagreement regarding gays is not that they’re gay, it’s gay marriage. Many, I’d say most, people believe marriage is between a man & a woman. Some for Biblical reasons. And there is no tolerance on the left for that belief to be held, you are called a hater & homophobic.

Expand full comment
JM Calabrese's avatar

Men and women are different, both in body, mind, and personality. It's obvious, and denial of that difference could be the source of the hysteria and hatred found among the Democrats.

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

I remember Anderson Cooper interviewing Pam Bondi after the Orlando club shootings. He was incredulous that Bondi would be so aghast at what had happened and that she was dedicated to getting justice for the victims. He kept saying "but in the past, you've fought against policies like gay marriage". It was so myopic that Bondi couldn't make sense of it to call it what it was: Cooper thought that the fact that Bondi opposed gay marriage meant that she would celebrate the grisly murder of dozens of gay people. He truly equated the level of disagreement she felt on policies with a deep, deep hatred of people's basic humanity.

That moment really stuck with me, and now I see it as basically an instance of the bubble forming right in front of us.

Expand full comment
Griswold's avatar

I have a problem with any Party that is intolerant. That’s when it gets nasty. We should be able to agree to disagree.

Truth, Beauty and Goodness

Expand full comment
Matt Balvin's avatar

I strongly agree that there is a need to be able to disagree and debate with civility and a willingness to compromise.

Cancel culture more than anything else is the most likely root cause for the apparent mind rot within the Democrat base. Anyone not 100% on board with the most extreme position was excommunicated as a "nazi" or something-phobe.

You can't do that and then wonder why your coalition of "good right thinking" conformists is shrinking.... or getting progressively less sane.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

Is it wrong to be intolerant of intolerance?

Am I supposed to be tolerant of people who think I should be subjected to "taxation without representation"?

Ami I supposed to be tolerant of people whose arguments constitute a veritable library of all known fallacies?

Expand full comment
Mike H's avatar

Me too. Like being tolerant of Anti trans views. Or white male evangelicals

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 13
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Mike H's avatar

Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self control

Expand full comment
Michael Framson's avatar

Those guideposts work until it comes to policy. I want the provoked proxy war in Ukraine to end. Putin lover is the come-back.

Expand full comment
Kevin Virta's avatar

What’s so funny about that?

Expand full comment
dorothy P slater's avatar

Even as a longtime Democrat, there was no way I could vote for Harris I decided not to vote and become a party of one - just me - because although I found myself defending Trump from TDS which had taken hold of longtime friends,neither could I vote for him. I am a proud pro=Palestinian free speech, absolutist and when I saw the pro-Israel set surrounding Triump I thought he is going to continue the Biden anti=Palestinian program but I decided to hold off and give him time to prove me wrong. He has not. Iam in no way antisemetic or wish for the destruction of Israel. But in the same way I could not wrap my mind around t.he cultlike TDS group I can not now wrap my mind around those who can watch what is happening in Gaza and not be horrified at what Israel and the US Government iare doing. Free speecch is free speech - but I will not become a Republican until and unless Trump et al prove me wrong.

Expand full comment
Deborah's avatar

I horrified that you could possibly be pro-Hamas, a bloodthirsty gang of terrorist sociopathic killers who would rape and kill you too without a thought. Their evil brutality is indefensible. Do you have any idea what kind of country Israel is? They are the only one in the Mideast that allows free speech, openly gay people, and tolerance for anyone who is willing to live in peace. There are Palestinian members of their Parliament, Palestinian judges, and others who participate fully in society. Hamas/Palestinians kill Jews instead of allowing them freedom. You have been duped, manipulated, and deceived by a very sophisticated Hamas propaganda operation if you believe anything they say.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

And Khalil is in America to advance the propaganda. He is a Syrian. The Syrian leadership is murdering the remaining Christians in Syria as we speak. It is ethnic cleansing. But this is some kind of good dude? Send him home. We should be rescuing the Maronite Christians in Syria and not this guy. https://www.newsweek.com/hundreds-minorities-including-christians-killed-syria-reports-2041764

Expand full comment
Greg Daniels's avatar

The hardest free speech to accept is that which you abhor.

No one should have their green card revoked for expressing a viewpoint.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

He did tons more than just "express his viewpoint", he coordinated and riled up anti-Jew/anti-Israel mobs that took over college buildings!!!

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

So you are really pro-Hamas / pro-terrorist? That is not a good look, Dorothy. I am sure you have empathy for the idea of Palestinians. But they are all turned into terrorists by the time they are 5. Have you ever seen the programming and text materials they use to "teach" their kids? The materials celebrate murder and de-humanize Jews / Israelis just as effectively as anything Hitler ever did. So you go ahead with your pro-terrorist positions. Make sure your friends know the level of hate and bloodlust you have in your heart.

Expand full comment
Yvonne Leslie's avatar

Sadly Dorothy, you are very misinformed about the “Palestinians”, beginning with the fact that the Romans labeled the Jews “Philistines” as an insult when they occupied Israel. I suggest you read the book “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters for starters and get a history lesson. The Gazans elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, as their government, election results certified by none other than Jimmy Carter, almost 20 years ago. Hamas hasn’t allowed elections since. The kibbutzim that were attacked on October 7th were populated by people who worked with Palestinians on farming projects, sent their children to schools with Palestinians and those same Palestinians provided intel to Hamas used in the barbarism of that day.

Your moral compass is in need of a reset

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Dorothy, it’s obvious you are an emphatic person. I’m a supporter of Israel in this conflict but I have no wish to see any Palestinians killed either.

But saying you just want the killing to stop is unhelpful. What is your solution?

Real solution that can fix this?

Because from where I sit this has been going on for over 100 years, I think 1921 the Brits ignore election results for Mufti of Jerusalem and selected good old boy Haj Amin el Hussein, who finished 5th in voting.

There were others with more votes who wanted to come to an understanding with the Jews but the British blew that up by appointing an actual Nazi before we knew what Nazis were. All downhill from there, any willingness to work and live together in peace went pffft.

Fast forward to Oct 7, 2023 and gazan civilians who had cross border work in Israel provided intelligence allowing the Hamas terrorists to focus their attacks.

So much for working together for peace.

Right now I think the Palestinians either accept universal disarmament, a two state solution and turn on and turn in all terrorists or the only actual solution or end result will be an actual ethnic cleansing.

Not genocide, that is not what is occurring here.

Israel is done try to negotiate, it’s all or nothing time and the Palestinians are perilously close to the side of nothing.

So tell me your solution

Hand wringing and wailing are not solutions.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Hey Dorothy,

I completely agree with you and I am also pro-Palestinian and not anti-Semite. Unfortunately most of the commentators here say that if you are against the slaughter of Palestinians then you are de facto anti-Semite. This is a fallacy but serves to shutdown dialogue and turn into ad hominem attacks. I love most of what Trump is doing but am very disappointed in his censorship of freedom of speech, his support of neocons warmongering against Iran, and his not cutting off ALL foreign aid, and not releasing the Epstein pedophilia files. Looks like someone had gotten to him.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

It is at least three fallacies: Affirming the Consequent, Guilt by Association, and (as you noted) Name-Calling. I am too lazy to think of any more ...

But using "genocide" to mean trying to kill "lots of", as opposed to *all of", members of a group is also a fallacy: Shifting Meaning.

Expand full comment
Alice Ball's avatar

We’re not supposed to “warmonger” against Iran???? The blood thirstiest of all Muslim regimes?

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Anyone who supports the Theocrat Iranian nut bars needs serious mental supports

Expand full comment
Alice Ball's avatar

All-out indoctrinated crazy town.

Expand full comment
Libertarian's avatar

Are you going to enlist and get yourself into a combat unit or are you going to just push for some poor American kid go and get shot to hell for your hate of Muslims?

Expand full comment
Alice Ball's avatar

No to all. Disrupt the loser Obama/Biden placate Iran policy and use quiet POWER to keep them in line. Have you not noticed how lame Dems are at foreign policy??—-decades of stupidity. Obama the absolute worst, but that was intentional. And I don’t “hate Muslims,” but I sure as hell hate Muslim terrorism. And all of the idiots who take their side. Death & destruction writ large.

Expand full comment
Polyxena of the Pink Poppy's avatar

I fully get this position. But by the same logic, “calling for a ceasefire” is equally incongruent. That’s basically saying the same thing: that it’s okay for people to continue being slaughtered by those who would enter civilian homes and murder, rape and kidnap them, because war and the killing of civilians is bad. As far as I’ve been able to witness there really is no moral position here when one’s understanding on the conflict is grounded in ‘what is’ rather than ‘what we wish it was’. Most average people would prefer to live in a world where war was not a reality. The reality of war is that people die- many thousands of people including children. It’s one of the worst realities of life on earth, indeed, but we cannot pretend it isn’t one.

It seems like there are two main opposition opinions about Gaza: there are humanitarian types that think Israel is evil for the way they are conducting this war, and there are libertarian types who largely don’t give a shit what Israel does as long as it doesn’t involve the US and our funding.

I understand the latter better than the former. While I think Israel has every damn right to their war, I am intellectually conflicted about the issue of funding and fully understand Americans that don’t want to pay for foreign wars. The caveat is that I do believe the existence of Israel is important for the US and I also believe halting the spread of radical Islamic extremism is squarely within our national interests.

Expand full comment
Jeff Keener's avatar

I can no more support Hamas as I could Nazis, since they are the last living legacy of the Third Reich and Final Solutionism. There is almost no separation between "Palestinian" and Hamas or ISIS or Islamic Jihad or Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas begged for this war. Sometimes, you get what you ask for and what you deserve.

Expand full comment
Ryan Adams's avatar

Reducing national debt - U.S. budget deficit surged in February, passing $1 trillion for year-to-date record

Getting rid of crime - crime statistics compiled by the FBI and other sources show an increase in violent crime, notably murders, in 2020 and a decline since. A revision to the FBI data this year doesn’t change that overall trend, despite claims made on social media and by the Trump campaign / admin to the contrary.

Protecting American border - deportations Were Higher Under Biden Than in Trump’s First Term.

Protecting the American worker, unfair trade practices and trade deficit - tariffs and continuing inflation would be to differ.

Respecting freedoms like speech, religion, sexual/gender choices - respecting or reducing?

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Again, Trump has been in office 50 days. But in those 50 days he has deported almost 60,000 illegals and that will continue to accelerate as the manpower gets put in place. Biden deported a lot of people because he let so many in. Try looking at that as a percent of people let in. Biden deported much fewer than Trump on a % basis since Trump had a pretty tight border in his years and it is even tighter now. Here, you can keep track yourself https://howmanydeported.com/

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Crime stats mean nothing when the big cities do not prosecute them. Soros DAs all over the country are refusing to prosecute crime, even serious crime. So naturally the crime stats look better than they are. Ask people living in those cities how good the crime situation is

Expand full comment
Sun Love Pax's avatar

It’s easy to have lower crime rates when people stop reporting crimes and DA’s don’t prosecute criminals.

Expand full comment
Sun Love Pax's avatar

It’s easy to have lower crime rates when people stop reporting crimes and DA’s don’t prosecute criminals.

Expand full comment
Ryan Adams's avatar

Fair enough. And really, who's to say.

Seems Trump is going the way he hopes to reshape the world - Americas led by Trum, Europe led by Putin, S/E led by Xi Jinping & the Islam world led by Mohammed bin Salman... aka propaganda.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5323155/economic-data-reliability-trump-howard-lutnick

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

NPR has "jumped the shark". There is nothing from them I will ever consider as truth or fact. It is a propaganda outfit

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

I agree with Trump redefining America's responsibility to the Americas. That is called the Monroe Doctrine and was the primary policy of America from the 1890s until World War 2. We are going back to that. Yep, China will rule Asia. No doubt about that. I doubt we can or will try to stop them from taking Taiwan. Japan and S Korea would be a red line for America. Of course, you are being a d*ck by saying Trump wants to turn over Europe to Putin. Trump hates war. He would never let that happen. Plus, Europe has nukes (UK and France). So they can defend themselves. As for Iran, they will be "reshaped" shortly by Israel with support from the USA because they will not give up their plans to have their own nukes.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

It’s hard to know how much support the mullahs actually have but they were teetering mightily until the Biden democrats rescued them.

They are even closer to the edge now, this is the time for max pressure

I expect to see something there shortly from the axis of not evil, Israel and the USA.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

Europe can only be led by Putin if Europe decides to let him, so that’s nonsense. Europe just has to grow up, flush the green nonsense and get back to reality.

Population, GDP, living standards all say Russia is not a threat to Europe as both sides have nukes.

Bin Salman is a far better choice than the Iranian theowhackocrats to have a leadership position in the ME understanding that no one there is going to run the place like part of the Enlightenment.

China aspires but they have some nasty demographic and economic headwinds approaching, that threat fades eventually.

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

On taking care of American workers, Trump has lined up $2T in new manufacturing investments in his first 50 days. That should create over 200,000 new manufacturing jobs. Pretty good from a standing start. And that manufacturing is enabled by tariff threats since foreign manufacturing can avoid tariffs by relocating to America. Biden lost 110,000 jobs in his time on the job (from the COVID recovery high in 2022)

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Anything with the budget that happened in February was on Biden. Trump has not had a chance to get any of his policies into place yet. But nice try

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

"Deportations were higher under Biden than in Trump's first term"....that's a case of massaging the facts. What time period were Biden's deportations supposedly higher than "Trump's first term". Biden let in 20 million illegal aliens (at least - and that's not including "got aways"), 97% of whom were falsely declaring asylum (asylum can't be claimed just because you want a better job in the U.S.)

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

The revised data from the FBI DOES change that "overall trend", making "violent crime has declined" message a lie. Especially since CA and NY and others, stopped reporting to the FBI and CA stopped prosecuting low-level violent crime (note that their crime "equity" law from years ago - partly overturned in the 2024 election - actually made sexual abuse of a minor a "non-violent crime").

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

It's how they are going about it is a BIG problem. Giving Musk who has gotten $40M from the govt and has many conflicts of interest and his team of little hackers access to all the data in the US treasury and allow them to whack away at it with no oversighr is outrageous .

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

Anyone who thinks a guy who is worth $500B is doing work for the govt (for free) is trying to scam the govt is nuts. Go see a shrink for your problems.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

He can cancel contracts for others and transfer them to HIS companies. Tesla might need a little help. DOGE repeatedly posted error-filled data that inflated its success at saving taxpayer money. After a series of news reports called out those mistakes, the group has begun removing identifying details of what it has cut on its website. So much for transparency!

Expand full comment
cat's avatar

He cannot "cancel contracts for others and transfer them to his companies." You are showing total ignorance of government acquisition regulations and requirements.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

I'm sure he can interfere with the process and suggest that he get the contract, EXACTLY what he is doing with the FAA's contract with Verizon. "The Federal Aviation Administration is close to canceling a $2.4 billion contract to overhaul a communications system that serves as the backbone of the nation's air traffic control system and awarding the work to Elon Musk's Starlink,"

Expand full comment
Brian M's avatar

If you want to believe that Musk gives one sh*t about making money off the Fed govt, there is no hope for you. Your are completely captured and logic does not matter. Glad I am not you

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

What about his little goons who have access to ALL the information in the US Treasury. And do you trust Musk's opinion or knowledge of what is waste? He fired ebola researchers and tried to fire air traffic controllers. USAID provided food and medicine to poor people in the world which I NEVER saw mentioned in right wing news. It affects me since I assist refugees at Kakuma camp in Kenya.

Expand full comment
ResistWeMuch's avatar

the government has been outrageous for decades, abusing us non stop. i have no sympathy blow it to kingdom come.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 13
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Right, he's too busy golfing.

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

He seems to be sitting in the White House every day so far?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Trump has reportedly played golf on 13 of the 48 days he has been back in office, and US taxpayers have paid $18M for his trips to FL.

Expand full comment
Carl L. McWilliams's avatar

My wife Karen and I live in the banana republic state of Colorado. In January 2024, after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that President Trump was guilty of 14th Amendment violations and ordered him ineligible to appear on the ballot, we had no other choice but to remove our names from the formal voter registration roles in Colorado.

Expand full comment
Dorota's avatar

Nobody is supposed to fit in a box, of any kind.

Nobody should try to fit another person into a box, just because.

We can define ourselves any way we want to.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

And half a century ago, Democrats were all about that.....it's flipped and now Republicans are and Democrats aren't. Some are calling it the "New Right". Good name. To be clear, I was a Republican back then because I saw Jimmy Carter and Dems as the globalist/socialist that they were and later, I saw the corruption and anti-marriage/family Clintons for who they were. But this one thing - individuality and not putting people in boxes - I agreed with the Democrats at the time.

Expand full comment
Casey Jones's avatar

The Republican party of traditional stuffed-shirt country clubism and all that stuff has been dying for at least ten years. Last November drove a stake through it just as much as it did what used to be the Democratic party. Both are truly nothing but words. Worry not.

Expand full comment
R H's avatar

I'd call myself a conservative libertarian. I've never voted for a Democrat in a general election nor would I. I did not vote for Mitt Romney. I only voted for the broken POW by the Viet Cong Manchurian candidate McCain because Palin was his running mate. Ross Perot is the only reason Bill Clinton was elected, but looking back he was probably more conservative than the country club Rockefeller Republican Herbert Walker. We're slowly discovering and getting rid of the RINO's, neocons, and country club/Rockefeller Republicans and if we succeed the US will reach new heights of greatness and success. We have to reopen the insane asylums though.

Expand full comment
shannon's avatar

💯 you are completely correct on all points I think. Currently, the Republican Party is evolving away from the establishment-country club sort and into an “America First” MAGA/MAHA partnership. I’m looking forward to whatever comes out on in the end.

Expand full comment
Casey Jones's avatar

That last would be nice for other reasons as well.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Some are saying we should call ourselves the "New Right".

Expand full comment
Sam McGowan's avatar

That party never existed no more than Democrats came from the working class. The wealthy have always controlled both parties in the past.

Expand full comment
The Radical Individualist's avatar

FDR loved the poor like Hitler loved the Jews and LBJ loved blacks.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club”

Dave Barry, Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States

Expand full comment
Sam McGowan's avatar

Really? Democrats kill babies to keep them from being born and they're nice people?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

humor

that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous : a funny or amusing quality

"There seems to be no lengths to which humorless people will not go to analyze humor. It seems to worry them."

Robert Benchley

Expand full comment
Pacificus's avatar

Well there's that...

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

My thoughts too.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Repubs don't want their taxes to be used to provide food, shelter, medical care or education to babies born in poor families and they're nice people?

Expand full comment
Upinthehills's avatar

Because our taxes are ridiculous and that’s not the governments job. People take care of people. Churches feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Conservatives donate money and go to the food bank to feed the poor. You read too much leftist propaganda. It’s as if you don’t know any Conservatives.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Well, I believe in the safety net so people don't starve. And babies can't pick their families.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

I'd love for my taxes to STRICKLY pay for those things, and ONLY to those things, and ONLY to those who aren't high on meth or crack and neglecting their babies/children, while collecting this money, in essence, being paid to do the neglect with my tax dollars. PLUS, NO head of the "Office of whatever" or the "Dept/Agency of whatever" flying to Honolulu for "seminars" (paid by tax money) when I'll never see that place (even though I'd like to) because I'm paying too bloody much in taxes and for the massive inflation over the last 100 years, DUE TO MY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Expand full comment
Polyxena of the Pink Poppy's avatar

Yea. I would say this is one of the primary differences between both conservatives and libertarians and the progressive/democrat left. They don’t believe the role of government was ever to pay for people’s lives. They generally believe that to be the role of community. And they have a point: why do we rely on the government to provide us with the necessities for day to day life? It’s not a sustainable role for government to be in.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Leaving it to local communities would be very inefficient and leave big gaps. I do not want to live in a country like Brazil or other 3rd world countries where gangs of small abandoned children live on the streets.

Expand full comment
Kathleen's avatar

That’s a joke, right?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

"Scientists now believe that the primary biological function of breasts is to make males stupid."

Dave Barry

"To an adolescent, there is nothing in the world more embarrassing than a parent."

Dave Barry

"Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants, today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing."

Dave Barry

"It is a well-documented fact that guys will not ask for directions. This is a biological thing. This is why it takes several million sperm cells... to locate a female egg, despite the fact that the egg is, relative to them, the size of Wisconsin."

Dave Barry

You Figure It Out.

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

It’s Dave Barry funny. He is/was an institution and icon of Florida stupid-funny.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Basically nicer people? They follow the viciously destructive Marxist ideology.

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

What???????

I have two authentic “Alert Reader”postcards signed by Dave Barry. How did I get them? You had to send Dave a funny story he might steal from for one of his pieces in the Miami Herald. One of my stories was an expose on why vegan cat food stores exist.

Expand full comment
Commonsense's avatar

Of course, a comic piece should be taken seriously🙄. Within the people who vote for each side, there are many lovely, generous, helpful people. But look at the fringe left, the things they both say and do (rioting, swatting, voting against everything, screaming & swearing) is quite ugly. The Neocons are much smaller group, and were pretty ugly, too. But they have little power today, if any. The continuous divisive push is not good for our country. But it won’t stop if people keep harping on it. Look for common ground and the good in people.

Expand full comment
AJoy's avatar

Wow so so wrong in so many ways lol.

Expand full comment
Citizen Bitcoin's avatar

GOP is now party of the working class

Expand full comment
Dagney Taggert's avatar

Can we start a party named The Common Sense party? That's you, Sasha!

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

That’s how the Grand Old Party began in the 1850’s. They thought it was common sense, as well as Biblically correct, that no man or woman should be a slave. Abraham Lincoln made it happen. Then a Democrat shot him in the head and killed him. My family were GOP in the Deep South in North Florida during the Great Depression. They were not too popular then and there.

Expand full comment
Lara Hamilton's avatar

I’m still a registered Democrat but my loyalties are with populist movements on both the right and the left!! So, I’m not a full-blown Republican, but I can’t stand with the Democrats either. As many are saying, the party changed - I didn’t!

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

That is exactly what Ronald Reagan said. The Party changed, he didn’t.

Expand full comment
Andrew Collins's avatar

What are some of the substantive populist movements on the Left you support? I can't think of any that I support other than gay marriage.

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

I am in favor of dumping on the banksters and Big Pharma.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Including the stock market guys were are just pushing the envelope of insider trading, corruption, illegal manipluation of the market......

Expand full comment
Lara Hamilton's avatar

Being anti-war, wanting government to support individuals and society without too much control, freedom of speech, medical freedom, and stopping “the deep state” or shadow government or bureaucratic control ( as Musk calls it) from undermining the people. I’m sure I’ve left something out, but those are good for a start.

Expand full comment
Joe Esposito's avatar

Being a Republican is easy.

Do what’s best for your family, your neighbors, your country and

don’t believe anything a Democrat says.

Expand full comment
Trina Johnson's avatar

Funny, that’s exactly what democrats say as well. We literally all want the same thing. You have just let them put us vs them which is what they want. It’s us against the rich. Don’t allow them to continue pushing us against each other. We all need to live for each other.

Expand full comment
Joe Esposito's avatar

I want nothing to do with Democrats.

I’m a Vietnam Veteran and know that the Democrats started that war and then pulled out when it wasn’t good for their chances of being reelected.

Than the Afghanistan disaster that made America look like idiots and cowards.

The Democrats are evil and feckless in everything they have done to America.

The Democrats hate America and its people and they can’t even stand for a 13 year old boy with cancer.

Expand full comment
Matt L.'s avatar

Joe, JFK was a Democrat and he didn’t want the Vietnam war. He may have been shot in the head because he wanted to dismantle the CIA.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

JFK would never be a Democrat today. He would've left the party, like Reagan did.

Expand full comment
WI Patriot's avatar

Like his nephew : )

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Trump used the boy as a prop after cutting funds for research into pediatric cancer.

Expand full comment
Joe Esposito's avatar

Was this your first presidential address to congress?

It must be your first since all presidents including your boys Biden and Obama have propped up citizens for their campaign and their ideology but had the Leftist media in their pockets so no negative press was used to indict them and their policies.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

And Republicans stood up and clapped for the Biden/Obama "boy with cancer" (although I don't remember one) at their SOTU speech!

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

It seems a little hypocritical since the boy was treated at TX Children's cancer and hematology center largely staffed with Baylor College doctors and Baylor is poised to lose as much as $80 million to $90 million in funding from the changes to NIH funding.

Expand full comment
Upinthehills's avatar

The bill for funding childhood cancer has been passed by the House and sitting on Schumer’s desk for ages. He was not used as a prop, but regardless, your POS party couldn’t even be bothered to stand for a kid with brain cancer. Absolutely repulsive.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

DOGE under trump cut the funding.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

So are you in favor of keeping the cancer funding but losing the USA republic? It will fall, with this kind of debt.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Not true, the bill for cancer research is in the Senate.

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

The U.S. Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown in Dec 2024 with the passing of a new spending bill. Approval of the package, however, came at the expense of the pediatric cancer research. The latest bill eliminated several provisions designed to help develop more effective, less toxic therapies and improve treatment accessibility had been suddenly excised from the package without warning or explanation. Despite members of Congress initially agreeing to include the provisions, all mentions of pediatric cancer funding were removed from the final version of the spending package. According to the National Cancer Institute, only 4% of all government-allocated cancer research funds go towards pediatric cancer research despite the fact that pediatric cancers are the leading cause of death by disease in the U.S. for children and young adults under the age of 20.

On top of those cuts, a proposed policy change by the National Institute of Health (NIH) threatens to shrink those resources even further.

In Feb 2025, NIH announced a proposal to impose a cap (of15%) on how much grant funding may be used to reimburse universities for “indirect costs” (i.e. costs associated with research facilities, equipment, maintenance, staffing, and administration). Previously, individual institutions negotiated with the federal government to determine how much of their total NIH awards could be allocated for such costs. Typically, the reimbursement is 27-28%. This could save the federal government as much $4 billion annually but cut pediatric cancer research way back.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

The colleges are flush with money and the U.S. citizen (who OWN the government) are not. And the country is will go bankrupt, sooner rather than later, if things aren't cut. Maybe Baylor could cut professor pay or stop building more fancy gyms or ritzy cafes?

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

I think many fancy gyms are paid for by rich alumni who want their names on them. Do colleges have enough money to pay for teaching and research to keep the US the most advanced country in the world?

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

I'd agree, but I can't go along with the Democrat's (in politics, media, entertainment, etc.) corruption, deception, etc., all based on Marxist, socialist, totalitarian ideals.

Expand full comment
Rascal Nick Of's avatar

Im a very conservative Christian. Ive always voted Republican but Im not a vocal advocate of the party. My favorite current politicians are Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson. I wouldnt put these guys at the top of the list of favorites of the people that run the party. But they adhere to the truth. What Democrat cares about the truth? AOC famously said: “it is more important to be morally correct, than factually correct”. But that depends upon whom gets to decide what’s moral, and thus who has more power to enforce their idea of morality. It is an excuse for lying. Straight from the devil himself. Live not by lies.

Expand full comment
AJoy's avatar

Truth is not a left wing value.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

How can one be moral if they refuse to acknowledge reality?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

"We are five days away from fundamentally changing America."

Barack Obama Oct. 30 2008

He Actually meant it. How did that work out for ya?

Expand full comment
Tom Potts's avatar

It accelerated division in our nation, that began in the late 60’s

Expand full comment
Upinthehills's avatar

I watched that speech and had a violent physical reaction when he said that and the audience clapped and hooted like trained seals. It was chilling. He’s the epitome of the enemy within.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Thing so many (myself included) thought it was just boiler plate political rhetoric. It wasn't until 3-4 years ago I realized he really meant it. I mean this is not even Bill Clinton's Democrat Party. And That was bad enough!

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Just like the scene in the Star Wars movie (forgetting which one)- "So, that's how republics fall, with cheers and adulation from the crowd" (paraphrased).

Expand full comment
Glenn Bogart's avatar

You need not keep worrying about climate change. It's always changing. And if it warms up a bit, that will save lives. There will be more arable land, for one thing. For another, more people freeze to death than die from being too warm.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

There’s no such thing as climate change. It’s weather, seasons, cycles, dry spells, hot/cold spells. Climate change is an excuse for money laundering, corruption, higher taxes.

Expand full comment
madaboutmd's avatar

I just visited Antarctica on an expedition ship. Some of the scientists raised climate change in their lectures, showing a timeline of millions of years and the extinction of the dinosaurs. I thought, yep and then the ice melted and now we can visit Antarctica and America and Europe and wherever we want. Climate always changes and thank goodness cuz those humpbacks, seals and penguins were pretty doggone amazing. So were the glaciers and icebergs and mountains.

Climate changes and life goes on. it's just what it's supposed to be.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

What an awesome trip WOW

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

Yes, it’s called Mother Nature made by our Heavenly Father. Amen

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

How did you keep warm?

Expand full comment
madaboutmd's avatar

It’s summer there do it was actually warmer most days that not was at home in WI. It was just at freezing, but we had terrific weather. Lots of layers…..sun is quite warm too.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

There is no such thing as Man Made climate change. Multiple ice ages demonstrate that naturally occurring climate change is a constant. It is arrogant for liberals to believe they have the intelligence or ability to actually change cycles that span millions of years

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Well, it only makes sense that all the pollution in the world DOES make a difference. How much of a difference is the question.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

I agree that pollution is bad and that negligent pollution should be prosecuted. I just don’t see it as globally destabilizing.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

Absolutely! It’s just a scam to demand money/taxes to fund gullible projects and virtue signaling for the elites, as they fly around in their private jets.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

It’s also a way to exert control over pretty much every aspect of our lives

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

Life on earth relies on the protection by a "thick' atmosphere & temperatures staying in a pretty narrow range most of the time; maybe 0 -100 deg F. Civilization is considered to have started about 10K years ago & temps have stayed in that range. If they get wildly out of that range (like Venus), life on earth as we know it will end.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

Civilization, as defined by literacy, started about 5000 years ago.

Not that that stops any Lefty from referring to Black cultures as "civilizations", and medieval civilizations as not civilizations. Lift up Blacks, tear down Whites: at least there is a clear principle involved!

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

I mentioned NOTHING about race, YOU did! Of the 3 writing systems that developed independently in the Near East, China and Mesoamerica, only the earliest, the Mesopotamian cuneiform script, invented in Sumer, present-day Iraq, c. 3200 BC, can be traced without any discontinuity over a period of 10,000 years, from a prehistoric antecedent to the present-day alphabet.

You can learn a little about early African empires: https://www.history.com/news/7-influential-african-empires

and about the origin of our species (in Africa):

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/july/the-way-we-think-about-the-first-modern-humans-in-africa.html

This is interesting:

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/most-ancient-europeans-had-dark-skin-eyes-and-hair-up-until-3-000-years-ago-new-research-finds

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

And what does that refute? I was pointing out that too many of the people who make assertions about matters of fact cheat a bit in order to slant things their way. In this case, it's slant up for Blacks and down for Whites. "Strict objectivity! Oh wait, we don't believe in objectivity ..." What could possibly go wrong? Maybe consumers of information waking up to the fact that producers of information are trying help themselves, not the public. And maybe some ensuing problems with "credibility"? Ask CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo.

You're not right about spelling systems. You ignored the Cretan system, the Mycenean system, the Dravidian system, and the Indic system (which in some cases shows influences from other systems).

I am not interested in African Empires under Muslim influence. The cultures I have seen referred to as "civilizations" belong largely to the Bantus. By the way, the Bantus are living "stolen land". And hanging their heads in shame every day ...

Expand full comment
NWCitizen's avatar

In my original comment, I was not thinking and I said NOTHING about race. I was talking about climate change. I am not an expert on writing systems but I found a article showing that the precursor to writing went back 10k years. I know a lot about Somali Bantu refugees as I assisted an extended refugee family for several years. The Bantus were the lowest class in Somalia as their ancestors were brought in as slaves so they look like "Africans" while the ethnic Somalis have interbred with Arabs and have straighter hair. This causes them to look down on the Bantus.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

You are really losing it. Whether you thought or asserted X does not refute anything I said. Yet you have twice now made that argument.

Unless an embryonic writing system enabled tax records, it did not enable civilization, which is only possible if writing takes the place of memory. Liter is the "force multiplier" for economic productivity, creating wealth that hunter-gatherers could only dream of.

Nothing you may know about (some) Bantus refutes the proposition that their pre-literate cultures were not civilizations.

Slaves being "looked down on" is the default state. So what was the point of mentioning that?

Along the margins of the Sahara, finding "kinky" hair to the S and straight hair to the N (most notably in Egypt) is itself enough to predict that "intermediate" types" will be found.

Do you think that the Arabs should pay reparations to the Bantus?

Do you think that the Bantus should pay reparations to the Bushmen?

Do you think that Bantus should engage in performative "land acknowledgements" about "stealing" land from the Bushmen?

Expand full comment
Bernadette's avatar

I dislike the use of the term “liberal” to define the left these days. They are so decidedly illiberal that it’s not an accurate term. Progressives is a more accurate term, IMO, and try to use it as such. The irony however, is that most “conservatives “ are more classically liberal than ever because that viewpoint is worth conserving. Let the fringes exist, but at the fringes and not lauded in the mainstream. Is that too much to ask?

Anyway, a lot of Republican voters aren’t partisan like Dem voters, so that’s why you can get a variety of opinions on policies. Many of them won’t even register as Republican because Republicans have let voters down a LOT over the years. The advantage of the Dems position is that no matter how freaking crazy they are, everyone gets in line lockstep. Even the sweet little old ladies at church who have nothing in common with the current Dem party but have voted that way their whole life.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Also, the term "leftist" is good, although it's not very descriptive in itself (Ben Shapiro has said that there's a difference between a liberal and a leftist and he uses each term, depending on the person). I think "progressive" isn't good, because most of their beliefs/ideas are regressive.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

I agree. The fringes on both sides drive political narratives and hurt too many people.

Expand full comment
Bernadette's avatar

Except the Left fringe has the backing of numerous cultural institutions and makes it actually dangerous as opposed to the fringe on the right which is definitely still in the “fringe” zone with hardly any real power.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

Maga is fringe. I’d say it has power at the moment

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Maga isn't fringe. It's for making America great. It's propaganda to claim it's fringe.

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

lol, maga hijacked the Republican Party. It actually really represents only a small fraction of Americans. Maga, and project 2025 started out as good ideas:

1) cut waste in government spending

2) enact common sense enforcement of immigration laws

3) get liberal ideology out of gov. Institutions and schools

And more….

Those are all solid ideas that many Americans endorse but 2025 pushed those ideas and twisted them so much….now it’s gone beyond silly.

I do not hold an optimistic view of what I see

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

What exactly is silly and been "twisted" and how did "2025" do this? What you mentioned in your first points IS MAGA, at least to me and all the people involved that speak about it. I watch and read often every day, so who are you listening to? Which people are straying from original MAGA? (By the way, I don't refer to myself as "MAGA", I call myself a constitutional conservative.)

Expand full comment
Bernadette's avatar

The Left has always been the aggressors in the culture wars, and with the power of Big Media, Big Government, Big Entertainment, and more recently, Big Medicine and Big Business...that's a lot of cultural power to push a fringe narrative on to the public. MAGA is only MAGA because it's a reaction against crazy Leftist policies. It's actually fairly centrist as it proposes to basically return things to the baseline of not too long ago. And, apparently, it's not actually that fringe as it as it has been able to draw people who lean more left into the fold, or at least coalition, for the time being. Feel free to have the last word though. Peace :)

Expand full comment
Brian Abel's avatar

Maga is not center. I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction to institutionalized liberalism but what took a hundred years to be woven into to the fabric of our society cannot be violently removed in just a few radical slashes.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Who's "violently slashing?" GOOD GOD, many departments in the US federal government has grown by 40% since COVID. Can we get back to 2020? Can we cut to then? Is that "violent slashing", when all that's being cut back is "fat", and many times corrupt and graft? Did you know that the Founders wanted a SMALL federal gov and that's what they put in the Constitution?

Expand full comment
Terry Kayser's avatar

The left is “gone”, all the way, the lights are on but nobody is home, certifiably delusional, mass psychosis on a societal scale, may they never again control the levers of power.

Expand full comment
Ruth H's avatar

Hopefully never will again.

Expand full comment
David White's avatar

It is how nasty they are that almost guarantees they are going to win.

Expand full comment
Suzie's avatar

Just register as an Independent, and make both sides fight for your vote.

Expand full comment
Dr. K's avatar

In many states, this prevents you from voting in EITHER primary.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

With good reason - for many decades, the underhanded, unethical, cut-throat Democrats would vote in the Republican primaries for the least-likely-to-be-voted-for Republican candidate, so that later, their Democrat would win in the general election.

Expand full comment
Kay Fearon's avatar

But note if you do that, only one side tries to win your vote. The Democrats are a party of entitlement. They just don’t learn.

Expand full comment
HL3's avatar

Except she said she will never vote a democrat ever again.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

If this helps, most people in the party now are not Romney-Ryan-McCain Republicans.

Too many still don't understand the Laffer Curve. You can cut taxes too much. You need to redistribute to have a middle class that can consume goods.

But it's not the GOP of 2012, for sure.

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

"You need to redistribute to have a middle class that can consume goods."

The middle class wasn't built on redistribution, the welfare class was. The middle class is built on hard work, reasonable taxation, access to capital at reasonable rates, and limited regulations. The problem has been redistribution of wealth and that usually means the wealth of the middle class.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

The middle class was built on K-12 education, roads, sanitation, and medical insurance.

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

That was policy, not redistribution.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

How was the policy paid for?

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

Through taxation, but that does not validate your claim that the middle class was made by redistribution. There is tax efficiency and redistribution. Tax efficiency focuses on minimizing distortions and maximizing economic growth, redistribution aims to reduce income inequality by reallocating resources from the wealthier tax payers to the poor.

Tax efficiency is often seen as a means to stimulate economic growth. When taxes are levied in a way that minimizes market distortions and allows individuals and businesses to keep a larger share of their income, it can incentivize work, investment, and innovation. This can lead to higher productivity, job creation, and overall economic prosperity. You get your middle class. Proponents of tax efficiency argue that by fostering a favorable business environment, it attracts investment and encourages entrepreneurship, resulting in higher tax revenues in the long run.

Redistribution aims to address income inequality and provide a safety net for those who are less fortunate. It seeks to ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities, healthcare, education, and other essential services. Some may refer to this as welfare.

I think you and I are on the same wave length I just disagree that redistribution is the reason for the middle class.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

Tax is redistribution.

Marxism is terrible prescription for the flaws of capitalism. But it is a wonderful diagnosis of its biggest problem: left unchecked, the capital will end up in the hands of the very few.

A society where most people are working class rather than middle class is a stunted society that will not reach its full growth potential. Healthy economies need a middle class with purchasing power. When people don't have to pay for schools, roads, sanitation and pensions, they have purchasing power.

Healthy economies also need genuinely competitive markets. Competitive markets drive down prices. This frees up resources for consumers to spend on other goods and services. That doesn’t happen when a handful of conglomerates control all the key markets.

So, we must get the capital out of the hands of the few by redistributing with marginal tax rates.

Arthur Laffer has become a joke (no pun intended) because he doesn't believe in the back half of his curve. The front half shows what happens when marginal tax rates are too high. The back half shows government revenue collapses and so does the middle class if you don't use tax to redistribute.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

This is a good discussion, btw.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

I live in one of the highest taxed states (it's very "blue"), but my K-12 education was shite, my roads currently are worse than Mogadishu and I've been screwed by medical insurance (and ACA made it worse) and have had the best healing by way of alternative medicine and by way of my own research, which insurance doesn't cover or pay for.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

Kind of explains what's gone wrong in this country and why the middle class has collapsed since the Bush tax cut.

"Free trade" didn't help.

Expand full comment
Cat C.'s avatar

Yes, the Bush tax cuts were mostly bad. Trump's were mostly good and doing good until COVID hit.

Expand full comment
Dims Stink's avatar

I was not a fan of the Trump tax cut. Only part I liked was the $10K cap on the muni tax deduction. Good attack on Dim cities.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of massive taxation. But I think we're well into the left side of the Laffer Curve.

Social Security should have been secured 25 years ago and it's not.

Expand full comment
Michael Stevens's avatar

The whole point of being conservative is to maintain your free will, basic rights and right to property and king or queen of your castle. Dont confuse it with fringe Republican neocon stuff

Expand full comment
Lynn Barton's avatar

You can be whoever you want to be. I'm a fan.

Expand full comment
erniet's avatar

You know, I grew up in California when it was a red state. Reagan was the first president I voted for in 1984. But I couldn't bring myself to vote for George Bush in 1992...not because of his raising taxes, but because of the way he kow-towed to the religious right (I wrote in Ralph Nader in protest). I formally left the Republican Party when Gingrich became speaker of the House...that man epitomizes the D.C. swamp and basically everything Pelosi did as Speaker she learned by watching Gingrich. The Republicans back then were vapid...Paul Ryan was held up as some sort of great Party intellect when all he did was repeat Grover Nordquist talking points about tax cuts solving every ill in society. The Republicans cared less about policy and more about getting Republican butts in Congress. Sound familiar?

As a long time Independent who voted for Trump twice now, I'm not a supporter of Republicans. I'm anti-Democrat. I view the election of Trump NOT as an endorsement of Republicans, but as a rejection of the Democratic Party (which is far worse than the 1990s Republican Party). If it was an endorsement of Republicans the election would have been a blowout since the Democrats are bereft of both policy and sanity.

Republicans need to be careful because they can blow it by thinking winning equals liking what they're doing. Sometimes winning is about your opponent being the worse choice. If Republicans want people to endorse them they need to stay focused on what the public wants. Otherwise...well, believe it or not Democrats could be back in power as early as 2026....

Expand full comment
Mad Dog's avatar

Come to the MAGA side, Sasha. We have guns...and cookies.

Expand full comment