[VID] Why do Tyrants Get Reelected? w/ Thomas Massie

[CaptUSA]

[CaptUSA]

Interesting point that Massie mentions...

The slimmest of majorities in the House is probably a blessing in disguise. Now, nearly every congresscritter has veto power over any partisan bill. Party line votes will be hard unless each member is satisfied.

[Anti Federalist]

Why do Tyrants Get Reelected?

Because freedom is not popular.

What we just saw was a pretty significant sign of "The Great Re-Alignment".

"Reds" are voting with their feet.

Insert Mike Malice's tweet about the nation's "self segregation proceeding as planned", here.

@Occum's Banana

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Great video discussion

[donnay]

Because the tyrants count the votes. It's the illusion that your vote counts.

[Anti Globalist]

Because the people who vote for them are incredibily stupid/tyrants themselves.

[Occam's Banana]

Because freedom is not popular.

What we just saw was a pretty significant sign of "The Great Re-Alignment".

"Reds" are voting with their feet.

Insert Mike Malice's tweet about the nation's "self segregation proceeding as planned", here.

@Occum's Banana

https://twitter.com/search?q=growing...d_query&f=live

[Brian4Liberty]

Why Do Tyrants Get Reelected? | Guest: Rep. Thomas Massie | Ep 202

Matt Kibbe is joined by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to discuss the results of the recent midterm election. Many people were expecting Democrats to take a beating after COVID lockdowns, a weak economy, and record inflation, but for the most part, this didn’t happen. There are several explanations for this, including a number of lackluster Republican candidates and failure to sufficiently convince voters that Republicans would govern more responsibly. After all, many of the problems Americans now face started under a Republican president. If Republicans want to win in the future, they need to stand for something tangible. This is why Ron DeSantis had a good night, while moderate Republicans like Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker struggled. There’s also a conversation to be had about the role of Donald Trump in the GOP’s future, after many of his endorsements appeared to do more harm than good.

[osan]

Why?

Because humans.

[osan]

Because the tyrants count the votes. It's the illusion that your vote counts.

That's only a partial cause. The broader issue is the human animal, so easily taking to corruption.

The mean man is rotten to his marrow. I know this is not a very flattering view, but one can judge only by the results, and those are net spectacular decay. We are the cause on both ends of the spectrum. On the positive end, we have the scoundrels not just of "government", but those who actively and with much salivation support said scoundrels. Those are the active criminals.

On the negative side we have the rest who, through inaction, enable the felons by tacitly approving their crimes. These are by far the worse of the two, and they are the vast majority of humanity. They are walking, breathing obscenities, and most of us fall into that category.

This is not to say that there are no good men, but we can say by all means that there are not enough of them. After all, good men also have families and, for lack of a better way of putting it, something to lose. Why should they risk all for the sake of a vast majority who are not collectively worth the cardboard match with which their hundreds of millions of gasoline-soaked bodies would be set to living blaze in one motion? This is especially valid when one realizes that there is currently no hope of prevailing precisely because armies of one have no chance against the seemingly endless legions of corrupt and IMO utterly worthless humanity who have at best allowed the world to be set to wrack and ruin insofar as our liberties are concerned. Small contingents are swatted like flies as a vast plurality cheer and applaud most thunderously.

I have mentioned this before and I will repeat it regardless of rolling eyeballs: I fully understand, and in many ways agree with the globalist view of the bulk of humanity as being nothing better than Kissinger's "useless eaters". If a man will not assert his claims (rights), then he has no basis for complaint when the Man tramples him. It is not that I wish terrible fates for these people, but I simply cannot in all reason get it up to shed a tear for their destruction. Is that destruction a horrific thing? Certainly it is, and when it comes I will not be able to help myself but to shed that tear because at that point logic will have lost most of its significance, leaving nothing but the raw emotions to deal with that dolorous reality. But because people will not stand up for what is theirs, logic barring all emotion leads one to see that those people get what they get as the consequence of having cared insufficiently for themselves to do what was necessary to preserve their rights.

A right unasserted or undefended is a right nonexistent. Rights do not exist in sé. They must be made manifest through assertion, and maintained via active defense. The sad truth of humanity is that there are far too many who would rob you of your rights, which is why one must remain ever vigilant, utterly intolerant of trespass, and strike with bitter venom all who transgress, are made aware of their violation, yet refuse to amend. Such people must be beaten with vast savagery, whether in courts, with words, or even physically if circumstance calls for it because such men understand naught but the strong man's retort.

Most people worldwide, make little to no assertion of their rights and most who do fail to defend those claims. In this regard I respect the psychotics of the "left" in that they at least act in both the assertion and defense of what they believe to be their rights, regardless of the fact that their claims are idiotic, prima facie, and their actions made ostensibly in defense of actual rights are nothing better than long strings of very serious felonies. But the fact that they will at least act, however incorrectly, still beats the living snot out of those who know better their proper rights, yet sit idly as Theye put them over the wood, over and over again. Indeed, the latter are the more despicable of the two precisely because they know better, yet are too corrupt to do what is right. Most humans should be ashamed of themselves to the point they burst most spontaneously into flame, much as vampires in sunlight.

The world of men could be so fine, yet we choose this.

[Matt Collins]

Excellent video, just watched it today

[Matt Collins]

"Reds" are voting with their feet.

Insert Mike Malice's tweet about the nation's "self segregation proceeding as planned", here.

The problem is that due to the urban/non-urban divide, the libs are still embedded among conservatives. The most red of red states still have cities an municipalities run by Democrats.


There is no way around that unfortunately.

[Matt Collins]

Pay particular attention to Thomas' comments around 30:00 into the video. A slim majority is good for freedom and a supermajority is bad for freedom

[Brian4Liberty]

Pay particular attention to Thomas' comments around 30:00 into the video. A slim majority is good for freedom and a supermajority is bad for freedom

I’d love to discuss that with Massie. There are situations where Massie’s prediction will come true, and like Joe Manchin, some Republicans can hold out for concessions.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in previous situations are pushing a hard left agenda with massive corruption, cronyism and pork, much of it meant to result in kickbacks to the DNC. Even Mittens can’t vote with that.

On the other hand, the establishment GOP will propose standard levels of cronyism and pork, which Democrats will gladly go along with. Thus, my prediction is that we will see much more “bipartisanship” in the next two years, where Schumer and McCarthy will agree, and enough Democrats will vote with the establishment GOP such that rebel Republicans, mostly represented by the freedom caucus, will be left out in the cold.