The left still has their "tax (R) voters, give to our clients" structure, the right has no replacement structure.
-
Show this thread
-
This points at the fundamental problem. The left has a program - rob the (R) voters to transfer the resources to their voters (plus sadistically hurting (R) voters because you've instilled a hatred for them to make you plan easier) The right has a program - defend against this
2 replies 2 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
I'd say the (R) weakness is applying limited government principles to both state and federal governments. At the federal level it's good, as if you can't ever control the presidency it's best to gridlock and make federal gov impotent. However, at the state level, it limited...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus @CovfefeAnon
government makes the state very vulnerable to federal pressures. More dependent on federal aid. Ultimately, the best (R) model going forward is weak federal and strong state. Aside from dissolution, what else can a minority do?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus @CovfefeAnon
For example, look at banking. Look at all the social engineering banks want to do, banning people for saying the wrong things, banning them for buying weapons, et cetera. If a right-wing bank cannot offer services it is up to a right-wing state to offer these services.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus
You're wrong if you're modeling it as the banks wanting to do those things rather than the progressive egregore wanting to do those things and the progressive egregore having partial control over the banks. The market destroys ProgBank but if the egregore takes over all banks...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
No, I think that's exactly why no explicitly "right-wing" bank has appeared. Anyway, I'm just setting an example. Free Market Traditionalism are like chains for the contemporary right. And they will sacrifice everything trying to preserve it at this rate. Furthermore...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus @CovfefeAnon
More state owned companies and institutions make dissolution easier. The goal should be less dependence on the federal for everything, such that dissolution of the union can be de facto before it is de jure.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus @CovfefeAnon
The problem is boomer governance in all the states still have the belief within them that taking back control is one election away. They have to resign themselves that liberty is not one election away but, through fortify the states that they do control.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CryptonMaximus @CovfefeAnon
Which is the great irony here. Were any of the American Founder's traditionalists? Culturally yes, but government wise? No. They weren't, they reject what like hundreds of years of monarchy? NRx can even view them as leftists.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Knowing that it failed utterly they consciously modeled their government on the Roman Republic.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
I wouldn't necessarily call the Roman Republic a failure. I mean every single type of government failed by that standard. It had a much longer run that what the US will have.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.