Brexit: It's Good As Done

It was guessed that maybe Brexit wouldn't go through, that the Conservatives wouldn't be able to muster the electorate after the calamity of former PM Theresa May's inability to finalize the Brexit negotiations.

Alas, after her resignation, the new PM Boris Johnson mobilized the party, ousted possible defectors, and rallied the electorate as a show of force in response to Labour's attempts to quash Brexit and force another referendum to undo it all.

The political implications of such a electoral landslide are many, some with more outlier views of the impact itself of the effectiveness of the European Union and some with international implications. One of these is the upcoming U.S. 2020 Presidential/General election, which is fiercely polarized the nation with bombastic language from both sides, such so culminating in an attempt by House Democrat majority to formally impeach and attempt to remove President Donald Trump from office (see future post: Impeachment Isn't The Way Forward).

Election Info By 2019

The main question for this issue is how it effects global Conservative movements in geopolitics. I compiled this information from various sources about the composition of the political makeup of each European Union country as of this date, including the UK since it has not officially left the EU. The picture shown does not include the attitudes of like and dislike to the EU as a whole. The picture shows a stark contrast to political views among Americans who would say that Europe is a complete socialist region. It, therefore; begs the question, if political conservatism is on the rise, especially in the UK, could it be that Socialist ideology and programs aren't favorable anymore? It's possible, but not completely. The next question we need consider is: why is this impact so great that Democrats seem worried about 2020 electoral prospects?

First, let's consider that Progressive politics had been on a steep rise after the Bush Era ended in 2008 with the election of President Barack Obama and a filibuster proof Congress. Enacting policies that are Progressive, in relation to the policies of Bush, were the cornerstone of Obama's election, promising vast changes to make America more in line with European socialist policies of Universal Healthcare, immigration, taxation, etc. While President Obama had a clear mandate of power, his decision to focus solely on Healthcare overhaul cost him his only political capital he had. After his midterms, Congress was divided. Then after his reelection, the Congress switched to Republican majorities. This swift reversal of political persuasion can be attributed many ways from Obama not maximizing his political capital across multiple fronts, to risky ventures on foreign policy, to high risk domestic policies. The election of Trump is one of the most surprising changes of political power. The dynamic of politics around 2016 became more polarized in policy division and increased calls for more "radical" policies of both the Left and Right.

Through this galvanizing of radical policies, we've reached our central concern for the USA: will this aid in Trump's reelection of 2020? In many ways It is very possible that a resurgence of Conservative politics could make it more prominent. Influx of immigration, coupled with the stagnation of the economy, heightened taxation, mandated healthcare penalties if you chose to not use it, and other various issues made Conservative politics more upfront. However, it also gave rise to many far Left policies. In this struggle, it will be important to understand the effects of how European Conservative movements have made some of the most prominently Leftist countries to fall to more populist Conservative ideologies. Radical immigration and taxation are two of the most important for Europe. For America, it also includes immigration but also the largest issue, is Freedom of Speech and how it will play an integral role in the election. Americans must decide whether or not the party they want in power will actually be for true Freedom of Speech, or a version of Freedom of Speech.

Within these issues, these policies, Far Right policies have also surfaced, such as strict bans on illegal immigration and changing current forms of allowable entry to be tougher or near impossible to achieve to allow someone in. Hyper vigilance in some respect isn't always good. The main factor to me, is that are the policies of the Far Left coming up going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action; further, are the policies of the Far Right going to supercede the policies of common sense or moderate plans of action? That's what is going to be more difficult to understand. It should be noted that these policies in Europe are currently not boding well for many Progressive Left parties in the EU, their grasp on power is slowly turning away from Leftist politics as one can easily see in the most recent general election in Great Britain, who now will effectively leave the EU on Jan 31st. It will be an interesting election cycle in the USA as we begin to see the primary for the Democrats begin shortly. My prediction is if they pick a Far Left, it may not go well for their efforts to unseat President Trump. 

Trumps Exit Will Save The GOP

The party is dead. The party needs a unified front. The party needs rebranding. The party is dead.

These phrases have been the pinnacle of the GOP politics since 2008, nearly a decade of disunity and failure, or so the pundits say and yell. Countless weeks and money has poured the media waves with the so called end to the Republican Party. Since 2000, it's been said the Party has died and with it, its power to compel voters to elect them to office. Enter 2006, when Democratic control reigned absolute and without contest. Presiding over it, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), whose neoprogressive politics had absolute authority.

The major theme of the last 8 years of presidential politics and last 6 years of congressional politics has been the Party, meaning the Grand Ole Party/Republican Party, surely must be dead after George W. Bush's term of office and the loss of prestige of power--both soft and hard, to two wars costing nearly $1-trillion. So, let's talk Party politic and what it means for the 2016 election:

Q. IS THE PARTY DEAD?
If the party is dead, shouldn't Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid be in firm control of Congress from 2006-current? The problem with this thinking is that no party can control an area without some reaction force, i.e. Democratic control of the south and Republican Reconstruction. This may seem anecdotal but in 2010, it swept Republicans into Congress and in two years after, Republicans took control of the Senate. Controlling the aspect of the Tea Party movement, the Republicans maintain a solid power, not an overwhelming one but a solid one.

Q. THE TRUMP SHALL END THE PARTY?
Trump is the greatest problem of the democratic system. His wins in the primary season have made for a great error of the Republicans; however, I disagree with the notion that all Republicans disapprove of the Republican Elite. If, every single Republican hated the elite, wouldn't they have already ousted them, regardless of campaign promises and Super-PACs! Here's where I will stipulate that the Party would actually be better if Trump loses the Nomination. If he loses, that means the mainly strong religious and far-right movement would leave because they feel the elite have accosted their ways, when in all actuality, the "RINOs," as the far-right sees it, are saving the party, because it is the more moderate and likely of the old era of Republican dominance. Trumps exit would free the Party to do more, to capitalize on moderates and independents who do not share the same view as the far-right.

Q. WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
We wait and hope that the Party Elite will take Trump and have him nose dive out of the GOP and with it, the arm of the GOP that has hindered the Party's electability for nearly three decades. We must relish in our attempts to stymie Trump and to make this Party stronger and more capable then the fractured DNC. We must fight to stop Trump and in essence Cruz from being the nominee!  

Trump v. America

"In the matter of Trump v. America, this high court...."

This line could easily be from a future lawsuit if he becomes the nominee, and possibly if he becomes the next President.

Like this post assumes, Trump is bad for America. He's bad for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents (whom could be affiliated on farther left or right). Here's a man, who is as other pundits say, a Populist. Populism is "a doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness push against the prevailing status quo interests of any predominant political sector."

Populism can be used by any political philosophy and as such Donald Trump has used a national populism against most policies of the Obama Administration and presidency. Trump has made very seemingly derogatory, inflammatory, and degrading words and statements.

I cannot stand as a conservative gay man, in this political discourse, to allow a man, who has no temperament. I cannot stand with or aside Donald Trump. I refuse. I explicitly refuse that I will ever vote for him in the Republican Presidential Caucus of Kentucky.

I will fight, alongside my fellow Republicans and moderate Democrats to defeat Trump, as I have from the very first Republican caucus.

Do not chose Trump. Do not vote Trump. He is, without a doubt a free radical who will do untold damage to the America we know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say George W. Bush would be better than Donald Trump, because we know George W. Bush, but we do not know or care for Donald Trump.

If you agree that Donald Trump will do greatness, Vladimir Lenin, Benitio Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and countless other leaders who did unspeakable things in the name of greatness.

The bottom line is that if Donald Trump wins the nomination, American politics will shatter. 

The Rand Paul Effect

"KRS 118.405: No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day."

Kentucky has strict laws about the governance of how a Senator or Candidate should be allowed to run for office. In the Commonwealth, the rule of law states that no candidate can be on two different ballots, as shown above. However, Senator Rand Paul, has requested that Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) Leaders change its own rules of Primary elections to a "Caucus" so that he may in essence, double dip on the ability, should he: prevail in the National Convention, fail in the National convention, or prevail in the Senatorial election.

However, let's look closer at this concept of changing party rules. To do so, would require first that the State Legislature would need to introduce a House Bill and Senate Bill to amend the Election rules, which is currently split in party control (the House by Democrats, Senate by Republicans). Then, if it was passed by the Legislature, the Governor would need to approve of the Bill or veto. Current leanings would indicate that that would never pass. Since the House has been under the control of the Democrats for nearly 100 years, it would never pass committee. Secondly, it would also require the State GOP to ratify the change to their own rules 8.04, to be exact. Then it would need to clear the RNC Rule 16.C.1, which states that no caucus, primary or convention may be earlier than March 1 unless they are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.

These are just rules, the facts of the matter. However, as noted in the Boston Globe piece by Jeff Jacoby, that in a Bluegrass Poll conducted from August 25 to August 27, 2014, if the Kentucky Law should be changed so that Sen. Paul may run as both President and Senator, it was 27% Yes, and 66% No, with only 7% saying Not Sure. The data clearly expresses that members of the Kentucky Commonwealth do not want Senator Paul to change the rules.

So, what would be the problem? Well, in a Caucus, that would reduce the amount of people who can vote in the election of the candidate for president, because instead of the collection of registered voters casting a ballot, a select few would allowed to vote, then an even less number of those would be allowed to sit at the Convention for the election of the Republican candidate. It's surprising, that a man of Libertarian leaning would wish for the de-valuation and deselection of voters to hold a chance to win the Nomination, Yet, like most politicians, power is everything. If it is one thing that the fictional character Frank Underwood has taught us, it's that power is everything and that he wants that power, even though, his ideas would be destroyed by any seasoned Democrat in office, No polling or popularity within the fringe element of the Libertarian caucus, would ever gain the strength to eliminate such a candidate, because while many want a freer world, the devolution of the strength of the US soft and hard power would be the asking price.

As it seems the Majority Leader McConnell has signed off on this theatrical display of power, the Chairman  of the State Party and the other members would look idiotic and arrogant in the eyes of the state and national party! Why would anyone want to risk us loosing our votes? Or risk losing our ability to vote? Why would Rand Paul decide that this is a good thing?

So many questions revolve around this process, and I hope, as a voting member of the Republican Party, they defeat this notion and defeat the possibility of running on two ballots. The law that was put in place is a proper law, one that prevents overreach and keeps politicians in Kentucky honest, or is honesty no longer Senator Paul's vision? Senator Paul isn't moderate enough to win over the core of the moderates in the Party and those in the Middle, but he can definitely win the Fringe voters, who would undoubtedly hijack his platform and ruin his career, unless that is his plan.

I urge every Kentucky Republican to call the State Party and tell them No Caucus!