Alter Ego @stevenswenson5 for gulag stints #WAR *ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE* NRA * TSRA * GOA USAF VET * TEXAS
Joined August 2011
- Tweets227K
- Following2.9K
- Followers2.1K
- Likes52.1K
Pinned Tweet
In this humble building modern Texas was born. Independence Hall in Washington-on-the-Brazos @conservtivemom
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
God bless America.
And God bless Japan, too.
There's a saying on American social media:
"Be the American that Japanese people think you are."
I'm Japanese. I've lived in Tokyo my whole life.
So let me tell you what we actually say about you, when you're not in the room.
"When someone falls down on the street, we pretend not to see. We're protecting their pride. Americans run straight at them. They don't care about the pride. They care about the knee." (Office worker, 38)
"An American will stop four lanes of traffic for a family of ducks. And then everyone in the cars claps for the ducks." (Taxi driver, 61)
"If you lend an American a pen, you will never see it again. If you need a kidney, they'll ask your blood type." (Nurse, 45)
"At kids' soccer games, they cheer when the other team's kid scores. The other team's parents look confused. Then they cheer too." (Youth soccer coach, 52, lived one year in Ohio)
"A man sneezed on a bus in Chicago. Eleven strangers said 'Bless you.' He said 'thank you' eleven times. Nobody on that bus thought this was strange." (University student, 21)
"At an airport in Texas, I watched a soldier try to pay for his lunch. The cashier said someone already had. He asked who. She said, 'Somebody who didn't want you to know.'" (Retired teacher, 70)
"American fathers cannot braid hair. But they will watch a video at midnight for an hour so their daughter's hair looks right on picture day." (Hair stylist, 33)
"I ran the Chicago Marathon once. Strangers stood in the cold for hours holding signs for people they will never meet. At mile 20, a man I'd never seen read the name off my bib and screamed it like he'd raised me." (Runner, 48)
"When Americans get lost, they ask a stranger. If the stranger is also lost, they become a team." (Tour guide, 39)
"They ask the waitress her name. And then they remember it." (Restaurant owner, 66)
And one more. From my father. He's 76. He doesn't say much about anything. This is the longest thing I have ever heard him say about another country.
"Every time something terrible happens in America, I watch the news, and I look for one thing.
The people running toward it.
There are always so many."
So, America.
You don't have to become the Americans we think you are.
We're not imagining you.
We're remembering you.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
To whoever is building Galt’s Gulch, please don’t forget my invite! Thanks in advance.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
Averages are a useful tool for studying populations. They're a shitty tool for judging individuals.
My IQ is 142. That tells you something about my measured cognitive ability. (or how I did on a specific test that is supposed to measure it, to be pedantic.) It doesn't tell you my character, my judgment, my morality, or whether I'm a decent human being.
Historical studies have found differences in average IQ scores between Black and White Americans. Those differences are real observations, but their causes are complex. Intelligence is influenced by genetics, education, nutrition, environment, and a host of other factors. We haven't established that racial genetic differences explain those gaps. If they do, other factors can be far more determiniitive.
But here's the more important point: Even if we knew exactly what caused every statistical difference, it wouldn't justify treating an individual as the embodiment of their demographic average.
The average IQ of Black Americans tells you very little about the intelligence of any particular Black American. Just as the average IQ of White Americans tells you very little about yours.
Your argument makes another enormous leap: from average intelligence to the quality of an entire culture. Culture is influenced by history, institutions, incentives, economics, traditions, and countless other factors. You cannot reduce all that to a single number and pretend you've explained civilization.
To put it bluntly, inner city "Black" culture is garbage, and in my opinion, the biggest reason for the low IQ scores.
If you want to discuss population statistics, fine. I'm perfectly happy to have that discussion.
But if you want to use population statistics to make judgments about individuals you've never met, you're demonstrating precisely the sort of inability to reason beyond first-order effects that you claim to be concerned about.
The irony is considerable.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
Every single bit of this is true, especially the part about the legislature sitting with their thumbs up their collective rears
(Long tweet warning)
In which I anger everyone.
1. The Democrats won because the Democrat candidates persuaded more people that the Democrat positions would answer the problems that those people have. I can hear the instant but that's not true, those answers are not answers, they are actions that will compound the problems! Agreed. And the Republican candidates failed to persuade people that was the case.
I will type this until my fingers bleed: the locus of responsibility for a candidate being elected to office lies with the candidate, not with the voters. It is the candidate's job, indeed, the candidate's only job, to persuade people to vote for said candidate.
Positive persuasion (vote for me because I can fix that) is far more appealing than negative persuasion (do not vote for that other person, they will make it worse).
People want to support something, not prevent something. The reason why saying the only thing that a prevent defense prevents is winning is funny is because it has the ring of truth.
The Democrats listened to what the public was saying it wanted and then replied that hey, the Republicans haven't done anything to make that better, in fact, the Republicans made it worse, and we can make it better! I repeat, that I (and likely most of those reading this) think that the policies the Democrats advocate will make those problem worse is irrelevant. What is relevant for getting elected is persuading people that the problems facing those people matter and that the candidate has a plan to fix it.
The idiotic central premise of What's The Matter With Kansas, namely that voters don't actually know what's in their best interest, the political class does, does not become less idiotic when it is being spewed by those on the Right.
People are screaming, as loudly as possible, that they are drowning. The response by far, far too many people on the Right is to sneer to paddle harder. Contempt is met with contempt, as it should be.
The Republicans in Congress have failed, catastrophically so, to take any actions to implement the policies that those self same Republicans claim will improve matters. If those policies are so important and so good and so necessary, then why has legislation implementing those policies not been passed? The Democrats most decidedly are able to pass what the Democrats deem important. Why have the Republicans not done the same?
You cannot beat something with nothing is a truism for a reason.
I will also type until my fingers bleed the following: there has to be a pay off for a sacrifice or people will not make that sacrifice. That pay off does not need to be immediate, however, there has to be some visible progress toward that pay off for a person to keep making the sacrifice. Put the hours in to get the promotion, exercise and diet to lose the weight, take political positions which may make you a social pariah, possibly even a professional pariah must have at least tiny tangible steps towards pay off.
What did support for a Republican trifecta get? Judges, yes. The tax bill, yes. And what else? What other actions by Congress took place to make the sacrifice worth it? Any action by the Executive can, will, and, arguably, should, be undone by the Executive who gets elected who opposes those actions. What actions die the Republican Congress take to codify the positions the Republicans claim are so important? Well. Pretty much none. It is reasonable for a person to look at that and say those policies must not be that important to solve problems.
Demanding sacrifice while acting to prevent the payoff will result in the rational conclusion the sacrifice is not worth it.
The Democrats persuaded more people that the Democrats would solve their problems. The Democrats persuaded more people that the Democrats agree that the problems are problems in the first place. The Democrats did not treat voters as recalcitrant children who don't actually know what is important. Funny how that resulted in the Democrats winning. It's a mystery, really.
II. And if you weren't furious with me before, you will be now.
The other side gets to win. That's how the entire representative democracy system works.
Each side presents its case to the voters. The voters decide which case the voters find more persuasive. That's how it works.
Only children scream that the other side winning means the election was illegitimate and the voters were stupid.
The other side gets to win too. The other side gets to say, hey, our ideas will work better. Voters get to decide that the voters believe that.
That is how it works.
Refusing to accept the legitimacy of the other side winning is toxic to the very idea of representative democracy.
Sometimes, my side loses and the other side wins. That is life. It is incumbent on me, and I do mean the personal me here, to consider that maybe my ideas aren't actually the best for most people and maybe my premises are wrong and maybe my ideas and premises are better but I need to recalibrate how I present them. That's what adults do.
Screaming that the voters are stupid and the other side isn't legitimate is what children do.
To sum up, the Democrats persuaded more people to believe they would do what they say and fix things and so be it.
/fin
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
All the hysteria I'm seeing brings my thoughts back to what @alexthechick has asked many times, so I will do the same.
What exactly do you think is going to change about things in January?
Ds can't overcome the filibuster or veto. They can slow things down with hearings and/or impeachments, but that is basically it. Let them embarrass themselves for the next 2 years. Let them piss off their voters like Republicans did theirs for the last 2 years.
2028 matters a hell of a lot more than 2026. Remember this when you vote in the primaries. Candidates matter. Republican primary voters seem to have not learned this yet. Hopefully they will next cycle, which starts tomorrow.
When you wake up tomorrow your world has not changed. In fact, this will be 2 years of basically nothingness. Accept this and move on.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
With one day before midterms, I’d just like to show off my badge of honor 😏
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
The Democrats are all in on potentially packing SCOTUS. The problem, the thing they fail to acknowledge is this: if they do that, people will stop recognizing the authority of the Court. I can already hear the harumphing: WE MUST AXE-SEPT TEH COURT'S RULE-INGS. Uh no, we mustn't. We accept them now because we assume that they're legitimate. once SCOTUS becomes nothing but a political tool to be wielded, all bets are off.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
I sure as hell don't want a country with leaders that dismiss violence against Jews, associate with known terrorist sympathizers, Jew haters & communists, and is pretty clearly an antisemite.
So yes, opposing El-Sayed is earnestly putting country over party
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
Why shouldn’t DC be a state?
Because whoever controls the capital wields an unfair degree of power over the American people. Currently Congress controls the capital. But if you place the capital within a state, or create a new state around it complete with states rights, then that state can dominate the federal government in a way that is unfair to the other states.
There cannot be equality between the residents of DC and the rest of the American people. Either the American people dominate them as they currently do, or they dominate us.
And ultimately this is only a narrow exception to principles such as “no taxation without representation.” the fact is, it is just a 10 mile x 10 mile square, give or take. It is very easy to leave that area and regain all of your rights as a citizens. You call yourself a 13 year resident of DC. That means you chose voluntarily to give up those normal rights. You probably even paid a premium to do it. If you wanna get your rights back, just move to northern Virginia or southern Maryland.
It’s also worth noting that making DC a state would create one of the least populous states in the union, giving DC residents more power than most people in the states. A process of reabsorbing DC back into Maryland is fairer to the American people.
And of course there’s the problem of the constitution itself. I am convinced you have to amend the constitution to make DC estate or even to reabsorb them back into Maryland. The 23rd amendment was clearly written on the premise that there would be a Washington DC constitution.congress.gov/co…
Some people have suggested that you could create a new version of DC that is just Congress and the White House but then who gets those electoral college votes? It would make things even more unequal. It seems to me that the effect of the 23rd amendment is to make DC a permanent territory. Therefore, you would have to amend the constitution to either make DC a state or to reabsorb it back into Maryland.
And all because y’all decided you *had* to live right there. You couldn’t live in Northern Virginia or southern Maryland. That’s your right including your right to advocate for this outcome, but regular Americans shouldn’t treat this as anything more than grasping for unequal power.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
I learning about political machines rigging elections when I was in high school 35 years ago. They don’t teach that history in school anymore do they?
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
No they weren't. Cheating started many years ago. We finally have someone who stood up to the democrats to stop it.
VOTE RED .. Don't sell out America because you hate Trump.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
The Nazis we’re quite literally national Soicalists. Opposite of the Soviets international socialism but still definitely socialist.
I’m assuming you are a socialist as well in some form so I can totally see why you would want to distance your own ideology from the Nazis.
And that’s a great thing! The Nazis were terrible.
As were the Soviets.
So why not think of an entirely new term for people that call themselves ‘democratic socialists’ so that they can redefine themselves?
Drop all that 19th century genocidal baggage that socialism brought about and start fresh.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
I'm not sure about going to Jackson but George Orwell was far from a socialist in fact his book animal farm was a critique of socialism communism and fascism the Nazis by their own ignition were socialists their policies say they were socialists their actions say they were socialists the only people who say they were not socialists are people trying to make socialism look better.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
Modern socialists advocate state economic control, industrial policy, and subordinating private business to public goals. That is precisely how the Nazi regime operated. They didn't nationalize every factory because they didn't need to. They used strict regulation, price controls, and heavy government intervention to force private corporations to serve state mandates.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
There's no definition of the term "socialist" that does not include the Nationalist Socialist part of germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
Not all socialists are Nazis, but all Nazis were socialists.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
There was once a shepherd who found a wolf caught in a snare at the edge of his pasture.
The wolf begged to be freed.
“I was hungry,” it said. “That is all. Spare me, and I will remember your mercy!”
The shepherd cut the rope.
The next night, three lambs were gone.
Again the shepherd found the wolf. Again it pleaded. Again the shepherd convinced himself that mercy was proof of his goodness.
By winter, half the flock was dead.
An old farmer finally asked him, “Why do you keep freeing it?”
The shepherd answered, “Because I refuse to become cruel.”
The farmer looked at the empty field and said, “Then understand what you have done. You were not merciful to the wolf. You were cruel to everything that trusted you to keep them safe.”
That’s the lesson.
Mercy without judgment isn’t virtue. When someone openly intends to destroy what has been entrusted to you, endless forgiveness doesn’t make you righteous. It makes everyone behind you pay for your vanity.
Steven Swenson (RC) retweeted
Last I looked, it wasn't Republicans who were trapping Jewish students in Cooper Union Library while screaming "From the River to the Sea" back in 2023, you limey prick.
John Oliver: “It does feel that the Republican Party has been getting way too comfortable with some, at best, Nazi-adjacent sh*t.”
“Nazis getting power doesn’t historically bode well for anyone, including, for what it’s worth, Nazis, who didn’t exactly have the best 1945.”
variety.com/2026/tv/news/joh…
