DSA Co-Chair Goes All In on Abolishing ICE, Senate
What Romer did make clear is that these are not smears against the DSA are invented by political opponents. They are their stated, confirmed positions.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are done hiding the ball.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, DSA co-chair Megan Romer was handed a list of the group’s positions and asked for a simple true-or-false answer on each one. She confirmed nearly all of them without qualification. The few she hedged, she hedged only on timing.
DSA Co-Chair Megan Romer confirms their platform includes:
– Abolishing the Senate, presidency, & Supreme Court
– Abolishing ICE, borders, & prisons
– Defunding the Pentagon
– Mass amnesty for illegals pic.twitter.com/rPQiT9HCXN— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 26, 2026
BREAM: So we’re going to put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform, and I want to ask you, just give me sort of a true or false on these. Abolish the Senate?
ROMER: True.
BREAM: Okay. Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them?
ROMER: Yep.
BREAM: Abolish ICE?
ROMER: Absolutely.
BREAM: Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the U.S. illegally?
ROMER: As a long-term plan, yep.
BREAM: Defund the Pentagon?
ROMER: Absolutely.
BREAM: Abolish prisons, at least in large part?
ROMER: Yeah, again, as part of a long-term program, yeah.
BREAM: Okay, so no prisons. Government or public ownership of most large corporations?
ROMER: Yeah, absolutely.
That was not a Republican’s description of the DSA platform. It came straight from the group’s co-chair.
Bream then noted that some senators support DSA and asked whether those allies would lose their jobs under the group’s plan. Romer went after the Senate itself.
“The Senate is an anachronistic institution, and it comes from the British House of Lords. It is meant to protect power. You know, the Senate was part of the system that was made to make sure that the people didn’t have too much of a say. So we want to expand the Congress significantly, but make it a unicameral legislature.”
Romer’s history lesson was wrong. The Senate has nothing to do with the House of Lords. It was created at the Constitutional Convention as part of the Great Compromise, which paired population-based representation in the House with equal representation for every state in the Senate. Critically, Article V of the Constitution provides that no state may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, making abolition effectively impossible through the normal amendment process. Small states would never ratify it. Getting rid of the Senate would not just require a constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states; it would require the very states that benefit most from the current arrangement to vote themselves out of it.
She offered no details about what DSA would put in place of the presidency or Supreme Court, how the country would enforce immigration law without ICE or borders, or what would happen after the government took control of most large corporations.
What Romer did make clear is that these are not smears invented by political opponents. They are the stated, confirmed positions of the organization’s own co-chair, offered freely on national television. The constitutional obstacles are real and significant. Whether the political will to pursue them is growing is a different question entirely.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Fat, stupid, envious, ugly…the DSA’s poster porker.
And a woman
You sure?
Or a facsimile thereof.
Looks like she’s “all in” at the Golden Corral buffet as well.
“Son, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.” — Dean Wormer
I feel certain that the pig that provided the bacon I had with scrambled eggs and rye toast this AM had less girth and a higher IQ than Ms. Romer.
If the DSA was ever to obtain power and enact their agenda this country would cease to exist within 3 months,
She is a fat stupid ugly ignorant porker.
Completely moronic ideas spouted by an ahistorical idiot. I am from RI and I completely get the point of both the senate/ house compromise and the electoral college. I personally don’t want CA and NY controlling the whole country. These fools simply want all the power for themselves. They are salivating at the idea of turning us into Venezuela or Cuba based on what their communist economics professor taught them at insert shitty overpriced college here.
The democrats in small states don’t care since the party decides everything. As evidence I give you their efforts to elect the president by popular vote instead of through the electoral college.
So what shall be done with these traitors to the Constitution? How can they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Spicy times!
They’re not traitors. Why should they not swear such an oath? They’re not calling for the constitution to be violently overthrown. They’re proposing radical amendments, exactly as the constitution provides.
I don’t think they’ll get the required votes or states to ratify their “beliefs.”
Time will tell….
Yes, their proposals are very unlikely to pass. That doesn’t mean they can’t propose them.
The Socialist Party’s program from 1910 or thereabouts ended up being passed almost in its entirety over the next few decades, a little at a time.
Are we doing the “let’s downvote Milhouse!” thing again? His analysis is correct. They propose changing the system through the amendment process. What bothers me isn’t so much that we’re down voting an analysis we don’t like as much as PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR THESE PEOPLE.
Milhouse,
I am extremely surprised at your response here. What the DSA and other socialist groups around the world always try to sound so reasonable and peaceful, then when they get some kind of foothold in power, that’s when the violence, oppression, and evil begin. The platform they espouse is the complete destruction of the US, it is evil whether it is wrapped in violence like ANTIFA, or ‘peacefully’ presented as the DSA leadership does in a public forum like this. The state of California is a perfect example of a one-party state, and the damage the socialists/communists have done to the people there, and to the US as a whole.
I’m wondering if you have ever heard anything about the recent doings in Nicaragua, where Daniel Ortega has decided there will be no more elections, and no more political dissent from his rule.
These people are evil, they are a threat to take control of the Democratic Party, and they will make a run at setting up a dictatorship in this country. I’m not sure why you consider them so harmless.
noway, socialism is inherently evil. But it is not inherently treasonous.
And there’s nothing even socialist about proposing radical reforms to the US constitution; it just means someone thinks the people who framed and ratified it got it badly wrong, and that he is smarter and better educated than them. Which is unlikely, but it’s a free country so people are free to think such things. And to tell everyone else about it, so people know what fools they are.
Milhouse, I agree with you that talking about or believing in socialism it is not inherently treasonous. However, the DSA is much more than a group that is peacefully working for change. The organization has discussed using violence, it is blatantly anti-semitic, and along with its fellow-travelers will not hesitate to use violence when it is able to further the path to their long-term goals.
When such a list of goals is shared, in the manner that they are shared, they are a group that is getting close to becoming a major threat. I am sure you know enough about Marx and/or the history of the Soviet Union (or even France after the First World War) to know how destructive their platform is.
These people are not trustworthy, and need to be squashed politically, or by police action when appropriate.
noway, as I said before, socialism is inherently evil. That’s all we need to condemn them. We don’t need to falsely accuse them of treason as well. Doing so only puts us in the wrong.
I am not aware of the DSA ever proposing violence, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it if given the opportunity. They have an evil ideology, and one that historically usually does end in blood.
Milhouse you are correct with your words and observation. Those words she used and what they mean is what brings anyone’s blood to the boiling point. They are the words of a political party that wants to subjugate Americans to their communist power grab.
They are calling for the Constitution to be overthrown. No need for you to add the adverb “violently.” Fact is, violently or not, they do want to overturn it. Your denying that makes you as unsavory as they are.
No, they are not. They are calling for it to be AMENDED. That is not overturning it, even if it’s amended beyond all recognition. The amendment process is PART of it, and the oath to support the constitution refers only to protecting it from VIOLENT overthrow. Otherwise everyone who ever voted for an amendment, including the founders themselves, would be violating their oaths!
Dear God
They are, actually, calling for the Constitution to be overthrown.
They’d prefer we just give up, but, if needed, they’ll close their eyes and flail at us.
See, Democrat, it doesn’t need that ‘violent’ you threw in there to be treason.
Shut your filthy mouth and go away, you evil demon from Hell. You are worse than the DSA.
They are trying to get into a position where they can grift as much as humanly possible in a short period of time. The huge uptick in their activity is a reaction to The Donald cutting off much of the federal grift. They were expecting 4 more years of Kamala and the same old same old. Things are getting tense in Portland now as they are having to fight over a diminishing pool of money, and those who supported free preschool (taxpayer funded marxist indoctrination of 3yo, to be more accurate) are apoplectic that the other grifters are trying to tap into that $500M reserve that has been built up, and is now receding as the high income people move away.
If any DSA candidate that hold this party platform is elected, they should NOT be sworn in, as they are not upholding the constitution. So.e may say amendments etc are part of the process, but to flat out deconstruct the constitution is not the same. Some on this page need to read the section that indicates this nation will be a Republic. What the DSA wants is not that, plain and clear.
No, do NOT swear them as they have indicted their platform is to not uphold the constitution, but spread it to pieces.
If a candidate is properly elected, and is at least 25 years old, has been a citizen for at least seven years, and on election day lived somewhere in the same state as their district, then the speaker has no choice about swearing them in. It is not optional.
Ironically, what you are proposing is exactly what you’re accusing them of! You are openly spitting on the constitution and saying we should ignore it and violate it, just because you don’t like an election result. They’re not doing that, they’re just proposing radical amendments.
Fine. Swear them in on the Bible and when they fail to uphold their oath to the Constitution, remove them from office.
Requiring them to swear on a Bible, a book they don’t believe in, is both unconstitutional and stupid. The constitution specifically does NOT require an oath, and it never mentions a Bible.
And there is nothing in the oath that precludes calling for radical amendments.
Also, removing a congressman requires a 2/3 vote of their house; that’s impossible to achieve if their own party supports them.
How can they be sworn in to uphold the constitution, the very object they want to deconstruct?! Get a grip, man. This is our future at stake.
What needs to happen, and what will happen, with the spineless representation that currently exists, are unfortunately two different things. I won’t be holding my breath.
The constitution REQUIRES them to be sworn or affirmed, and to refuse to do so is unconstitutional, which is exactly what you’re accusing them of. So YOU are the one not supporting the constitution, while all they’re saying is that they want to amend it, which is exactly what the constitution says.
Did they chum her with candy?
A profoundly ugly (within and without), evil and stupid slag.
At every opportunity, Dems should be asked to defend the DSA and each of its objectives.
Romer is correct. The framers got the idea of a bicameral legislature directly from the UK. The compromise merely guided them on how to structure the upper house, not on whether to have one in the first place.
If the senate only exists because of the compromise, and without it Congress would have had only one chamber, then explain why all 13 colonies also went with bicameral legislatures, and why to this day 49 out of 50 states have bicameral legislatures, even though no state is the result of any such compromise or arrangement. Obviously the states have bicameral legislatures because that’s the legacy we inherited from Westminster, and therefore the US Congress would also have ended up with two chambers even without the compromise, but the senate would have looked more like the state upper houses do.
I’d add that there is a heritage from Sparta also.
Sparta’s constitution is not an ancestor of ours. The UK’s is its direct parent.
I had a hunch you would say that which is why this is sort of an ambush, I am so glad that you have a far better knowledge of the antiquities than one of the top scholars in the world …. Victor Davis Hanson. In a recent discussion about the origins of the Constitution (and not as Burn’s states… the Iroquois nations) he mentioned that a foundation of the Constitution extends back past the Romans to Sparta. Rome chose the Spartan model over Athenian democracy. The UK didn’t arrive out of whole cloth nor is ours totally from the UK, and each stands on the shoulders of older states. Words like “democracy” and “senate” are not words created anew in France or England…. I didn’t know of the connection to Sparta until I listened and then read up on Spartan government. Quite interesting.
Here is a basic lecture dealing with Sparta, Athens and Rome. It picks up with Rome at 13:50 incorporating the best of the former… particularly the tripartite structure of Sparta with essentially executive, legislative and judicial branches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVxB7tzSwn4
And then how the Founders went about the same…. not copy and paste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siDkGU1uVHg&t=4447s
VDH is a national treasure.
The purpose of the Senate was to provide each State equal representation (as nominally-sovereign geopolitical entities) at the federal level, specifically so that the States would be able to protect and defend their own prerogatives from the “popular sentiments” that would arise in the House. The 17th Amendment disabled the States’ ability to defend themselves in the Congress and both chambers are now responsive to the same constituents – the people. The Senate is no longer able to perform its primary mission of protecting the States from encroachment by federal authority (as it was understood by the Constitution’s authors that popular sentiments in the House would gradually demand the centralization of power, leading the federal government to become a central government – exactly the situation we find ourselves in today). This is why States must today sue the federal government to protect themselves from federal overreach – they no longer are able to protect themselves in the legislative process because they are no longer represented there (except in name only). Today the Senate is only able to perform its (intended) nugatory purpose (the entire system of “checks and balances” was meant to be a succession of potential negatives on federal legislation and actions) when it is controlled by a party other than that which controls the House.
A battle over the existence of the Senate might be good. It could lead to a counter-proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Dave,
1. That was not the purpose of the senate. It was the reason the senate is structured as it is, but there would have been a bicameral legislature anyway, for the same reason that all the original states have one, and so do 36 of the 37 new states.
2. The 17th amendment didn’t change anything. The senators still represent their states, not the people at large. The whole point of the constitution in the first place was that a state consists of its people, not of its legislature. So the senators were always supposed to represent their states’ people, not their states’ legislatures. The legislatures were supposed to act on behalf of the people; the 17a just eliminates the middle man.
I am continually astounded at how people can claim that before the 17a the states were able to defend themselves in the Congress and now they are not. How do you think that works? If a senator was acting against his state’s interest, i.e. against the interest of his state’s people, what could the legislature do before the 17a that the people can’t do after it? In both cases the only recourse was and remains to vote for someone else next time.
Your position would only make sense if there had been a provision for recall before the 17a, and the 17a eliminated it. But that’s not true.
As you well know the UK’s upper chamber is the House of Lords whose members were original hereditary peers but are now both hereditary and politically appointed life peers. Ours is Senate whose members were originally appointed by the States and are now elected by the populace. They are not exactly the same. Who can vote has also changed in this country and likely in the UK as well.
No one said they were exactly the same. But the reason the USA has a bicameral legislature is because the UK has one. That the USA would have had one even without the compromise is easily seen by the fact that 49 out 50 states have one too, and those are not the result of any compromise.
Damn. Missed the close blockquote. It should go before “That’s not quite true.”
“Getting rid of the Senate would not just require a constitutional amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states; it would require the very states that benefit most from the current arrangement to vote themselves out of it.”
Do you see the danger of ever allowing a con-con, constitutional convention?
It would be the last one.
https://jbs.org/concon/
A convention would be no more powerful than the current Congress. It could only propose amendments, just as Congress can today, and they’d still have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.
But the equal representation in the senate clause can be bypassed by amending it in two stages. Article 5 first, and then Article 1.
Yeah, that’s what the “Articles of Confederation” states thought when they sent their guys to the first one.
Balderdash. “Consent” means consent. You can not have consented to removing your representation in the Senate if it imposed on you by 38 other states.
It doesn’t matter. 2/3 of each house, and 38 states, can amend Article 5 to remove that restriction. Then they can amend Article 1 without the other 12 states’ consent.
The Constitution says “… no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Although ratification of an amendment requires only the approval of three-fourths of the States, the cited section of the Constitution changes the rules when the States’ suffrage in the Senate is the issue.
The “equal suffrage” clause appears in Article V, concerning amendments, so it’s obvious that the clause refers to loss of suffrage via the amendment process. (It couldn’t possibly refer to legislative process because States’ suffrage in the Senate was determined by the Constitution, precluding a legislative process capable of depriving a State of its equal suffrage in the Senate.) The clause creates an exception to the amendment process, so the process must be interpreted in such a way that the equal suffrage clause and the process don’t conflict. There is only one way to do this – require every State’s ratification of an amendment that would cause the reduction or loss of its suffrage in the Senate.
Why did I say “reduction or loss of its suffrage”? States that rejected the 17th amendment were deprived of their “suffrage in the Senate” without their consent. But were they deprived of their “equal suffrage,” because all States were equally deprived? Possibly not. However, the purpose of the word “equal” can’t be ignored here. If the authors had failed to interject the word “equal” the clause would have prevented the complete loss of a State’s representation in the Senate without its consent, but it would have allowed a reduction in the number of its senators. Interjection of the word “equal” allows the clause to accomplish three objectives – it prevents the reduction of a State’s representation in the Senate from two senators to one, it prevents the complete loss of a States’ representation from two senators to none, and it prevents the increase in the representation of some States while that of others remains the same.
Taken in its totality, one of the purposes of the clause is to prevent exactly what the 17th Amendment was intended to accomplish – the reduction of a State’s suffrage in the Senate from two senators to none. Therefore, the use of the word “equal” presents no bar to the argument that the “suffrage” clause required the 17th Amendment’s ratification by every State.
If the authors of the Constitution had thought for a second that the word would be used to justify the destruction of the linchpin of the Republic, they almost certainly would have used other language to accomplish the same objectives. For instance, “…no State, without its Consent, shall suffer the partial or complete loss of its suffrage in the Senate, nor shall the representation of any State in the Senate be increased without a similar increase the representation of every other State.” And this is exactly what the current language means.
And what state, let alone 38, would sign off on such a suicide pact? Certainly no state that is of sparse population would give up voluntarily the equal footing they have with two senators, the same as any large populated state. Utter nonsense.
Dave, you’re babbling. None of what you write makes any sense.
The 17a did not deprive states of anything. Each state has two senators representing its people, exactly as was the case before the 17a. The state is not its legislature; it never was. The legislature was always supposed to elect senators to represent the state’s people.
And none of this has to do with the point, which is that Article 5 is itself subject to amendment. Including the clause that prevents amendment of the states’ equal representation in the senate. There is no reason that 2/3 of each house, plus 38 state legislatures, can’t remove that clause. Except of course that they wouldn’t want to.
Probably a government responsible to the House of Representatives, like most democracies.
I would imagine the HoR would simply not have any limits on what it can do.
Simple; they wouldn’t. If there are no borders then there can’t be any immigration laws. For almost all of its first century the USA had no immigration laws, and it’s notable that the constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate immigration. The founders left that out because they didn’t want any such laws; when Congress did enact them the Supreme Court of the time was anything but originalist, and approved them on the grounds that controlling immigration is an “inherent” power that didn’t need to be specified.
“The founders left that out because they didn’t want any such laws.”
Please point me the direction to find this!
Federalist Papers?
The fact that they didn’t include it among Congress’s enumerated powers means they didn’t want Congress making such laws. As far as I know, no one even proposed giving Congress such a power. It was not on anyone’s horizon.
Congress was given power over naturalization. It was also given power over international commerce, which from 1808 would include the importation of persons as items in such commerce. But immigration as such (i.e. the immigration of free people) was seen as a matter for the states: “such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit”. Congress could neither regulate nor tax it, even after 1808.
Except for the pesky little Congressional Power to ‘establish a uniform rule of Naturalization’. We can quibble and pretend that ‘immigration’ isn’t subsumed by this explicit power … but that’s a real stretch.
Immigration wasn’t a problem in the early years because we had plenty of room and the immigrants were essential for expansion. It didn’t get to be a real problem until LBJ.
Naturalization has nothing to do with immigration. Far from that being a stretch, claiming that the power over naturalization includes somewhere in its penumbra a power over immigration is not even a stretch, it’s outright dishonesty. No one actually believes such a thing, because it’s impossible to believe it.
Plenty of people immigrate with no intention of ever becoming naturalized. There’s never an expectation that an immigrant will be naturalized. Suppose Congress (before the 14th amendment) were to have decided that Chinese can’t be naturalized; that would not in any way have prevented states from allowing Chinese to immigrate, with no expectation of ever becoming citizens.
It’s clear that the original plan was for the states to decide whom to admit, and then for Congress to decide who can be naturalized. The supreme court that decided Congress has an inherent power over immigration was simply not originalist, and didn’t care that this wasn’t the original plan.
The real question is whether originalists today ought to do anything that that, or let sleeping dogs lie. After more than a century of federal control over immigration I’d be reluctant to change that. I’d rather amend the constitution to ratify what SCOTUS did ~150 years ago.
Interesting take. Is there any evidence that the States actually controlled their borders, especially borders with Canada or Mexico?
Note that Congress “provides” (that is, appropriates money) for the “common defense.” But the actual “defense” is an Executive function. “Common” defense also means the defense of all the States, together, against external enemies. Logically, this means “defense of international borders.” In turn, this makes control of those borders an executive function as well.
As you know, open borders allow foreign agents, human traffickers, and sundry common criminals to enter the country without challenge. So although “immigration” may not be a federal issue, “border control” certainly can be when considered as part of the “common defense” of the Union member States from external threats. I don’t believe the Constitution anywhere suggests that all such threats must be military in nature. Certainly, we recognize today that immigration control is a matter of national security. As such, it is a federal issue under the federal government’s responsibility for the “common defense.”
Texas Rangers worked the Rio Grande since 1836. Many historical Rangers cut their teeth dealing with bandidos.
There are some stories about Arizona Rangers also.
“Probably a government responsible to the House of Representatives, like most democracies.”
I would say not quite. Most “democracies” have a parliamentary structure. The leader of the country, the Prime Minister, is the head of the party with the most seats in the legislature, The construction of the government may require the participation of other parties if they don’t have a majority of seats.
Yes the PM is technically accountable to the legislature since they can bring down the government by a no confidence vote. However, if the PM’s party has a majority of seats the PM is effective accountable to their party.
DSA would likely implement such a system if they won and achieved their constitutional goals. Of course once they obtained a majority they would move into an authoritarian mode by banning all other parties. Show elections would be kept with everyone being required by law to vote to give a false veneer of authenticity,
That’s what the term “responsible government” means. And it’s probably what the DSA is advocating; an executive that is responsible to the unicameral legislature, just like in most democracies.
Responsible government is the model that the founders had before them. It was the default that they inherited from the UK. But they rejected it, and decided to have a separately elected executive. So did all the states.
Just my own observation, but I’m noticing that in many many cases, the women on the left are not at all attractive, and many of the men on the left, seem to be effeminate anf are not very attractive either.
I have heard many of those men actually like big butts, and cannot lie.
The Part of Plug Uglies.
That isn’t entirely true, given the fact that most of the entertainment industry is ultra-left – but it did give rise to Rush’s observation that politics is show business for the ugly.
Did anyone hear one word or question that tried to ask what would happen if all the things she said took place? Of course not, Bream belongs teaching a Sunday school class not asking hard hitting questions. As for the fat oger, she would the be the first to cry wolf when she got mugged but there would be no one to h elp her fat ass. I don’t care for Megan Kelly any longer but she would have torn a new one is this whale. Even Martha MacCallum would have done a better job than Bream. She always allows the leftists to spout off their entire program without one word of disbelief or challange.
Communism & Socialism: Promises of utopia, uttered by the treacherous to the foolish and gullible, in order to pave the way to their own eventual dictatorship.
The outcome of both is still the same, just the means of getting there is different: at the end of a gun, or the outcome of a (corrupted) election.
Daniel Ortega has recently solved that last problem. There will be no more corrupted elections in Nicaragua.
Let’s get some.e popcorn & watch that tragedy unfold.
It’s just the fable of the frog & the scorpion all over again.
The only reason we have the dsa is the last 40+ years of public school and academic rot. No civics lessons. Distortion of American history in public school text books. Teachers unions hijacked by socialists/communists. School boards hijacked by awfl’s. Bizarre people accredited as teachers. Professors and assistants with socialist/communist bias constantly shutting down debate and retaliating against wrong thought. Student loan debt that turns young people into indentured servants of the government. And people wonder why the young flock to the dsa.
Nah, we had people like this even when people knew what they were talking about. The Socialist Party was huge 100 years ago.
And, at lease Eugene V. Debs could express himself in full, declarative sentences.
Yep. Debs and other socialist/commies of their day went to prison for their era’s anti Western Civ/USA is always the bad guy = speech/actions to today’s oppressor/colonialism/DEI/CRT, BLM/antifa mob actions/violence. Debs conviction was upheld unanimously by SCOTUS.
Huge 100 years ago…where, how huge is huge?
The Socialist Party of America reached its peak in 1912, with a membership of 113,000 members. By way of contrast US population in 1913 was abour 97M with about 10M to 12M available to vote.
That would place the Socialists of 1912 at about 1% of the voting population and about 0.1% of of the total population. I wonder how the DSA fares against the current population?
I am answering my own question. The DSA is approximately 0.05% of the eligible voting (not just the registered to vote) population and about 0.04% of the total population of the United States. They sure do have a lot of bluster.
113,000 dues-paying members. How many did the Republican and Democrat parties have? Did they ever charge dues?
They also got 6% of the presidential vote, elected two members of congress, dozens of mayors, and hundreds of city councilors, and published hundreds of newspapers and magazines. That’s huge.
Anything not actively conservative, will back slide to the left. Political entropy.
Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics:
Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.
Door #2 please.
This law was not formulated by Conquest but by John O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan called it his “first law”, in anticipation that he might one day come up with a second one, but in the 36 years since he has not done so, and he’s not getting any younger.
Conquest’s second law is “The behavior of an organization can best be predicted by assuming it to be controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”
Ms Romer is a Tompkins County native. Interview her Mr Jacobson.
I find it impossible to pity these communist morons. They’re a victim of their own creation and they damn well deserve it.
But we don’t
Take the troglodyte’s remarks with a grain of salt. She’s just another automaton with answers at the ready. She doesn’t really know what she’s saying and if pressed for an explanation would have an AOC moment. It’s all theatre to make the other room go crazy; such crazy is good, as long as there’s rejection built into the crazy.
Abolish your refrigerator, you fat hunk of lard.
Defeated Ozempic in round one…
You can bring on a child and have essentially the same conversation. Abolish spinach? Yes! Abolish school? Yes!
However, if one votes for the child, who now is the emotionally immature human?
Free Ice Cream for everyone!
Brandon: Well, I’ll be a happy dog faced pony soldier!
I have a counter proposal. Leave the country now, or leave the planet soon.
In either case, you will have assistance.
Between people like her and the tweakers who steal it for the calories, I am grateful whenever I can find a pint of HD in the store. And only a matter of time before Fourbux starts selling Big Gulp sized Frappachinos (aka, coffee flavored milkshake).
Oh yeah, MOB RULE. That’s worked as well as socialism.
I have a take on this that is heretical. If faced with a socialist government give me the CCP over these stupid ignorant idiotic home grown socialists many if whom have never had a job or only a government or trade union job. At least China has some elements of capitalism and private ownership. Our numskulls would squash that. It also does not tolerate corruption and has no problem disappearing those who engage in it regardless of who they are,
Does China have open borders? Hell NO.
Does China have prisons? Hell YES
Does China have a military? God yes and it is expanding rapidly.
Does China care about a Green New Deal? Hell NO
China is both imperialistic and colonialist although the left hates both China will do what it thinks is best for China. So I’d rather not have Socialism but if there is no choice give me Xi the Pooh over Sanders, AOC, Piker, the NYC turd, and the hippo.
All communism is is political organized crime. Socialism is just a softer version of the same.
as an undergrad, I was a chemistry major/math minor and avoided all Gov, Hist, Econ courses like the plague.
I am more than happy to listen to/read fine minds argue the background and points I eschewed all those many years ago, having now found the time to fully read without pressure and understand for the most part the documents that led to and originated the founding of our country.
I,Also at this late stage, I find myself delirious with joy, that I never ever had the inclination to become a lawyer