AMA Sanchez: Ask me questions that I won't answer.

[Continential]

What did you think of the impeachment hearing today?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What did you think of the impeachment hearing today?

Soviet show trial that will get ‘Garlanded in the Senate.

[Continential]

What do you think of Rick Scott?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What do you think of Rick Scott?

Fantastic Governor but also kinda shady. I didn’t want him to run for Senate and wouldn’t support him in 2024 if DeSantis runs against him. But I did vote for him in ‘18 regardless.

[HillGoose]

would u rather be the head of a weapons manufacturing empire or a pimp (if prostitution was legal)?

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Would you rather be forced into MS13, or a Colombian cocaine smuggling sub?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Would you rather be forced into MS13, or a Colombian cocaine smuggling sub?

Obviously the latter.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Do you still want to be just like Roger Stone when you grow up?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thoughts on twentieth-century proto-Trump or Trumpesque figures in other countries like Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Pierre Poujade?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Do you still want to be just like Roger Stone when you grow up?

Nah, I’d make more money doing what I’m getting into now.

#RogerStoneDidNothingWrong

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Thoughts on twentieth-century proto-Trump or Trumpesque figures in other countries like Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Pierre Poujade?

I know about Bjelke-Peterson but I’m not too sure if I know enough to form an opinion. I’m very fascinated by Enoch Powell and his broader worldview however.

[All Along The Watchtower]

My personal appraisal of Donald Trump as a figure within American conservative/Republican politics is that he's Nixon and Reagan's revenge for the Bush crime family's decades of dominance over the Republican Party - I mean, Prescott Bush and other Eastern Establishment banker types were key figures in patronizing Nixon all the way back to his election to the House in 1946, and Senator P. Bush was a confidant (and favored gulf partner) of President Eisenhower (as opposed to Nixon, who despite being Ike's Vice President was basically ignored).

Fast-forward to 1968, and Nixon actually gives some thought to name a one-term Congressman from Texas as his running mate - George H.W. Bush (and even more so in 1973, after Agnew resigned). Repaying Old Man Prescott? Who knows.

Gerald Ford also gave serious consideration to naming Poppy Bush as his VP after Nixon resigned, ultimately losing out to Nelson Rockefeller (lol). The other runner-up? Donald Rumsfeld, who would be a lifelong rival of Poppy - they never liked each other, and this became relevant in the Dubya administration (and how Dick Cheney, who was initially Rumsfeld's protege, not Poppy's, operated in that context).

Anyway, after being seriously considered for Vice President on at least three separate occasions (two by Nixon, one by Ford), Poppy ends up becoming VP at the last moment after a bitter Republican primary fight with the darling of insurgent movement conservatism - Ronald Reagan. And while they ended up having a cordial and friendly relationship, their wives most certainly never did (lol Nancy and Barbara), and Reagan only endorsed Poppy once the 1988 GOP primary was over. And needless to say, Poppy - always suspect to the Republican Right - broke his READ MY LIPS pledge once in office, lost re-election to a draft-dodging Boomer sex pest from Arkansas (sad!), and was basically written out of the increasingly Reaganized (and Gingrichized - NEWT) Republican Party, to the point where his born-again failson had to basically do the opposite of his father and unashamedly embrace Reaganism (and a populist style - "I'd like to have a beer with him!") with an exaggerated/fake Texas accent.

Of course, Failson Dubya's historically calamitous Presidency permanently destroyed any plans for a lasting Bush presidential dynasty. Thus, low-energy JEB! and his protege Little Marco Rubio (who hilariously stabbed Jeb! in the back, because there are no permanent friends in politics) was defeated by Trump - who steamrolled everyone else, except Lyin' Ted Cruz, but Cruz had the fatal weakness of being an evil sociopath who is so repulsive on a gut level that everyone looks away when he shows his face. And he doesn't have any entertaining charisma and insult comic stuff like 45 to make up for his depravity.

Speaking of 45, and going back to the point of this meandering post: if you look at many of the people who were full-on MAGA, who helped define Trump - Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Pat Buchanan (as a political forerunner), they all admired both Nixon and Reagan, while basically despising the Bush family and their political machine (read: the Republican Establishment of the past half-century or so) to one extent or another. And Buchanan literally was a speechwriter for both Nixon and Reagan, and Stones' admiration for Nixon, needless to say, is legend. Many of the other key MAGA folks are too young or were too "fringe" for the Bush-dominated Republican Party to be relevant to GOP politics pre-Trump (or at least pre-Obama).

Anyway, my basic question here: Am I on to something here? Do you reckon that people who genuinely believed in the politics of Nixon and Reagan, or what they stood for or claimed to stand for, what they represented - while simultaneously resenting, even hating the Bush family and the rest of the Establishment for co-opting (and encouraging) the aspirations and grievances of Republican voters for decades, only to inevitably betray their voters - were instrumental to Trump's rise as a modern political figure?

Note how much mutual hate there is between Trump and the Bushes. The latter have better relations with the Clintons and the Obamas, for crying out loud! That should tell you everything.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This post is going straight to the good post gallery once I finish this reply.

Anyway, my basic question here: Am I on to something here? Do you reckon that people who genuinely believed in the politics of Nixon and Reagan, or what they stood for or claimed to stand for, what they represented - while simultaneously resenting, even hating the Bush family and the rest of the Establishment for co-opting (and encouraging) the aspirations and grievances of Republican voters for decades, only to inevitably betray their voters - were instrumental to Trump's rise as a modern political figure?

TL;DR: You're on freaking point man! Yes. Yes. Yes. 100%. The Trump coalition is a very broad one; you get blue collar union Democrats, libertarian-lite Paultards like me, social conservatives/values voters, and even a small slice of neoconservatives. Trump's movement started as a Republican uprising inside the party, but it has snowballed all the way to victory. People under-look or underestimate how informed the average voters are. When I was working for AFP in the summer of 2015, right before Trump announced, I was regularly hearing from strangers and grassroots activists about how "we're tired of Bushes." That doesn't just mean they don't want another Bush. It meant something broader; they wanted to destroy the whole Bush brand, that patronizing "we know what's best for you" attitude, the forever wars, the blind support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, the hostile approach to Russia, the rising rates of undocumented immigration, the Great Recession, hurricane Katrina, etc. Almost every person I met at AFP taking surveys, left or right, rude or polite, literally all agreed that they're glad Bush is gone.

That's why I scratch my head when people say Trump is the worst POTUS.

My personal appraisal of Donald Trump as a figure within American conservative/Republican politics is that he's Nixon and Reagan's revenge for the Bush crime family's decades of dominance over the Republican Party - I mean, Prescott Bush and other Eastern Establishment banker types were key figures in patronizing Nixon all the way back to his election to the House in 1946, and Senator P. Bush was a confidant (and favored gulf partner) of President Eisenhower (as opposed to Nixon, who despite being Ike's Vice President was basically ignored).

Fast-forward to 1968, and Nixon actually gives some thought to name a one-term Congressman from Texas as his running mate - George H.W. Bush (and even more so in 1973, after Agnew resigned). Repaying Old Man Prescott? Who knows.

I'll defer to Cathcon on this, but I think Bush Sr. was regarded as an adept administrator with a wide variety of global ties. If you look at his political career, he never made it far in any type of legislative contest, with failed congressional and Senate bids under his belt. His appointment makes sense from that perspective, but integrating Bush into the military-intelligence-diplomatic aspects of the Government were huge mistakes in hindsight.

Gerald Ford also gave serious consideration to naming Poppy Bush as his VP after Nixon resigned, ultimately losing out to Nelson Rockefeller (lol). The other runner-up? Donald Rumsfeld, who would be a lifelong rival of Poppy - they never liked each other, and this became relevant in the Dubya administration (and how Dick Cheney, who was initially Rumsfeld's protege, not Poppy's, operated in that context).

I'm writing a timeline on AH.com which features this dynamic heavily, but I never knew that Rumsfeld was a serious contender for VP in 1975! Interesting. Dodged a bullet there. Or dodged a nuclear war. Either one.


Anyway, after being seriously considered for Vice President on at least three separate occasions (two by Nixon, one by Ford), Poppy ends up becoming VP at the last moment after a bitter Republican primary fight with the darling of insurgent movement conservatism - Ronald Reagan. And while they ended up having a cordial and friendly relationship, their wives most certainly never did (lol Nancy and Barbara), and Reagan only endorsed Poppy once the 1988 GOP primary was over. And needless to say, Poppy - always suspect to the Republican Right - broke his READ MY LIPS pledge once in office, lost re-election to a draft-dodging Boomer sex pest from Arkansas (sad!), and was basically written out of the increasingly Reaganized (and Gingrichized - NEWT) Republican Party, to the point where his born-again failson had to basically do the opposite of his father and unashamedly embrace Reaganism (and a populist style - "I'd like to have a beer with him!") with an exaggerated/fake Texas accent.[/quote]

I like to think the decline of American conservatism goes as follows:

• The Goldwater/Nixon era sees the Silent Majority begining to take shape, moving the party rightward. Right now, the Democrats are going through their own version of this, with Bernie '16 being the Goldwater type and Warren '20 being analogous to Nixon '68.
• After this period is the decline, in which Reagan played President while the neoconservative movement - once a center left clique - used entryist tactic to hide behind the flag and parrot cheap Reagan platitudes. This is where conservatism began to decline, with Perot, Buchanan and Trump (and to a WAY lesser extent, Ron Paul) being the only counter-currents within American conservatism's evolution.

Anyway, my basic question here: Am I on to something here? Do you reckon that people who genuinely believed in the politics of Nixon and Reagan, or what they stood for or claimed to stand for, what they represented - while simultaneously resenting, even hating the Bush family and the rest of the Establishment for co-opting (and encouraging) the aspirations and grievances of Republican voters for decades, only to inevitably betray their voters - were instrumental to Trump's rise as a modern political figure?

Note how much mutual hate there is between Trump and the Bushes. The latter have better relations with the Clintons and the Obamas, for crying out loud! That should tell you everything.

The Trump presidency is definitely a reaction to the Bush presidency rather than the Obama presidency IMO. Obama was just the arrogant dickbag who got in the middle of the two, a sort of Eisenhower grade President (not too bad, not too interesting overall).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Explain the tenets of a winning conservative movement in 2028, if you don't mind. I'm curious for your take here on what would form the coalition and the basis of its ideological moorings.

Ron DeSantis and Josh Hawley sort of take the cake. They both believe in the free market and it's superiority as a system for both economic development and social mobility, but also ackowlege that the "free market" as we currently practice is hardly free nor fair. There is nothing capitalistic about giving certain companies like Amazon a free pass. Their growing monopoly is directly aided by the policies of our government. I don't support breaking companies up, but I definitely don't support bending the rules to benefit one company either.

DeSantis has been a reasonably popular pragmatic conservative who could probably keep the party united. Hawley too, I saw him on C-SPAN at some think-tank in Washington as was even more impressed by him than before.

[The Arizonan]

What do you think is going to happen if Donald Trump somehow gets removed from office through the impeachment process?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What do you think is going to happen if Donald Trump somehow gets removed from office through the impeachment process?

A YUGE chunk of the GOP base will become permanently disillusioned from the GOP. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump founds a new party in that case. Trump won’t go quietly either.

[Continential]

Why is most Minority Groups and Suburbanites leaving the GOP at record levels, what do you think of it?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Why is most Minority Groups and Suburbanites leaving the GOP at record levels, what do you think of it?

I don’t think the erosion is as strong as the media suggests. Most suburbanites will choose Trump over any of the progressive Democratic candidates like Bernie/Warren. I can personally say that Palm Beach County has seen doubled its number of black conservatives active within the local party/grassroots literally two fold. Trump will still lose the black vote by a sizable margin of seventy something points.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sanchez - something I've been wondering for a while but never asked you before.  Do you believe that autism only occurs in people like your brother, who is wholly unable to communicate and depends on assistance for basic tasks, and that what the medical/psychological community classifies as Asperger's or "high-functioning autism" does not actually exist?

Asking this as someone who's been diagnosed as autistic by the many doctors and psychiatrists I've been seeing all my life.  I tend to get the impression that you believe high-functioning autism is merely used as a synonym for social awkwardness, which I don't believe is accurate.

[NOVA Green]

Why do you consider yourself extremely "socially liberal" based upon your own Atlas scoring metric?

Not really seeing your posts reflecting an extremely "socially liberal" perspective, so inquiring minds want to know....

Peace, Love, and Prosperity....

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sanchez - something I've been wondering for a while but never asked you before.  Do you believe that autism only occurs in people like your brother, who is wholly unable to communicate and depends on assistance for basic tasks, and that what the medical/psychological community classifies as Asperger's or "high-functioning autism" does not actually exist?

Let's put it this way: if someone with an autism diagnosis who functions highly to the point they can work/go to school, then why let them live with that label hanging over their head? Being autistic or on the spectrum are not bad things, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. But why let the label rule you? If I were badly injured in a car accident, but still able to walk even though I was in incalculable pain, I wouldn't call myself a cripple.

Asking this as someone who's been diagnosed as autistic by the many doctors and psychiatrists I've been seeing all my life.  I tend to get the impression that you believe high-functioning autism is merely used as a synonym for social awkwardness, which I don't believe is accurate.

Autism is on a spectrum for a reason, and it varies in intensity. The higher functioning autistic people I have met or known in my life view life in a limited window; ie, thinking of what they can't do, rather than thinking "what can I do?"

Growing up, my mother was in a number of support groups and social circles involving mothers of autistic children. Every once in a while, some insufferable mother would come to our house and they'd bring their children to me and my brother with some weird mentality that we're somehow autism whisperers based on our experience with our own brother. The secret sauce that me and my brother have is that we're simply nice to them. We treated those kids like any other kids we encountered. There was no secret.

This one lady, who we'll call Jane, had an autistic son who was very high functioning. She met my mom through a mutual friend, and become a full time autism activist who was hell-bent on raising awareness for autism. This was in the 2000s (2004-2007ish), when autism diagnosis's were not nearly as prominent as today. Anywho, my mom always found Jane annoying because her son did not have a tenth of the troubles my brother has in terms of communicating or functioning, and yet she was often in the paper and occasionally even the local news with a sob story.

Maybe you're right that I am a bit too dismissive of some people's claims, but I've seen what my brother has been through and will always go through, and I just wouldn't want to see that someone else through that experience. It's a defense - if that person isn't autistic in my view, then there's more hope. Someone born with autism can never change that. Someone born without autism who is socially awkward can change that.

Take me for example. I'm awkward as all hell, and I still can only hang out with people on a one-on-one basis. Aside from my strongest grouping of friends from high school, every friend I have are more or less strangers to my other friends. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a quiet guy. But after high school, when all the prying eyes around me disappeared, I sort of found myself to some degree.

Why do you consider yourself extremely "socially liberal" based upon your own Atlas scoring metric?

Not really seeing your posts reflecting an extremely "socially liberal" perspective, so inquiring minds want to know....

Peace, Love, and Prosperity....

I'm fiercely anti-abortion on a personal level, but I do believe that is a matter between a woman and her God. There's a wrong choice and a right choice there. I don't want Roe overturned entirely, for example, though I do believe in keeping late term/partial birth abortions banned. Two friends of mine have been pregnant. One kept her baby and then gave it up for adoption, which has scarred her for life and presents a million different emotions for her (the good news is that it's an open adoption and she's in her baby's life, even if she's just a "cool aunt" figure) while the second had an abortion and is currently partying her ass off like any student. I love both to death. They've both been very important and close friends. My job isn't to judge, but rather, to comfort. I'll leave judgement to God, and follow my Lord's command to not throw stones.

On gay rights, I'm mostly in line with my generation. Same-sex marriage and relationships are not something that I'm against. I'm also accepting of people's gender identities, though I do believe there are boundaries. I don't believe a transwoman should be in the same bathroom as my eight year old cousin if she's still capable of using a urinal, for example. It's not that I think transpeople are dangerous or more likely to molest a child or anything like that. Rather, it's just a matter of respect in general. 99% of the country is still cisgender, and their lack of evolution on the matter isn't a symptom of bigotry so much as it is just blissful ignorance. But I'm cis, so I won't claim or attempt to speak for transpeople on the issue.

Everyone knows I'm an immigration hawk. That's not a surprise.

I'm for criminal justice reform, and I want to see all the black kids in jail be released and have their records expunged because they sold some pot. I think my younger brother would be better served if he had a place to go receive safe needles and engage in medically supervised use rather than just shooting up God knows what on the streets where he can very easily die. These centers would ideally offer junkies not only a safe place to use, but also counseling, therapy, and other services that could help them kick the habit. I become borderline enraged when I see government funded ads trying to stop kids from smoking (the horror) but not a single God damned PSA about opiates and their danger.

Lastly, I'm militantly anti-war. This comes as part of my pro-life ethos. I oppose most abortions, I oppose the death penalty (though I don't always defend those sentenced to death or executed), and I oppose American intervention in global conflicts because I understand that there is nothing more dangerous and devastating than the full force of raw American military power.

You should be free to burn the flag, and you should be free to own a gun. I'm still very libertarian at heart on many issues, just not wallet issues.

[NOVA Green]

Why do you consider yourself extremely "socially liberal" based upon your own Atlas scoring metric?

Not really seeing your posts reflecting an extremely "socially liberal" perspective, so inquiring minds want to know....

Peace, Love, and Prosperity....

I'm fiercely anti-abortion on a personal level, but I do believe that is a matter between a woman and her God. There's a wrong choice and a right choice there. I don't want Roe overturned entirely, for example, though I do believe in keeping late term/partial birth abortions banned. Two friends of mine have been pregnant. One kept her baby and then gave it up for adoption, which has scarred her for life and presents a million different emotions for her (the good news is that it's an open adoption and she's in her baby's life, even if she's just a "cool aunt" figure) while the second had an abortion and is currently partying her ass off like any student. I love both to death. They've both been very important and close friends. My job isn't to judge, but rather, to comfort. I'll leave judgement to God, and follow my Lord's command to not throw stones.

On gay rights, I'm mostly in line with my generation. Same-sex marriage and relationships are not something that I'm against. I'm also accepting of people's gender identities, though I do believe there are boundaries. I don't believe a transwoman should be in the same bathroom as my eight year old cousin if she's still capable of using a urinal, for example. It's not that I think transpeople are dangerous or more likely to molest a child or anything like that. Rather, it's just a matter of respect in general. 99% of the country is still cisgender, and their lack of evolution on the matter isn't a symptom of bigotry so much as it is just blissful ignorance. But I'm cis, so I won't claim or attempt to speak for transpeople on the issue.

Everyone knows I'm an immigration hawk. That's not a surprise.

I'm for criminal justice reform, and I want to see all the black kids in jail be released and have their records expunged because they sold some pot. I think my younger brother would be better served if he had a place to go receive safe needles and engage in medically supervised use rather than just shooting up God knows what on the streets where he can very easily die. These centers would ideally offer junkies not only a safe place to use, but also counseling, therapy, and other services that could help them kick the habit. I become borderline enraged when I see government funded ads trying to stop kids from smoking (the horror) but not a single God damned PSA about opiates and their danger.

Lastly, I'm militantly anti-war. This comes as part of my pro-life ethos. I oppose most abortions, I oppose the death penalty (though I don't always defend those sentenced to death or executed), and I oppose American intervention in global conflicts because I understand that there is nothing more dangerous and devastating than the full force of raw American military power.

You should be free to burn the flag, and you should be free to own a gun. I'm still very libertarian at heart on many issues, just not wallet issues.
[/quote]

[/quote]Thanks Sanchez for not only being extremely honest and transparent, but also responding a manner that is perhaps somewhat atypical considering that you sometimes shoot from the hip and hit the wrong targets in the process...

1.) Abortion---- hell this is a complicated issue for many families throughout America regardless of religious affiliation.

You can believe what you want to believe on a personal level, but you never even addressed the shutting down of Planned Parenthood Clinics, and various other places that might provide a wide range of Female Reproductive Medical Services.

Should the "State" dictate access to Female Reproductive Rights?   (Can tell a story or too from my own extended family on this issue).

2.) LGBTQ---  okay, you are a lover not a hater.... "bathroom bills"  sure get it, still trying to address the issue with a few folks at work where basically at the large factory site people can essentially piss where they want to piss, regardless of "self-identified" gender orientation.

3.) "Immigration Hawk"--- Sanchez honestly more of your posts make you sound like a racist than a thoughtful guy on the subject, although granted I might have missed nor followed your discussions on this topic.

4.) Criminal Justice Reform---- I would agree that this would generally be considered a "socially liberal" perspective, especially since there are many Faith Based folks that have personal stories about substance abuse, and being busted for small quantities of MJ or other harder drugs, but ultimately kids and adults getting high is something that has been going on for decades, and drug busts have disproportionately targeted street level dealers rather than the Kingpins at the top of the organizations.

5.) "Militantly Anti-War"----   Although I am not convinced this would fall into the "Socially Liberal" category, personally I tend to subscribe more towards this POV, as a Son of a Vietnam Era generation where my dad narrowly got out of the draft picks when his lottery # was called because of medical issues....

Now being "Anti-War" and "Anti-Abortion" is in no way shape or form a conflict....

Oregon Republican Senator Mark Hatfield was such as man....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hatfield

6.) "Burn the Flag".... Seen that happen a few times in my lifetime, but the highlight was in a Pub in the UK in the early '90s where a band song sets start by burning the German Flag, then an American Flag, and next thing you know they are burning the Union Jack....

7.) Believe I have expressed my opinion on firearm related items in many places on Atlas, so certainly it would put you on the socially liberal side of the equation on that item.....

8.) Sanchez--- If you are militantly anti-war, what are you currently doing to stop the looming American War against Iran because of some random American intervention between the Saudis and Iranians within the Civil War of Yemen???

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I will reply point by point to Nova Green.

1. I'm not a Planned Parenthood fan, but there are areas in women's health unrelated to abortion (cancer screenings, HIV tests, etc) that are objectively good things. In my ideal, slightly libertarian worldview, I'd want to see private donations fund PP rather than federal money. But the other services are just too important.

But we agree that the state should stay out of this issue regardless, even if our views diverge afterwards. As a Pentecostal, I believe the state is a gateway drug of sorts that gets in the way of faith. If religion is mandated, is it sincere? I say no. If abortion is illegal or completely disappears from society, than our culture of death will just manifest itself in other ways.

But basically, I think abortion is wrong and I'd counsel anyone who solicits my opinion on the matter (ie, nobody) to choose life.

2. Yeah, like I said, I'm not anti-LGBT in any meaningful way. LGBT rights don't really stir my passions politically (not that I don't care about the struggles of gay/trans youth) but that has to do with me being straight and ignorant of the pressures their community faces.

3. At this point, I've explained my position on immigration enough that I don't really feel like getting into a debate on the matter. Racist or not, those are my views, and they are compounded living in south FL, which is a mecca for immigration - documented or not.

4. The needle is moving in a positive direction on this issue. Matt Gaetz is cool with it. AOC is cool with it. The AFP/Kochservatives are cool with it. Literally everyone's cool about it accept Jeff Sessions.

5. If Trump took us into Iran tomorrow, I'd get onboard the Tulsi Train and join the Yang Gang. That is the biggest deal breaker I have. But Trump ordered a halt to a planned bombing raid specifically because he knew that the response was not proportional to the original incident. That's a good sign. I don't think we're going into Iran under Trump. I was furious when he bombed Assad for no good reason, and he hasn't repeated that since. I also don't like his random deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia, but whatevs, it's still better than Hillary.

[NOVA Green]

I will reply point by point to Nova Green.

1. I'm not a Planned Parenthood fan, but there are areas in women's health unrelated to abortion (cancer screenings, HIV tests, etc) that are objectively good things. In my ideal, slightly libertarian worldview, I'd want to see private donations fund PP rather than federal money. But the other services are just two important.

But we agree that the state should stay out of this issue regardless, even if our views diverge afterwards. As a Pentecostal, I believe the state is a gateway drug of sorts that gets in the way of faith. If religion is mandated, is it sincere? I say no. If abortion is illegal or completely disappears from society, than our culture of death will just manifest itself in other ways.

But basically, I think abortion is wrong and I'd counsel anyone who solicits my opinion on the matter (ie, nobody) to choose life.

2. Yeah, like I said, I'm not anti-LGBT in any meaningful way. LGBT rights don't really stir my passions politically (not that I don't care about the struggles of gay/trans youth) but that has to do with me being straight and ignorant of the pressures their community faces.

3. At this point, I've explained my position on immigration enough that I don't really feel like getting into a debate on the matter. Racist or not, those are my views, and they are compounded living in south FL, which is a mecca for immigration - documented or not.

4. The needle is moving in a positive direction on this issue. Matt Gaetz is cool with it. AOC is cool with it. The AFP/Kochservatives are cool with it. Literally everyone's cool about it accept Jeff Sessions.

5. If Trump took us into Iran tomorrow, I'd get onboard the Tulsi Train and join the Yang Gang. That is the biggest deal breaker I have. But Trump ordered a halt to a planned bombing raid specifically because he knew that the response was not proportional to the original incident. That's a good sign. I don't think we're going into Iran under Trump. I was furious when he bombed Assad for no good reason, and he hasn't repeated that since. I also don't like his random deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia, but whatevs, it's still better than Hillary.

Thanks Sanchez----

You are actually a lot more likeable and understandable in post like these, rather than in a few others.

I suspect we actually agree on certain items much more than we disagree, believe it or not....

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sanchez - something I've been wondering for a while but never asked you before.  Do you believe that autism only occurs in people like your brother, who is wholly unable to communicate and depends on assistance for basic tasks, and that what the medical/psychological community classifies as Asperger's or "high-functioning autism" does not actually exist?

Let's put it this way: if someone with an autism diagnosis who functions highly to the point they can work/go to school, then why let them live with that label hanging over their head? Being autistic or on the spectrum are not bad things, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. But why let the label rule you? If I were badly injured in a car accident, but still able to walk even though I was in incalculable pain, I wouldn't call myself a cripple.

Asking this as someone who's been diagnosed as autistic by the many doctors and psychiatrists I've been seeing all my life.  I tend to get the impression that you believe high-functioning autism is merely used as a synonym for social awkwardness, which I don't believe is accurate.

Autism is on a spectrum for a reason, and it varies in intensity. The higher functioning autistic people I have met or known in my life view life in a limited window; ie, thinking of what they can't do, rather than thinking "what can I do?"

Growing up, my mother was in a number of support groups and social circles involving mothers of autistic children. Every once in a while, some insufferable mother would come to our house and they'd bring their children to me and my brother with some weird mentality that we're somehow autism whisperers based on our experience with our own brother. The secret sauce that me and my brother have is that we're simply nice to them. We treated those kids like any other kids we encountered. There was no secret.

This one lady, who we'll call Jane, had an autistic son who was very high functioning. She met my mom through a mutual friend, and become a full time autism activist who was hell-bent on raising awareness for autism. This was in the 2000s (2004-2007ish), when autism diagnosis's were not nearly as prominent as today. Anywho, my mom always found Jane annoying because her son did not have a tenth of the troubles my brother has in terms of communicating or functioning, and yet she was often in the paper and occasionally even the local news with a sob story.

Maybe you're right that I am a bit too dismissive of some people's claims, but I've seen what my brother has been through and will always go through, and I just wouldn't want to see that someone else through that experience. It's a defense - if that person isn't autistic in my view, then there's more hope. Someone born with autism can never change that. Someone born without autism who is socially awkward can change that.

Take me for example. I'm awkward as all hell, and I still can only hang out with people on a one-on-one basis. Aside from my strongest grouping of friends from high school, every friend I have are more or less strangers to my other friends. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a quiet guy. But after high school, when all the prying eyes around me disappeared, I sort of found myself to some degree.

I appreciate you clarifying your thoughts on this.  Speaking from my own experience, I was never "officially" diagnosed until much later in life.  Before then, my teachers and some of my doctors would often suggest I may have a form of mild autism in private conversations with my parents.  I was always a "special needs" student, mainly because of my learning disorders, but I was also never a very social person.  When most kids were out playing during recess or socializing at lunch, I was sitting by myself reading books.  I almost never had behavioral issues at school, but in my preschool days I had a weird tendency to repeat my teacher ad verbatim as they were reading to the class and even after I was warned several times to stop, I would continue repeating them just because I didn't know how to follow ques, no matter how direct they were.  Thankfully I grew out of that, but I still live with these quirks even to this day and even though I'm more conscious of them now and better at concealing them, I've never been able to fully overcome them.

So I guess in short, my communication/listening skills were always somewhat off, and although I outgrew most of my 'extreme' quirks, communicating with other people not online is still extremely difficult for me.  I am also (apparently) not that great at hiding it, because parents of autistic kids I've met have been able to tell very quickly.  So ASD does vary in people and express itself in different ways, and it's also much more complicated than 'shyness' or 'social awkwardness.'  That's one of the common misconceptions I try to dispel.

But I do generally agree with your point about not letting labels define a person.  No matter how severe a disability might be, it only defines you if you let it define you.  Humans are complex creatures.  What condition/s our doctors slap on us is just one part of our story.