Dear America,

If you wonder what the country would look like with a Republican President Trump and a GOP-controlled Congress, look no further than North Carolina. In 2012, we elected our first Republican Governor, legislature and Supreme Court in more than 100 years. In those three short years, we’ve become standard fare on late-night comedy as the butt of jokes. We’re losing businesses and tourists because of regressive policies that discriminate against minorities. Most embarrassing of all, we’re now the crazy Carolina.

The Republican Party has been kidnapped by an alliance of religious zealots, free-market ideologues, and Nativist xenophobes. The free-market ideologues get to apply free-market principles to every situation, including public schools and universities. The social conservatives get to discriminate against people who don’t look like them or share their beliefs. And the xenophobes keep us focused on building a wall with Mexico even though most immigrants are arriving in airports.

And now, most of the rest of the GOP suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, defending policies like cutting funding for schools and universities that they once described in campaigns as “Democratic scare tactics.” (I’m looking at you, Medicare and Social Security.) The rest of our state suffers from turmoil and instability that the Republicans in power blame on “left-wing mobs.”

The North Carolina Republicans have a mean-spirited, bullying streak that harms our most vulnerable citizens and takes away local control. Most recently, they’ve lumped transgender people in with pedophiles. But they’ve also enacted the stingiest unemployment benefits in the nation despite areas of the state that are still suffering high unemployment. They’ve taken power away from local governments just because they can, stealing assets, redistricting local elections, and now they have bill to kill the solar energy industry by taking away property rights. They’re big government conservatives who embrace authoritarian principles.

It wasn’t always this way. At one time, Republicans and Democrats in North Carolina debated important issues concerning taxes and regulations, but agreed on a commitment to public schools and universities and a reputation as a welcoming state for everybody. Now, we argue about where to go to the bathroom and access to the ballot box .

So be warned, America, if you think government is broken now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress and see just how crazy this country can get. It ain’t pretty. I promise you that.

With much love,

Thomas

46 Comments

  1. Norma Munn

    Sorry, but “unlikely” may well be wishful thinking. The legitimate anger against what Trump and Bernie calls the establishment is a driving force in this election. As simplistic as I think that kind of commentary is, it resonates with those most damaged by the loss of middle class economic opportunities. That is a legitimate and real issue. Unfortunately, all of the candidates can promise to bring manufacturing back, but (1) it won’t work and (2) manufacturing jobs are decreasing across the globe as more and more technology is being used, so the number of jobs needed is far, far less than even ten years ago. Trade is essential to our economy. We have 5% of the world’s population and produce/make goods and services way in excess of what we can consume. We have to sell those goods & services somewhere, so trade deals are essential. (Does not mean I support TPP; I don’t, but just categorizing all trade deals as bad is dumb.)
    You are correct that Trump is not fit to be president, but I believe he will carry NC and that Clinton will have a tight race almost everywhere. I also don’t believe Bernie can beat him. None of the polls at this point regarding Bernie are reliable as much of the press has mostly ignored much of his real history. I am glad he has been in the race, but his history is not reassuring in lots of ways. Trump would have a field day, especially in comparing some of Bernie’s writings on women to the Trump conduct.
    Not sure about Senator Warren, despite thinking she is remarkable. Very gifted as a speaker, and fearless, but she is so important in the Senate, I would be reluctant to see her leave. I do like her responses to The Donald!

    • A. D. Reed

      Kind of off-subject, except in reply to the latest thread and what Norma wrote, but…

      I am a Clinton fan, because of what she’s accomplished and what she would get done as a very competent, intelligent, knowledgable and experienced president.

      Also because I find it very frustrating to hear Democrats say “I just don’t trust her” and then be unable to come up with anything untrustworthy she’s done, other than grow and evolve with the times. “She sold out to Wall Street,” but there’s never an iota of evidence of any quid pro quo (and the same people who clamor “release the transcripts” are absolutely silent about Bernie’s tax returns). “She’s too hawkish” because she gave Dubya the authority to act on intelligence without believing he’d be so sleazy as to fake it up — and because she represented New York, devastated by the 911 attack. “She flip-flops” because she changed her mind on TPP after leaving the administration. Good for Bernie for pulling her to the left on that. Bravo, and brava!

      Anyone over 25 grows and changes their opinions as they get new information, mature in their judgment, see their mistakes in hindsight, or learn that voters want a different choice — as she has done and acknowledged on both the war vote and the email controversy. “I made a mistake,” she said, and that’s more than I’ve EVER heard Bernie or any of his supporters say. Ever. In 35 years as an elected official. Ever.

      But I’ve also watched for 35 years as the right wing has smeared Hillary with one false claim after another, from being a lefty hippie radical anti-Nixon feminist — when she had to stop being “Hillary Rodham” as Arkansas’s first lady in 1982 because “a wife gotta use your husband’s name, gol-dang-it” — to now when she’s blasted as a right-wing corporate warmongering shill. In the public view, she’s gone from Hanoi Jane to Margaret Thatcher with no stops in between!

      Yet from attacks over Whitewater to Vince Foster to bimbos to Travelgate to email to Benghazi, not only has she kept fighting for women, children, minority rights, equal rights, and opportunity for all, and for the needs of her NY constituents, but she has not been knocked down yet. And that’s because, no matter what the vast, right-wing conspiracy tries to throw at her, there really is “no there there.” It’s all made up, it’s all BS, and the sad part is that people under 35 who were small kids when Bill was president, and at most teens while she was an excellent, twice-elected Senator from New York, have heard only the trashing of her during their lifetimes. Trashing that is avidly picked up by Bernie’s young supporters, who don’t know any better, and his older ones, who should.

      So, back to Norma’s point: Why would Hillary, at 68, pick a VP candidate like Gov. Brown of California, who’s 78? Or Bernie, who’s 75? Or even Elizabeth Warren, who’s 66 or 67? Why would she pick a sitting senator from a conservative state, like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, when we’re trying to win a Senate majority?

      It would seem smarter for her to name former Sen. Salazar of Colorado, who’s a former Sec. of the Interior and “only” 60; or one of the 42-year-old Castro brothers from San Antonio (Julio is a Congressman, Joaquin is Sec’y of HUD), any of whom would doubly lock up the Hispanic vote, and all of whom are progressive Democrats, if not Bernie-left. She could choose Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (though he’s a Muslim and would probably cost her votes from the crazy right) or Sheila Jackson Lee or Jan Schakowski, or Jared Polis, all members of the Congressional Progressive Congress. Polis is a wealthy, successful businessman, a major philanthropist, from Colorado, and only 41.

      I’m very curious whom she’ll pick, but I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be anyone over 60, or a senator from a red state, or one from a blue state with a Republican governor (who could then name a Repub. to replace him or her).

      • Norma Munn

        You are correct, I believe, about Hillary Clinton. One might also add that she donated to charity $17 million of her income from her speeches (my memory is fuzzy on whether the $17 included the book income, but I think it did). She was definitely a good senator for NYS and had excellent office staff as far as I could discern. Good staff for elected officials is a sign of good judgement in my mind. I found in working in the political arena that those who had poor staffing were almost always themselves not too good at their jobs.

        As for VP, what I really want is someone I would consider qualified to step into the presidency. We seem to forget that is the most serious aspect of being a VP. For Bernie, I recommend a special envoy job — anywhere almost — just kidding, of course!

    • A. D. Reed

      PS: Check out Jared Polis here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis

      I think he’d make a superb VP choice for Hillary — and even the Bernheads would support him.

  2. Mike Leonard

    Senator Warren needs to stay put, along with the rest of the current senators and representatives, to minimize the GOP damage. Pick a retired governor or cabinet member as VP instead.

  3. CR Mudgeon

    Nice job fear mongering people into thinking Clinton is a less corporate, less oligarchic, less divisive choice. How much is her Super Pac paying you?

  4. Randell Hersom

    It is not enough to wish to be less bad than the admittedly very bad. Please search for the root cause and remedy it. It is very difficult to be a little dependent on PAC money, and the Sanders campaign reveals that there is clearly another way. If you don’t care enough to find out what your constituents really want, you will eventually take the path of least resistance.

  5. Cary

    I’m glad to see MOST people see it as I do; that the Republicans have lost their minds. My biggest concern is that Clinton is further to the right than Trump on many issues. She may be smarter than Trump, but her policies, such as taking money from monopolies and being a friend to big banks, GMOs and terrible trade policies like TPP mean that we need Bernie Sanders for President at the same time we change out all the Republicans in Congress and in the Governor’s mansion. People are afraid of the term “democratic socialist” but it actually means a balance between capitalism and helpful social programs. At this moment in time we need somebody like Roosevelt to get things back to center. Please can we pull together and vote out all the long-term Republicans? They aren’t the party they used to be, and Hillary is no Democrat; she’s even more of a corporatist than Obama is. TPP is our worst nightmare and Sanders is the only Presidential candidate against it.

    • RepubliCon Allergy

      I voted in the primary for Bernie even though I realized even if it took the SuperDuper Delegates, the corrupt Democrat machine was not going to let this true populist and cantankerous but trustworthy old man do our bidding. The wealthy realized a long time ago that keeping those socially conservative / low information / blue collar people believing that they were somehow completely different from more educated and informed liberals and minorities was key to making sure that the 99%, or at the very least 95% wouldn’t rise up and recover their freedom, their public commons, their opportunity. We hear so much about the Stupids, those that vote against the very freedoms and opportunities that are rightfully theirs. An effort needs to be made to educate them and get them to join a grand coalition that recognizes our common self interest, and allows differences of opinion. Will it happen? We need a Gandhi, an MLK, or a Jeebus I think.

  6. Mark

    Wow. What a bunch of lies and stupidity. Of course late night hosts make fun of us, they are pansy, bandwagon-mentality socialist , gov’t control types. NC, has balanced the budget, brought more jobs and opportunity. Teachers and gov’t employees are going to get a raise. And anyone that thinks transgenderism is a right is an intellectual vacuum. It’s a psychological disorder period. There are extremely thin people that think they are fat, we don’t enable them. We give them medicine and psychological help. There are people that actually believe they are members of the CIA, or spy agencies when they aren’t. Don’t enable them by giving them code names and licenses to kill, we give them medicine and psychological help. Children/teenagers display sociopathic tendencies, that’s why you can’t diagnose them as a sociopath untill they are adults. The brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25. It is actually more loving and Intellectually superior to give psychological assistance and medicine to treat people with transgender issues than enable it. And yes, illegal aliens have no legal or moral right to be or stay in the US. It would be nice if the author and his followers would grow in maturity and responsibility by accepting these realities.

    • RepubliCon Allergy

      What a maroon! as Bugs B. would say. Scientists and physicians knew, as long ago as 1830, that a certain physical peculiarity in the length of certain women’s fingers, seemed to correlate quite well with Lesbianism. Along with other advances in science, such as a dawning realization that the earth was round, a small investment in preventative medicine would prevent much larger medical expenditures later, and a partial redistribution of income would lead to larger profits at the top down the road, it was determined that the psychological assignment of gender might not comport with the biological or structural gender due to the highly variant effect of adrenal and androgenous hormones during the developmental period within the maternal womb. Some people are born predominantly heterosexual (or homosexual for that matter): we hear little about gender discordance from those individuals except perhaps the jibes from your buddies when you shed a tear during a Lifetime movie episode with the wife. Gender discordance is not an issue for those homosexuals comfortable in their own skin. The trouble comes for the transgender individual who is so gender dysmorphic that the acceptance of a structural gender cannot be accepted and attempts are made to revamp that physical structure, sometimes at an appearance level, sometimes leading to a reassignment surgery that more fully adheres to the psychological assignment that occurred long before some idiot like you could apply “cures” “therapy”, or most laughably, “medicine”. As a practicing psychologist, I keep my opinions about the psychosis embedded into young minds previous to the development of Concrete Operations to myself (you might call it religion) although the belief in magical beings whether ghosts, or god, or goblins, or 7 foot tall invisible rabbits is IN THE DSM5 (to be fair, Gender Dismorphism is there also) and a significantly greater problem than the .0025 of the population that is crawling out of their skin because of gender misassignment, if I may be so bold as to use that term (and I’m not sure that is correct).
      By the way, incorporating a 2 BILLION DOLLAR bond issue into your budget is not balancing the budget. Getting a one year cost-of living raise because McCrory is up for a raise doesn’t make up for the lost of 8% of a state employee’s buying power over the last 5 years. This government put the cost of the budget on the backs of the people that could least afford it with a flat tax, an inflated gasoline tax, and a whole host of tax increases on services. And now we will see the loss 4.5 BILLION in federal money, 1/4 of the money the state government needs to even function. the feds don’t care. they have 50+ other states and territories to worry about. It’s like the FREE medicaid money (it’s not really free, I’m paying it with my federal income tax right now, it’s just going to another state / pork project). I can hear policymakers in D.C. right now, “Hey NC don’t want it, more for California”.
      I don’t know who you think is responsible for those horrible Mexicans that apparently make your skin crawl, but latest figures indicate a net migration of close to zero. There will always be people in unfortunate circumstances that want to come here; the entitled upper class, who are actually the biggest source of illegal employment, but feel they are exempt from employment law, just like every other law, and to some extent growers and chicken producers and other employment where misery is too unpalatable for Americans, will continue to provide employment of last resort for the motivated destitute. America thrives on slave classes; that is our history. So it is quite alright for Maria to watch your children and Pedro to cut your grass, as long as these people don’t ask for minimum wage, social security, or gasp! Preventative healthcare (we already, by LAW, pay for all their emergent healthcare, we just pay for it at crazy Emergency Room rates). Whether America eventually regulates the entire Cannabis and Coca industry, or exterminates about 15 percent of its citizens yearly to kill demand, or simply merges its territory with Mexico and prosecutes an all out war with the cartels, we can’t continue to allow thousands of people a year to die in Mexico because of our own demands for entertainment. That is abig part of the reason corpses litter the Sonora.

      • Gary Matthews

        Agree completely. Your comment exposes the current legislators perfectly

    • Ebrun

      “It would be nice if the author and his followers would grow in maturity and responsibility by accepting these realities.”

      Never gonna happen on this blog, Mark. Here you get a real feel for the radical left and their authoritarian vision of utopia. No dissent, no demurring, no alternative visions of social and economic realities are tolerated. They are the true believers in collectivism as the only legitimate form of social organization. Democratic capitalism is their sworn enemy. Democratic concepts such as free speech, diverse ideas and majority preferences are sanctioned only to the extent they don’t threaten to undermine leftist orthodoxy.

      • Norma Munn

        It is NOT “leftist orthodoxy” to reject discrimination. It is America at its best. It is also not “radical left” to accept medical and/or science based evidence. It is using one’s brains.

        • Ebrun

          Oh, I see. Those are NOT your opinions, those are facts. LOL

      • Mooser

        Give it a rest, Ebrun. You expect us to respect your opinions when you clearly don’t respect ours. I don’t know why you hang around here anyway. You must be a glutton for punishment.

        • Apply Liberally

          Mooser: And don’t you just love the way he always portrays himself as someone being unfairly “put upon” by those who disagree with his views? But then, he never misses an opportunity to attack most all others? As with so many of his views, adhering to a double standard is his hallmark.

        • Ebrun

          Why do I “hang around here?” One good reason, Mooser, is to yank your chain. Your reaction never disappoints.

          • Mooser

            Sorry to disappoint you….I’m not around here that much! I think of you the way I think of most conservative trolls….background noise!

          • Ebrun

            Why, then, bother to respond to “background noise?” Must resonate somehow, huh?

      • Mike Rodgers

        Speaking of “authoritarian version of utopia”… I think the regressive right has that goal FIRMLY in mind. And sadly for the rest of this country, not just here in NC. (Although we’re setting a pretty damn high bar…)

        Along with “no dissenting, no demurring, no alternative” anything that doesn’t fit their narrow little view of how the rest of the world should grovel and capitulate to their own world vision.

        Sure sounds like fascism to me.

        • Ebrun

          If its by the left, they call it Marxism.

      • A.D. Reed

        Why is that that Ebrun and other right-wingers feel compelled to make stuff up when they comment? There are many areas of disagreement and debate among progressives, liberals, Democrats, leftists, or whatever else one calls those who support progressive politics. There are certainly positions we debate among ourselves and with conservatives, on the national and local stages.

        There are, in fact, facts and policies that I would be glad to discuss with fellow liberals and with conservatives, such as education policy, NC’s environmental programs, the extent of government oversight of private and corporate behavior, the death penalty and other justice issues, funding of social programs to help the poor, appropriate tax rates … to name a few.

        But to Ebrun: “They are the true believers in collectivism as the only legitimate form of social organization.” BULLS**T!!! Ebrun. BS and Crap. MOST Democrats, MOST progressives, MOST liberals are capitalists. Unlike right-wingers, we understand that an ECONOMIC SYSTEM — capitalism — in not the same as a POLITICAL SYSTEM — democracy.

        For 225 years we also have been the strongest supporters of free speech — we were the ones who refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added. We are the ones who insisted on the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press as a way to ensure robust debate of ideas, and freedom of and from religion as a way to guarantee the end of religious and sectarian intolerance.

        It has always been conservatives, right-wingers, Tories, and gilded-age oligarchs, whether 18th-century railroad tycoons or today’s Waltons and Kochs, who have tried, often successfully, to buy legislatures and governors and Congress and the presidency, and to control the people’s rights to speak out, dissent, and challenge power.

        Ebrun, if you can’t acknowledge simple, fundamental facts, it’s no wonder that in every one of your posts you prove yourself a brainwashed, ignorant, dishonest Republican.

        But I repeat myself.

        • Ebrun

          You make my point, A.D. Most ultra liberals just can’t tolerate a conservative who can challenge their left wing orthodoxy. So while you profess to take the high road wanting to have a civil debate, you end your lecture by resorting to more personal insults. Very typical of most liberals who post here.

          • TbeT

            ….while most neo-conservatives just can’t tolerate differences in people and social change. Period.
            Oh, and BTW, your post was a very slick example of the now very vogue debating ploy used by neo-cons, i.e., accusing those who oppose intolerance of being intolerant of intolerance. It’s just one device used by advanced trollers to confound and roil. Thanks for the practical demonstration.

          • Ebrun

            TbeT, you’re just too clever for words. And what a incongruous spate of words. Can’t “confound and roil” you by “accusing those who oppose intolerance of being intolerant of intolerance.” Wow, how perceptive! LOL

          • A.D. Reed

            Okay, Ebrun. So let’s debate an actual issue and not a straw man like “collectivism as the only legitimate form of social organization” or any of the other phony issues that you make up or hear about from a conservative web site?

            For example: What is an appropriate and fair tax rate for NC-based corporations? for individuals earning less than $35,000 per year? for couples with two children earning $100,000/year? for someone with an unearned (dividend/interest) income of $500,000/year? for someone of Art Pope’s wealth?

            What deductions and exemptions are fair, and what percentage of state revenues should come from sales taxes on goods, sales taxes on services, income taxes, property taxes? What is an appropriate level of payment in lieu of taxes for religious organizations that own and use property for for-profit enterprises while still enjoying tax exemption as a not-for-profit corporation?

            What should state revenues be spent on? Roads and other forms of transportation infrastructure? education? environmental protection? social services? public health? mental health? law enforcement? economic development? subsidies for the poor? for corporations? for the middle class? for the rich? for small businesses?

            Let’s debate. All of us. The “ultra-liberals” (of which I’m not one), the moderate progressive Democrats, traditional moderate Republicans, Tea Party folks, and you.

            Okay?

          • Ebrun

            Ok, not sure where to start, that’s quite a broad menu. Maybe we could drop the issues we may find agreement on. For instance, I would probably agree with you regarding the exemption for religious organizations that use property for profit.

            We would probably agree on most of the categories of public spending you list. Here, of course, the devil is in the details. While I am not ideologically opposed to public subsidies for the poor, the issue for me and other conservatives is how effective or efficient such subsidies actually work. Do they help the under privileged become self sufficient or do they tend to perpetuate dependence on the state.

            With regard to tax deductions and exemptions, I strongly support the current NC GOP emphasis on increasing the standard deduction for everyone rather that earmarking certain categories of spending or income for special treatment. The latest GOP proposal would allow all married couples to have their first $17,500 of income exempt from state income tax. This approach also has the added benefit of simplifying the tax code. I am not sure, however, you would support this approach, particularly since it is a major feature of the Republican-controlled NCGA’s agenda.

            I don’t want to try to respond to all the issues you raise in one post. Perhaps you would like to respond to this one and we could tackle other issue later on.

            Oh, but I did want to respond to one assertion you made in your original comment on this thread. You claim that “MOST Democrats, MOST progressives. MOST liberals are capitalists.” Perhaps so, but someone from another planet would find that hard to believe if they only read posts by liberals on this blog. I have not seen any liberal praise, defend or otherwise endorse market concepts here, with the exception of your claim to be a capitalist.

            And while you assert that capitalism and democracy are not the same, a democratic political system is essential to the successful operation of a market economy. Markets by their very nature depend on decentralized decision making. Effective democratic processes rely on thousands of individual citizens making political choices.

            The conflict, as I see it, comes when governments resort to making centralized decisions on behalf of the mass citizenry. This is the very nature of a “collectivist” approach to government and most liberals, progressives and yes, even Democrats, seem to generally support centralized economic and political decision making, at least when it furthers their idealogical preferences.

          • Norma Munn

            Interesting debate the two of you are having. I am not going to address the specific issues at this hour of the night, but I do wonder how many individuals are making free choices in this economy when they are often tied to jobs because leaving them means no health insurance? Or how many individuals make decisions in the market place we experience every day that can be considered fully informed when a lawyer is required to read the fine print in so much of the warranties, etc of what we purchase and use? Will the increased consolidation of both the health insurance options from mergers of the larger corporations (or the Time Warner/Comcast merger) give me “free” choices or limit my options? Should we not have any regulations on the size and scope of any corporate entity because that is government control? Is it not reasonable to insist that meat products from other parts of this country (or the world) be safe? I suppose we could depend entirely on the ethics of business people to make safe and sanitary product all of the time, but history would not support that approach. Should we choke everyone with heavy handed regulations? No, but I really don’t want a pure capitalistic society anymore than I want a pure socialist one.

          • Ebrun

            Notice I never made reference to a “free” market economy. There will never really be anything like a totally free market in modern western democracies. An economy geared to market principles will always need to be regulated by some public or quasi-public authority.

            So the real debate is how much centralized authority is necessary to preserve the decentralized workings of market choices. Seems to me Democrats and most liberals opt for excessive regulatory control of the economy and even noneconomic activities. It has been reported that under the Obama administration, 20,642 new federal regulations have been promulgated. This is what conservatives consider to be massive overreach.

            And if an individual keeps a job to retain health insurance, that is market choice. Some individuals are bold enough to seek new job opportunities despite the threat of losing benefits. Others are not. These are market type decisions made by thousands of different individuals. This is decentralized decision making, the essence of a market economy.

          • Apply Liberally

            “It has been reported that under the Obama administration, 20,642 new federal regulations have been promulgated. This is what conservatives consider to be massive overreach.”
            There may have indeed been that many “new” regs promulgated, but unless you can tell us how many of them were updates based on better science, or how many brought better protection of consumers, public health, or the environment, or how many of them may have resulted in fewer, simpler-to-follow, or clearer regs, your statement is just another anti-Obama statement.

          • Ebrun

            You’ll have to figure that out for yourself. A.L., Ebrun or continue to have blind faith in what the Obama administration is doing. For my book, there could have not have been a real need for over 20,000 NEW federal regulations

          • Apply Liberally

            OK. I’ll continue to have blind faith in the Obama administration while you continue to have blind faith in Ryan, McConnell, Trump, Gowdy, Priebus, and the Freedom Caucus.

          • TbeT

            Wow.
            A father and mother of 3 young kids, working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, staying in their jobs and in their locale because at least one of those jobs provides health insurance with family coverage, and it’s all reduced down to individuals making a “market choice” and/or not being “bold enough to seek new job opportunities.”
            Thanks for perfectly capturing the callous Ayn Randian point of view so much espoused by today’s neo-cons.

          • Ebrun

            Was it Ann Rand who coined the term “nothing ventured, nothing gained?” It sure wasn’t Ann Rand who claimed “the meek shall inherit the earth.”?

            What’s optimal about a market economy is that individuals can make choices based on their own values, ambitions, motives, preferences, etc. Some will prosper, some will just survive and a few will fail. There is no centralized edict that one size fits all.

          • TbeT

            Hey, Ebrun, learn something. It’s “Ayn” Rand, not Ann. Maybe your next high school English Lit class may cover her works and also how to spell her name.

            And thanks again for verifying a callous, survival-of-the-fittest mindset. If Rand isn’t in your personal library yet, I am sure Darwin is.

          • Ebrun

            Oh Wow, you’re really sharp, TbeT. You caught me misspelling someone’s name. Kudos to you! Keep up the good work.

          • TbeT

            You are so very welcome!
            And I must agree with you. I am sharp, and of course I do good work.

            I also didn’t want you getting Ayn Rand confused with that other iconic regressive you likely admire so much, i.e., Ann Coulter.

          • Ebrun

            Happy to help you boost your ego. BTW, I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter. (Hope I spelled that right.)

    • E Sauter

      Mark,

      Your heart is cold and your mind is closed.

      E Sauter

    • Gary Matthews

      You sir haven’t a clue about transgender is. You need to educate yourself , starting with the as article in NandO couple days ago and medical sites. It is not a choice made by the person.
      And taxes, ha, for the first time in many years I have had to not
      only had to pay more but everywhere I turn there is a new tax added thanks to the legislature
      The facts are, the wealthy just get more ever since this brain dead legislators have been in power.

    • Gary

      Mark, you haven’t a clue what a transgender is. We are born with both x and y chromosomes, we have both sexes genital parts. At some point something causes the brain to develop as female and body develops as male (or visa versa). Like other deformities, it cannot be treated as a psychological disorder because it is not. Male and female brains are structured differently and it is possible now to determine what gender your brain is. You cannot imagine the angst and torture a transgender goes through unless you know one well, which I do. They should be treated whatever their brain tells them they are, which causes them all kinds of problems. Instead of condemning, we should offer our understanding and support.

  7. Terri M. Johnson

    This is exactly why I’m running a write-in campaign for NC House in District 87. The Party of Bad Ideas has to go, and you summed up why so very succinctly. I know I have an uphill battle in the very red Caldwell county, but I couldn’t stand by and not at least offer the Democrats in this area a choice. Time to stand up to the bullies!

  8. Vicki Boyer

    We, the people of North Carolina, are no longer their constituents. Their focus is on enacting the Koch brothers’ preferred legislation. I’ve watched many times when they were told a bill would hurt our NC residents, and they voted for it anyway. ‘Small government’ benefits only one sector of American society: corporations, who want no restrictions between their actions and their profits.

    • Marie

      Bob Luddy and Art Pope are two NC citizens who attend the Koch brothers “conferences”.

  9. Progressive Wing

    Have seen anyone say it better. Kudos, Thomas!

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!