Trump Prophets Fall Flat After 2018 Midterm Election

Trump Prophets Fall Flat After 2018 Midterm Election November 7, 2018

Are we still reeling from the election day hangover?

So here is what we know: Congress is under divided leadership. While Republicans have maintained control of the Senate, Democrats have regained control of the House.

For weeks, politicos have been predicting this very thing, so for some, this is no shock. We’ve had time to prepare.

Nancy Pelosi will likely regain her former position as Speaker of the House. In the early morning hours of Wednesday, she was given the support of President Trump, who said she was deserving of the honor.

That’s probably a bit jarring for those partisan warriors of the MAGA tribe, who have, for so very long, deemed Pelosi one of the worst of the worst Democrat boogeymen.

In the overall, there was no “blue wave.” With that said, could this be counted as a victory for Republicans?

They broke even, at best.

So with all that said, let’s turn to the self-proclaimed Trump “prophets,” who eschew actual Biblical teachings, in favor of politics as a religion.

One of the most loathsome of these fakes and frauds is Mark Taylor, the subject of the so-called “Trump Prophecy,” which Liberty University’s media department helped make into a major motion picture.

Taylor, for those who need a refresher, is the retired firefighter who claims that God spoke to him in 2011 and told him Donald Trump would be the next president.

Taylor, who has said he doesn’t attend church, because 99 percent of America’s churches are satanic, in his view, has a website full of insane words of “prophecy.”

Most of them are variations on the rhetoric you find in the bowels of the internet, like Illuminati conspiracies, Trump initiating mass arrests of corrupt politicians, etc…

Who knew 4chan was full of prophets?

Still, Taylor has a following among some American evangelicals who don’t really require a Biblical foundation to their prophets, so much as they’re willing to settle for the right political views.

Those would be your characters like Jim Bakker, who often has Taylor on to discuss his nonsense.

Then there’s CBN, which recently spoke to Taylor, in order to get his latest word, as it pertained to the 2018 midterm election.

It was a doozy, of course.

“Go back to 2016 to the presidential election – all the fake news, the pundits, the polls were all wrong as we found out,” Taylor said. “It was just the exact opposite of what they were saying. So the same thing’s going to happen here.”

“There will be no ‘Blue Wave.’ A lot of people are talking about a ‘Red Wave,’ but it’s actually going to be a ‘Red Tsunami’ is what the Lord is showing me,” he continued.

“Because you’re seeing things right now; you’re seeing the resignations; you’re seeing the highest amount of resignations ever,” Taylor said. “You’re seeing people resign; people like Paul Ryan are saying they’re not running again.”

“So you’re gonna see this ‘Red Tsunami’ really take effect all the way across the country at state, local and federal levels,” he continued.

Not a “red wave,” but something as devastating as a tsunami?


That “wow,” by the way, is for just how wrong Taylor was. Again.

So what are we to think? The reality is here, and there is no blue wave, certainly, but there most definitely is no “red tsunami.”

Was the Lord wrong?

Hang on to that thought. Taylor was not alone.

Another “prophet,” Charlie Shamp, shared his own version of a prophetic word on his ministry website, Destiny Encounters International.

According to Shamp, in a piece he titled “I saw a Tsunami hit the United States,” he offered:

“I again looked and saw a massive red tsunami wave coming to America. Suddenly, it crashed against the shores and covered the nation. I thought, ‘No. Does this mean a disaster will come?’ I heard the Lord say, ‘I will come to America with another wave of revival. This will be the third wave and will crash against the shores so intensely that the nation will awaken to righteousness again. I will cover this nation with my blood; cities will experience the salvation of my hand. I will empower my church to preach the message of the Cross and multitudes will run to altars on street corners and stadiums as I cover the nation with the blood of my Son from sea to shining sea.”

“The Lord spoke to me again, ‘As a sure sign of these things coming to pass there will be a wave of conservatives elected during the midterm election in November 2018; it will be breaking news. They will carry the House and the Senate, and I will uproot, replant and rebuild the nation. I will tie the three branches of government together, for a person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken. I will no longer allow your president to stand on his own. Even now I have called others to come along side and help bring the nation back from the dead, and they will take their seats in the coming days.'”

So electing Republicans is a sign of revival?

He closed his piece with:

I saw the House of Representatives stay in the hands of the Republicans and will move much more to a conservative position. I could see into the Senate and saw the Republicans gain 9 seats, those that took their place were considerably more conservative then those who had previously been there. I heard the Lord say, “Yes, nine will be a sign; a sign that righteousness has been birthed in the nation and earth.” I saw three constitutional conservatives were appointed to the Supreme Court by President before 2020.

I was so stirred in my heart at the sight of the nation, it was no longer surviving; it was thriving. Waves of outpouring, renewal and revival were all around. I saw tangible glory clouds coming down. God will have his way in the coming days, but we must stand and continue to pray.

Let me point out several things.

First of all, as it stands currently, the Senate is far from gaining 9 Republican seats. They held on with 51 seats. Democrats actually lost 4 seats.

Secondly, the very curious matter of the closeness of Shamp’s “prophecy” to that of Taylor’s might be explained with the date.

Shamp’s failed prophecy was written and posted to his website on June 7, 2018 – exactly 5 months ago, today.

Taylor’s similar “prophecy” came more recently. As in, the last couple of days.

I wonder if Taylor bounces around the internet and reads the words of other “prophets”?

Yeah. I’m just thinking out loud, but go ahead. Color me a skeptic.

Taylor is a true MAGA warrior, and he advised in the CBN interview for Christians to turn away from the news media and only listen to Trump, directly.

That would be the Trump who said he did not need God’s forgiveness, because he had never done anything requiring forgiveness, and who displays some of the worst character to ever inhabit the White House.

Here’s the thing about prophets – if they declare it, it happens. Actual prophets hear the voice of God and speak only what He tells them to speak.

I know some who believe there are no more prophets in this day. I’m not one of those people, because I believe to declare that is to put limits on the Holy Spirit.

That being said, I also believe true prophets to be few and far between, and if what someone who claims the mantle of “prophet” says does not come to be, then they are not a prophet. They are a fraud.

We were warned to be wary of such men (and women).

1 John 4:1 (AMP) – Beloved, do not believe every spirit [speaking through a self-proclaimed prophet]; instead test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets and teachers have gone out into the world.”

All we need to do to test this particular spirit is to look at the election results today.

Christians need to reject this false prophet, who has attempted to take hold of believers by destructive and corrupt words, assigning those words to our God, all for his personal gain.

I have no doubt that without repentance on their part, God will deal with Taylor and Shamp, in His own time. There will be a price to pay for so publicly telling people things He did not give them to say.

What happens to those evangelical Christians so eager to chase these falsehoods, simply because it was convenient to their politics, however?

The hope is that they wake up.





"The Blue Tail Gadfly - thank you for the C.S. Lewis quote. It is perfect ..."

New Book by Andrew McCabe: Trump ..."
"Any opinions about Trubnikov and Surkov and their relationship to Putin and/or British agent Christopher ..."

Justin Amash Declares His Independence (and ..."
"Thank you for the good thoughts you've expressed above. I too have noticed the polling ..."

Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire ..."
"I disagree with you on a lot of things. However, I'm always appreciative of how ..."

Justice May Finally Call on Billionaire ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian Orion

    “Trump initiating mass arrests of corrupt politicians, etc…”–Pretty sure Dishonest Don ain’t arresting his buddies in the swamp, bro.

  • chemical

    Funny you see this breaking even — on the left side of the aisle, this election was cause for celebration (although we suffered a few defeats, too. I tried, Beto).
    The most important part is Democrats broke absolute Republican control: Before the election, the GOP held both chambers of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Losing the House means the GOP doesn’t get free reign to do whatever they want anymore. The fact that the GOP lost a chamber during a booming economy should make them do some serious soul-searching. And the GOP historically does better in the mid-terms! The Senate was also a bad deal for the Democrats — most of the people up for re-election were Democrats in states that Trump won. You guys get the bad senate map in 2020, though: A lot of the senators up for re-election in 2020 are Republicans in states that Clinton won.

    On the state side of things, liberals made some gains, too. Scott Walker: Out. Kris Kobach: Out. Gerrymandering: Voters overwhelmingly supported non-partisan districting to prevent gerrymandering, which will make elections more fair.

    Blue wave, but not a blue tsunami. Democracy won last night.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    “Pretty sure Dishonest Don ain’t arresting his buddies in the swamp, bro.”

    No, but if he ordered– without evidence of wrongdoing– the arrest of half of the Democratic representatives in the House, the majority of Evangelicals would cheer.

  • Re: “…she was given the support of President Trump, who said she was deserving of the honor.”

    It didn’t take a prophet to see that coming. When the Democrats took control of the House in the 2006 election, Trump wrote her a note saying she is the greatest.

    It was interesting to watch Nancy Pelosi’s mock coronation speech last night. As she assured us that the checks and balances of the Constitution will be restored, she preceded to prattle off a long list of unconstitutional socialist programs she plans to legislate. Many of which Trump supports in one manner or another. If the checks and balances will be restored as she proclaims, then the other Branches and the States would refuse to comply. So I don’t think checks and balances mean the same thing to Nancy as they do in a nation of laws and not men. Of course we stopped being a nation of laws some time ago…

    “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. ~George Washington’s Farewell Address

    “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”~Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Can we say the REPUBLIC won last night – instead of “Democracy” ? There is a HUGE difference between the two forms of government.

    Now that the Democrat party is more and more being identified as the “Democratic” party and “Democrats” as “Democratics” (an abuse of the language and attempt to re-define a political party by using literally the same word for the party and its operatives as is commonly used to define concepts of freedom and individual rights), The distinction between a “Republic” and a “Democracy” becomes more important.

    Trump promised to try to do away with the Electoral College in 2016 and there are a couple Democrat projects attempting to convert our Republic into a pure Democracy (SOS (Sec of State) project where Democrats are trying to convert all states to “winner-take-all” primaries – and “winner-take-all” Electoral College delegations, the Democrat initiative to have all Senators elected by popular votes rather than by Senatorial districts, and the Democrat project to build popular momentum to change the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College.

    Destroying the Electoral College would eliminate the importance of state votes, (and the check on popular power in the Senate) since Senators AND President would then likely be selected by the urban population centers in each state, leaving the rural areas completely without any effective political voice and leaving only a popular vote for President or Senate – something big liberal states like California and New York would dearly love because they would instantly dominate any Presidential vote as well as the Senate for all confirmation hearings.

    As Trump said at one of his rallies in 2016, if not for the Electoral College, he could have stayed home and phoned in his campaign, campaigning through TV, Radio and print alone to “win” just the major urban centers of the country (NYC, LA, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Sacramento, Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Pittsburgh, etc) and (with a pure democracy) not have to worry about ‘lesser’, non-urban populations like Montana, Colorado, Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. It was only the Electoral College that forced him to leave NYC and actually travel the country.

    The Electoral College was specifically created in the US Constitution to PREVENT large urban populations from dominating the politics of our country and to insure that small or sparsely-populated states actually have a say in how we elect Presidents. The Electoral College (like the Senate) is there to protect the voices of those NOT living in large cities.

    So can we please say the “REPUBLIC” won last night instead of “Democracy” lest the word “Democracy” be conflated with “Democratic(s)” which now refers to the Democrat Party only and (more importantly) “Democracy” as a form of government is simply not suited to a country the size of our where large numbers of people in rural areas can be “out-voiced” (out-voted) by a relatively few urban population centers ?

  • chemical

    Can we say the REPUBLIC won last night – instead of “Democracy” ? There is a HUGE difference between the two forms of government.

    Fair enough. I realize in a Republic the voters choose representatives as their voice in government, which is what we do here in the US.

    I’m using the word “democracy” in the sense that it was a victory for Americans in general still having a voice in government. Gerrymandering got absolutely trounced in states where it was on the polls. In those states, the politicians will no longer get to choose the voters.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Thank you.

    I feel we must remain vigilant against moves that would destroy or degrade our representative form of government in any way in favor of a populist Democracy. In part, it was the “winner-take-all” primary states (like Florida) that allowed Trump to win when the majority of voters split between other candidates (in Florida: Cruz & Rubio) allowing Trump (generally in 3rd or 4th place) to walk away with all the EC delegates for that state. I view that situation as vindication of the purpose and original design of the EC and a resulting failure due to the Democrat attempts to change it to a pure Democracy.

    Remaining vigilant also includes recognizing that the US is NOT a Democracy (but a Republic) and calling out those that would attempt to conflate the two uses of the word Democracy with each other and with the new terminology being used to refer to the Democrat Party because loose definitions too often and too easily lead to wrong connotations and then lead to dangerous assumptions and beliefs (such as that the popular vote should determine the winner of a Presidential election instead of the EC votes).

    Again, thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the difference between the two forms of government.

    BTW: I’m pleased on the defeat of Gerrymandering. That practice should have been eliminated years ago. I’m glad to see it defeated.

  • Marcion

    Small rural states get ignored under the electoral college too though. Nobody campaigned in Montana, Colorado, Utah, Mississippi, or Alabama because they vote for one party or another consistently. The electoral college just prioritizes states which could go for either party, such as urbanized mega-state Florida. It has an added bonus of totally disenfranchising anyone who voted for the candidate that didn’t win their state, since if one candidate gets 51% of the vote in a state they win all its electors and anyone who voted for the other candidates may as well have never voted.

    There’s a reason America has written constitutions for multiple countries but never given any of them an electoral college. It’s a terrible system. Conservatives in America just cling to it and their equally terrible senate because they’re so unpopular they couldn’t win in any sort of democratic system and have to embrace minority rule.

  • Marcion

    The electoral college turns every election into a series of winner take all primaries though. That’s how Trump became the nominee with a plurality and became president while getting 3 million fewer votes from his opponent. Why is winner take all by state bad for primaries but good for the presidency?

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Your premise that the EC turns every election into a series of “winner take all primaries” is non-sensical and erroneous under any form of parsing I’m able to do on that statement other than an assumption of your predisposition toward a mob-rule flat Democracy where illegal alien votes in California can not be confined to the representation of California, but count toward cancelling the votes of US citizens that are cast in Texas, Alabama and New York.

    The EC has nothing to do with making primaries “winner take all”.

    Perhaps you can provide some details to your broad-brush claims and accusations agains the EC ?

    Then maybe we can all understand what you are attempting to say and perhaps provide some insights to your (apparently clueless) conclusions.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Your premise that all elections must turn out the way YOU want them to is erroneous. The EC design is intended to prevent a mob-rule Democracy from disenfranchising small or rural states or (within a state) small or rural areas.

    When a state decides that if urban population centers vote one way and rural areas vote a different way, that ALL their rural population should have no representation in the EC by making their delegates winner-take-all is what disenfranchises voters.

    When a state allows splitting of their delegates (which in turn are assigned based on relative population) among their own population, they can better represent the areas or regional preferences of the voters.

    Your argument would imply otherwise, which invalidates your claim of voters being disenfranchised.

    As to America writing constitutions for other countries, where did you hear that nonsense ? America has NEVER written a constitution for other countries. At most we can and will advise them, but they are responsible for writing their own Constitutions as well as for adopting them.

    Name 1 other country that is as large and diverse as the US that we have written a constitution for. You cannot. Name one other country were we not only wrote their constitution, but then forced them to ratify it. You cannot. There are none – and you know it.

  • mudskipper

    The fact that they were wrong in their prophecies won’t lose them any support at all. As long as they speak to their supporters current hopes and fears with their prophecies, their dismal past record won’t matter one jot.

  • Marcion

    I’m just assessing the electoral college as it is. States make their electors winner-take all to make pandering to them more enticing. It’s the inevitable result of the system. You could change it to proportional representation of electors to make it more representative, but why jump through all the hurdles of assigning electors by region when you could just have a straight popular vote?

    Name 1 other country that is as large and diverse as the US that we have written a constitution for. You cannot.

    How about Japan? Americans wrote most of Japan’s constitution after the war. It’s why it has a pacifist clause (but no electoral college).

  • Marcion

    Under the electoral college, states assign all their electors to the winner of that state’s popular vote… just like how under winner take all primaries delegates are all assigned to the winner of that state’s popular vote. They’re the same in principle. If winner-take-all primaries are bad, so is the electoral college for the same reasons.

  • mark

    I’m glad you put this article out there you’ve done a great service.
    Jesus said beware of false prophets. Mark Taylor is clearly a false
    prophet he speaks presumptuously the scripture clearly states in
    Deuteronomy if a prophet speaks a word and that word does not come to
    pass don’t fear that prophet he spoke presumptuously. It ain’t no space
    for fake grace. They need to stop performing. People (Christians) are
    always asking them “you got a word”, “you got a word” like little chicks
    waiting for the parent to bring food and they perform, well the song
    and dance caught up to them. They talk about God put trump in office “no
    he didn’t” your vote did. God’s design was always “all things in
    Christ” and that Christ was to be “all in all”. His intention is a
    Theocracy (God rule) not god rule. Mark Taylor comes across as a racist.
    He’s kinda got a Hitler or skin head look. Its time for the church to mature and get a Word
    from God for yourself and stop claiming you have a Word from God when
    you don’t. SHUT THE CRAP UP!!!

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Now I see the fundamental misunderstanding in your post.

    The definition of a “winner takes all” primary is that all delegates to the convention are assigned to the popular vote winner.

    The electoral college does not assign electors at all. The electoral college is COMPOSED of the electors from each state.

    The delegates to a party’s convention and the state electors to the Electoral college are NOT the same.

    The states are not allowed to designate who primary delegates may vote for at party conventions or whether primaries in that state will be winner-take-all or proportional. Those decisions are made by the party (private organizations) and are not subject to state law. State laws are also not allowed to dictate whether primaries will be open or closed – again a party decision.

    Your belief that states assign all their electors to a the winner of that state’s popular vote ONLY holds true if the state decides it holds true. There are SOME states that assign their electoral college votes proportionally based on the top 2 or 3 candidate vote shares. I believe (but don’t recall off the top of my head) that this may actually be the majority of states or close to it.

    The state’s decision on how to award electoral college votes has NOTHING to do with the party decisions on how to run their primaries.

    The electoral college is necessary to a representative Republic because without it, the only geographical areas being represented are the high-population urban areas in high-population states.

    If you mean that winner-take-all in EITHER the Electoral College OR primary elections is bad, I can agree with that.

    To say that because winner-take-all skews primary races by ignoring the (up to) 49% of voters that did NOT vote for the “winner”, then the Electoral College itself must be somehow “bad” is simply wrong. To say that all states in the Electoral College assign electors as “winner-take-all” is also just wrong. The correct statement is that winner-take-all rules in EITHER primary elections OR in the assignment of Electoral College electors is bad for the same reasons – it disenfranchises up to half the voters that were in the minority.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You were assessing the Electoral College as you believed it to be – not as it is. See my post above for corrections to what I now see are your false assumptions about our election processes. In this post you introduce circular logic to try to justify your assumptions above. Your circular logic does not work.

    Your choice of Japan as country that is as large and diverse as America is just ludicrous. Japan has nowhere near the size or geographical diversity of America and is known to be probably THE most homogenous, racially pure population on Earth due to their long history of isolationism and reproducing only within their own race. If you’ve ever been in Japan, you’d see the entire population is of uniform height – varying only be a couple inches (if that). The Japanese people have the epicanthic folds as a signature characteristic of their entire race – another indication of their history of avoidance of outside influence or interbreeding. When your only example exists on a handful of islands and is as genetically pure as the Japanese population, there is little difference between regions and little to no need for an Electoral College – not to mention that your only “example” is over 70 years old.

    The US did not impose a Constitution on the Japanese people in any event. The Japanese wrote their Constitution themselves as a basis for a government that met the requirements of the Allies after WWII. The US (with other allies) MAY HAVE provided assistance, but did not write their Constitution for them (though the Allies DID reserve the authority to approve the Japanese Constitution). To this day, the Japanese still revere their Emperor who (like the British Queen) is now a figurehead and honorary head-of-state – a position not found in our Constitution.

    Because of the limited geographic size of Japan, their lack of diverse geographical regions (containing vastly different priorities and needs) and their lack of cultural and racial diversity, Japan is a non-starter for the question I posed.

    Try again.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Small rural states get ignored under the electoral college too though

    Once again you show your lack of knowledge about how our election systems work.

    Small rural states not only do not get ignored, they are specifically granted (perhaps more) representation than their population might otherwise warrant in a pure mob-rule Democracy. Because of the size of the US population compared to the fixed size of the Electoral College, as the size of the population grows, the number of people represented by each elector grows as well. Since EVERY state gets at least ONE elector based on population, small rural states STILL get one population-based vote even if their population would not have have met the current ratio of overall-population-to-electors for a single population-based vote.

    It does not matter whether politicians campaign in a state. Are you really (seriously) trying to argue that because politicians don’t campaign in a given state that that state should not have representation in either the Electoral College or Congress ?

    My suggestion to you is to either take some civics courses or do some actual research before you continue to make a fool of yourself – perhaps both.

  • Marcion

    As Trump said at one of his rallies in 2016, if not for the Electoral College, he could have stayed home and phoned in his campaign, campaigning through TV, Radio and print alone to “win” just the major urban centers of the country (NYC, LA, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Sacramento, Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Pittsburgh, etc) and (with a pure democracy) not have to worry about ‘lesser’, non-urban populations like Montana, Colorado, Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. It was only the Electoral College that forced him to leave NYC and actually travel the country.

    You seemed to think the electoral college forced people to campaign in rural states. If I’m misinterpreting you let me know.I also forgot Colorado was a swing state, but my point still stands. It’s only visited because it could plausibly vote for either democrats or republicans.

    But to the larger point, small states would still be represented under a popular vote system. The votes of their voters would represent them as much as anyone else’s, and if you keep your congress they would still have representatives there (unless they lived in Washington D.C lmao). They just wouldn’t be pointlessly over-represented by an electoral college. The “mob rule” you’re scared of is just equal representation instead of over-representation based on arbitrary geographic boundaries.

  • Marcion

    I… didn’t expect this to devolve into race science. I don’t know why you’re bringing a country’s genetic purity into a discussion of electoral systems, but if that’s what you want then that’s where I’ll leave it I guess.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    No – the mob-rule is the natural result of a pure Democracy. You are intentionally trying to conflate the fact that politicians CHOOSE not to campaign in small states with your interpretation that small states should have no say in elections.

    The electoral college ALSO contains a (IIRC) one electoral vote per senator in addition to one vote per Congressional Representative. Thus small states get at least 3 votes. Is that the same ‘bang-for-buck’ as large states ? No. Does that mean they are NOT entitled to the same Senatorial representation as large states ? Again – no.

    Because Trump could not just campaign within cities and win the election (specifically because of the Electoral College), he was forced to leave NYC and actually visit the states. The problem with your popular vote concept is that it DOES disenfranchise rural areas of the country. You are making a false assumption: that the needs and priorities of cities are the same as those of farmers and small-town denizens.

    As just one example, city dwellers usually do not own automobiles because they have no place to park and (given mass-transit) no need for personal automobiles to get around (like to/from work). Thus city dwellers like high gasoline taxes (that they don’t pay, having no personal automobiles) that seriously harm farmers and the transportation industry. Truckers need fuel to move goods and farmers need fuel to run their tractors and combines, etc. Yet city dwellers insist on state- or federally- subsidized mass-transit that gives no benefits to rural areas not in the service area because city dwellers don’t like paying the full cost of maintenance, operation and upkeep on mass-transit systems.

    Under a mobocracy, city-dwellers would have free mass-transit – the cost of which would be born by those in the transportation industry and that depend on personal automobiles to get to/from the nearest store or their jobs.

    Gee – what great “representation” you are willing to “offer” rural denizens of your city-dominated electoral system.

    In a similar fashion, small (or small-population) states have geographical issues not found in larger states and vice versa – issues that your California/New York/New Jersey – dominated country would simply ignore because those living in small or small-population states don’t have enough votes to “matter” as US citizens.

    Good luck with your search for suckers to buy into your pure-Democracy pipe-dream.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You might as well leave it. You have no other answers.

  • Ellen Elmore

    Don’t count on Evangelical Christians waking up anytime soon. They have tied their anchor to Trump so tightly that it’s almost impossible to break free. Trump is not Hillary. That’s all it takes for them to faithfully follow their leader.

  • Michael Lonergan

    Taylor suffers PTSD and needs his meds.

  • Volarekathy99

    Beto is a socialist. He’s on the record speaking for open borders, elimination of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and for impeachment of Pres. Trump. He’s sent a lot of his campaign money in gift cards to the illegal aliens in the caravans coming up through Mexico. Most of his campaign money came from California, New York, and Washington DC. If you think your taxes are high now, don’t put in Beto for any office. The things he proposes will cost a fortune. Beto is a Marxist. Beware of people who sound so good, are charismatic, promise you free everything, but truly want to take what you have and give it to someone else. Beto usually doesn’t tell you what he’s really for or against. He speaks in what my English teacher called “glittering generalities.” He’s really good at “glittering generalities.” He says he’s for all Texans — not true!

  • Volarekathy99

    We need to keep the Electoral College, which the founding fathers wisely set up in the Constitution. Otherwise, we would all be ruled over by the likes of New York and California, and the rest of the nation’s votes wouldn’t count. The rest of the nation would have no voice.

  • Campaigner1

    The actual name of the party IS The Democratic Party, not “Democrat” Party; that got started by Rush “Doctor-Shopper” Limbaugh, the man with talent on loan from the lesser cherubim, and all the GOPers adopted it, because it was a petty, childish thing to do and that’s what conservatives are all about these days.

    Of course, popular vote should determine the leader of our nation, as it does in every other advanced first-world nation. Do you honestly believe the Americans who live in the REAL heartland-the large, urban centers which drive the economy, medicine, science, and culture, and where the MAJORITY actually live-will indefinitely accept being overruled by sparsely populated rural states and counties?

  • IllinoisPatriot

    You need to abandon whatever source you got your revisionist history from.

    The Democrat party has never formally renamed itself. Limbaugh had nothing to do with naming the Democrat party.

    As to your belief in popular vote, it just shows you have no concept of the history of the formation of this country or why the country was structured as it is. Perhaps some remedial civics courses would improve your education about our government.

    Perhaps the US is not your country of residence, in which case your ignorance of US government can be overlooked.

  • Campaigner1

    Hmmm….you say I’m clueless, but you start off with a verifiable error:

    That’s the second citation I provided proving the official name is the the Democratic Party, not “Democrat Party”. Sorry-you are wrong on the matter. Not debatable.

    The cities and counties which voted for Hillary Clinton (3 million + more voters) represent two-thirds of America’s GDP; they live in centers of education, technology, and the arts. As more and more people live in urban areas (already younger and more diverse), the unfair electoral college advantage of sparsely populated Big Sky, Deep South, and Great Plains states will continue to increase, to the detriment of the nation. Eventually it will become intolerable to the citizens who financially SUPPORT these states-“blue” states contribute more in federal taxes than they get back, while the opposite is true of “red” states.

    Your use of the loaded term “mob-rule” simply betrays the weakness of your position-so long as the low-population agrarian states have a minimum number of representatives, two Senators, and all the protections of the Bill of Rights, there is no “mob-rule”; only fair representation of the will of the majority, restrained by minority rights. I suspect conservatives realize they would rarely win on a national level under a fair system.