John Brennan: Biden Intelligence Agencies To Investigate Pro-Trump ‘Bigots’ And ‘Libertarians’

[christian]

Mesaclone, when you get it right and are dead on right, don't let people convince you that right is wrong.

[Mesaclone]

Mesaclone, why do you bother trying to be rational with that roamer guy?
He has one tune:
"I'm a principled conservative."

I don't believe that he is.
I'm almost beginning to think that he's a paid disruptor.

He's been on my ignore list for a few years now.
He should be on yours.

Excellent question. Don't have a good answer.

[Smokin Joe]

That's right enough, @Smokin Joe , but quite beside the point.

We are instructed by the Founders to vote our conscience. Now, I suspect it is fair game to reason and cajole, to take steps to change the conscience of our fellows. That is kinda what we are all here for. But that vote, in the end, is MINE.

And I don't give a rip if my vote were the last effectual vote in a tied race - By the time my mind is made up, even that circumstance would not change my way. And I will tell you right now that it would not matter a whit, and I still would not vote that sob into office, any more than I would McCain't or Romulus. Because my conscience would not abide it.

That is no fault of mine... The criteria I require to lend my vote were not met. Simple as that.
That criteria is the well known basis of the Reagan Conservative Coalition, and in that, are legitimate in Conservative circles... And it should be no surprise at all that I would thereby adhere, Exactly as I did in the case of McAin't and Romulus, and for the exact same reasoning developed by the very same legitimate criteria. Criteria not only not met in Tump, but abused thereby.

So butt-hurt acolytes can go hang. The way to my vote is clear and Conservative, and that is the only thing I care about AT ALL in the field of politics. Beyond that is a game of fools, full of half-assed shifting criteria, nonsensical strategies, and phony ill-begotten compromises.

NONE of that matters to me and never will.. I am here to promote and defend the Principles of Conservatism, and I will do no other.

That is your belief and you are certainly entitled to it, and to act as you see fit. I chose to show support for Trump this time, not because I have great faith in the man, but because much of what he did, however temporary, benefited me, my state, my region, sometimes profoundly.

Now that wasn't with any illusions that the ensuing administration, should that happen not to be his, would not overturn many of those executive orders, or seize upon any flaw to twist to use for their own aims, but instead to send a message to those comfortably ensconced and less than inspiring people we have sent to Congress. THIS, THESE ACTIONS are that of which we approve, and we expect YOU to stand up for us, in this way.

Naturally, that message, if ever considered, was lost in the hype about "insurrection", which was a piss poor representation of anything even remotely able to be called such, so I don't know that that did any good, anyway. Those selfsame congresscritters failed to stand for a fair and honest election, imho, and the theatrics on The Hill only gave them the excuse to rubber stamp Biden and get back to more swampy issues and divvying up the cut.

However polarized, more people are paying attention than ever, even if only to deeply flawed sources. Sadly, those people as a rule are not the ones we all elected, whether we voted for them or not.

Maybe having them pay attention is a plus, if we can even get them to think, if we can get them to understand what Liberty is, and the responsibility to respect others' Liberty that goes with it.

The only problem 9and it's massive) is that the information sources they have are seriously biased in favor of the NWO in any iteration, and they blindly embrace precedents of totalitarianism because they happen to agree with who it is foisted against. Orwell's "Hate Week" is alive and well and ongoing, held over for another round, only now not so much directed at Trump, seeking new foci, most likely anyone and anything remotely Conservative. So hang on, it could be one hell of a ride.  Maybe Biden will just settle down to collecting the graft and baksheesh Hunter is arranging, and hopefully soon, but he is likely to be steered into making 'statements' through policy and directed action (coming from policy makers behind the scenes) and that's likely to get uncomfortable for any lover of the Republic, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

I have no problem with you voting your conscience, and have done so myself. It is truly liberating, but in this past election, I chose to use my vote a little differently. Unfortunately, that was thwarted, the message lost in the static of agents provocateur and raised rabble, even if I was naive to think it could be heard at all.

I no longer recognize this country.

[Smokin Joe]

My God man, if George Washington favored a spending bill, you'd want him fired as General of the Continental armies. Jefferson was soft on the French....let's toss him out with the bathwater too. Trump fought...like a hell cat...against this Socialist takeover that is now underway. There WAS no one else who could...or would...carry out that fight from 2017-until now. I get that you hate conservatives who are imperfect, who are not fiscally conservative to the extent you want them to be, but not supporting him may have allowed those who want to END this Republic into full power.

If nothing else, the enemy of my enemy is my friend...you've let the Mongol horde into the city because the mayor was a big spender. That's not conscience, its national suicide.

And smokinjoe...I DAMN sure get what you're saying...I want the right to find a way to unite and fight back against this Socialist monstrosity. But if each of us...because of the dictates of our conscience...will ONLY vote for "our guy" with whom we agree on every point of conservative thought...we are doomed to division and defeat. If we're all "take my ball and go home" conservatives like roamer...if we don't get EXACTLY 100% of what we think is best/right...than we might as well just change USA to CCCP.

The nation has fallen to Socialism, and here we are quibbling about who's fiscally conservative ENOUGH and who is EXACTLY in alignment with EVERY aspect of conservatism as EACH of us defines it. As he said...a candidate must meet ALL of HIS criteria to earn his vote. If each of us takes that same position, we will NEVER coalesce around ANY candidate....and we will most assuredly always lose.

What roamer did was the equivalent of picking up his fiddle and playing away whilst Rome burned...and burn it did. Are we all going to keep acting with such madness on the Right?


Apologies for all the Caps.

All I can say is that nothing @roamer_1 could have done would have changed the outcome. Montana went solidly to the GOP at the top, and one vote would not have made any difference.

The people who could have made a difference certified votes, approved election results, let themselves be pushed out of the rooms they were required by law to be present in. Time to get more militant. They push, sit down. Just sit and lock arms, make the drag you out as a unit. Make sure someone is videoing the whole time, preferable several camera angles. I really do not think people expected there to be as much fraud at as many levels as there was, and t was huge, at least that's my opinion, and that no court would examine evidence, for whatever reason is indicative of the cowardice or collusion of the members of the judiciary involved. It is a truly dark time for America, and I will not go quietly into that night.

I have started trolling facebook groups, if you can call it that, by posting facts with impeccable links for sources. I'm pissing them off. My turn, (and it's kinda fun).  Our only hope of saving the Republic is the same tricks the enemy has used on us. Tie them in knots when they start hating on someone, with their own diversity rules. Make them live up to their claims (they can't). keep pushing reputable sources and facts at them.  Yeah, you're going to piss some off. Demand they use reputable sources, not CNN, WaPo, and the NYT, or ABCNNBCBS, but real sources like peer reviewed journals. Tell them you respect that they have their opinions, but demand provable facts, which incidentally is what @roamer_1  has done, with evidence, only holding to a standard that requires it be presented in court--ineffective because the issue of 'standing' has kept all cases from discovery and that very presentation. The courts have failed, and the jury box the ballot box, and the soapbox are pretty much done, but the latter is the only alternative to that fourth box. Either we turn this around with words and convert the throngs of the enemy to Liberty or this nation will not survive whatever comes. Any incident smaller than an all out push will only give the Left the excuse to levy more infringements on our Rights, and they may do that anyway, but giving them justification is not the proper course. Looking at the events in the Capitol, however, they may manufacture the incidents they 'need' anyway, and I believe they have done so in the past. Keep your wits about you and your powder dry, and remember the thing which unites us best is that which we fight against. That much, we can agree on.

[roamer_1]

That is your belief and you are certainly entitled to it, and to act as you see fit. I chose to show support for Trump this time, not because I have great faith in the man, but because much of what he did, however temporary, benefited me, my state, my region, sometimes profoundly.

Yes I am entitled to it - it is not unreasoning, nor 'purist'. Neither is it betrayal - I have no obligation to vote for anyone, regardless of @Mesaclone 's demands. So I cannot have betrayed anything except Conservatism - and I certainly did not do that.

And I know where you are Joe, and I got no problem with it. Neither do I consider you to be among the psycho-phants  that tremble with orgasmic excitement at his every word. Albeit that I often caution, and even preach about what is being thrown under the bus,  I would never impose so far as to demand what is rightly yours - namely, that wee bit of sovereignty that is your vote. You write the law on that, not me, and I would never presume otherwise, like others around here do. Because you see, that little sovereignty is tied directly to your mind and your honor, and for me to demand otherwise of you immediately calls both mind and honor into question... rest assured, I need not make any such demand, nor would I. Unlike others here, I am perfectly fine with others going their own way... And I find it a comfort when, with no coercion or ridicule, I find folks on their own walking the same paths I do. Hail fellow, well met. 

I may not agree with you in this right here, but that does not mean we are in disagreement. Going through the corners, you've gotta allow for some longitudinal drift. I can see you from here. Just like always. And you ain't no further away. 

Now that wasn't with any illusions that the ensuing administration, should that happen not to be his, would not overturn many of those executive orders, or seize upon any flaw to twist to use for their own aims, but instead to send a message to those comfortably ensconced and less than inspiring people we have sent to Congress. THIS, THESE ACTIONS are that of which we approve, and we expect YOU to stand up for us, in this way.

That makes some sense, and I would follow that normally. Carrot rather than stick... But I am way past stick now. I am toward the end of 20lb jack, and heading for arms. Any illusions toward the Republican party finding it's road to Damascus have been well and truly been beaten clean out of me. Hence my tendency to eschew party altogether as a broken vessel, and the need to rely upon the attributes of individual candidates. I figger if I worry about getting people of integrity in there, the party will fix itself.

Naturally, that message, if ever considered, was lost in the hype about "insurrection", which was a piss poor representation of anything even remotely able to be called such, so I don't know that that did any good, anyway. Those selfsame congresscritters failed to stand for a fair and honest election, imho, and the theatrics on The Hill only gave them the excuse to rubber stamp Biden and get back to more swampy issues and divvying up the cut.

That's right - And Tumpy's martyr act - whether valid or not, does likewise.

However polarized, more people are paying attention than ever, even if only to deeply flawed sources. Sadly, those people as a rule are not the ones we all elected, whether we voted for them or not.

Maybe having them pay attention is a plus, if we can even get them to think, if we can get them to understand what Liberty is, and the responsibility to respect others' Liberty that goes with it.

The only problem 9and it's massive) is that the information sources they have are seriously biased in favor of the NWO in any iteration, and they blindly embrace precedents of totalitarianism because they happen to agree with who it is foisted against. Orwell's "Hate Week" is alive and well and ongoing, held over for another round, only now not so much directed at Trump, seeking new foci, most likely anyone and anything remotely Conservative. So hang on, it could be one hell of a ride.  Maybe Biden will just settle down to collecting the graft and baksheesh Hunter is arranging, and hopefully soon, but he is likely to be steered into making 'statements' through policy and directed action (coming from policy makers behind the scenes) and that's likely to get uncomfortable for any lover of the Republic, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

In this vein, that is probably the greatest loss of this cycle - The Right has succumbed to the temptation to propagandize.... Both pro and anti Tump sources just flat ain't telling the truth.
Truth lies dead in the street. And that is very likely the last card to fall into a very, very bad hand.

I have no problem with you voting your conscience, and have done so myself. It is truly liberating, but in this past election, I chose to use my vote a little differently. Unfortunately, that was thwarted, the message lost in the static of agents provocateur and raised rabble, even if I was naive to think it could be heard at all.

I no longer recognize this country.

As I said, you've your right to it, and good on ya. I still would not follow. I cannot abide throwing any conservatives under the bus, especially not so egregiously as the Tump administration has performed. There must be consequence for that. I started out with a vote of 'no faith' and ended in a vote against, exactly by the numbers... And if he were to haul up a party, or even back a candidate, that would register poorly with me... Because he has sullied Conservatism.

[roamer_1]

But if each of us...because of the dictates of our conscience...will ONLY vote for "our guy" with whom we agree on every point of conservative thought...we are doomed to division and defeat.

And in fact, that is the other way around. By it's very definition, the Conservative Coalition *exists* in order to provide unity around a discrete set of principle things. It is only by guarding each others' principles that we unite and Conservatism moves forward. That pact is what it is all about.

The division is those who would hyphenate that, willing to sacrifice those principles. Your way is folly.

[christian]

Criticizing roamer is risky, regardless of being right, you risk the threat of being banned.

[corbe]

Criticizing roamer is risky, regardless of being right, you risk the threat of being banned.

   That is not true @christian @roamer_1 catches a lot of flak here and if I'm not mistaken he, like all of us old timers here, have been banned (temporarily) or timed out on numerous occasions, we're just humans. 

[sneakypete]

Criticizing roamer is risky, regardless of being right, you risk the threat of being banned.

@christian

Where did you get THAT one from?

Probably 90 percent of my posts to him have been critical of something he has written,and I have yet to receive a single threat of being banned.

I think you must have him confused with someone else.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes I am entitled to it - it is not unreasoning, nor 'purist'. Neither is it betrayal - I have no obligation to vote for anyone, regardless of @Mesaclone 's demands. So I cannot have betrayed anything except Conservatism - and I certainly did not do that.

I assume allegiance to Conservatism is not sullied by winning a majority of voters so Conservatism is in a position to govern.

So, instead of arguing over and over and over again that your allegiance is the quintessential expression of honor, integrity and purity, why not spend some time winning over those looking for a new political home?  Why not give others the chance to see what you see in Conservatism?  There will never be a more opportune time to garner converts to your political philosophy @roamer_1

So tell us, other than the elimination of our national debt, what can Americans expect in a country governed by (your) Conservatism?  What are goals two through four of the conservative movement you envision? 

[Mesaclone]

@christian

Where did you get THAT one from?

Probably 90 percent of my posts to him have been critical of something he has written,and I have yet to receive a single threat of being banned.

I think you must have him confused with someone else.

Agreed. I'm often in disagreement with roamer but its never resulted in a ban.

[Mesaclone]

I assume allegiance to Conservatism is not sullied by winning a majority of voters so Conservatism is in a position to govern.

So, instead of arguing over and over and over again that your allegiance is the quintessential expression of honor, integrity and purity, why not spend some time winning over those looking for a new political home?  Why not give others the chance to see what you see in Conservatism?  There will never be a more opportune time to garner converts to your political philosophy @roamer_1

So tell us, other than the elimination of our national debt, what can Americans expect in a country governed by (your) Conservatism?  What are goals two through four of the conservative movement you envision?

Roamer is a true conservative and I credit him with holding the right positions on nearly every issue. Unfortunately, his idea of "unity" on the Right is nearly identical to the Dems idea of national "unity"...in that it means...unity in total and perfect agreement with their positions ONLY. But winning an election can never be so perfect...it requires a coalition of likeminded folks who DO disagree on a number of issues. Without such a coalition, its not possible to win a national election...roamer's approach locks the right into that position, in which the positions we take are so narrow that winning 50% of the populace to our side simply can't be done.

Akin to the old Reagan axiom...we have to run the MOST conservative candidate who CAN win....not simply the most conservative candidate.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Roamer is a true conservative and I credit him with holding the right positions on nearly every issue. Unfortunately, his idea of "unity" on the Right is nearly identical to the Dems idea of national "unity"...in that it means...unity in total and perfect agreement with their positions ONLY. But winning an election can never be so perfect...it requires a coalition of likeminded folks who DO disagree on a number of issues. Without such a coalition, its not possible to win a national election...roamer's approach locks the right into that position, in which the positions we take are so narrow that winning 50% of the populace to our side simply can't be done.

Akin to the old Reagan axiom...we have to run the MOST conservative candidate who CAN win....not simply the most conservative candidate.

You're preaching to the choir @Mesaclone . 

My post to @roamer_1 was a last ditch effort to engage in debate.  But, truth be told I'm just weary of trying to intelligently debate Jell-O.  I really don't like putting members on "ignore" but it's time to keep @roamer_1 there. 

So going forward you'll be handling what I consider Jell-O without me.   

[Mesaclone]

You're preaching to the choir @Mesaclone . 

My post to @roamer_1 was a last ditch effort to engage in debate.  But, truth be told I'm just weary of trying to intelligently debate Jell-O.  I really don't like putting members on "ignore" but it's time to keep @roamer_1 there. 

So going forward you'll be handling what I consider Jell-O without me.   

It is a bit like fencing with windmills. What drives me...I think...is that we need the roamer's of the world as much as, though they'd never admit it, they need us. I'm a staunch conservative with SOME Libertarian leanings and a tolerance for the kind of populism that motivates folks on the right to come out and FIGHT for what they believe...if populism in that sense is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Roamer just cant...or more likely won't...understand that its not enough to simply BE conservative. This isn't 1980...we can't just go hard right and have no appeal to Libertarians and Centrists. We can't put forward a stiff suit who'd rather be lounging at his reserved table at the Harvard Skull and Bones hideout. We need a leader than can rouse passions...damn right, be a populist who RALLIES folks to conservatism...and motivate people to actually go out and vote.

We also can't go Romney/Bush/McCain...which is what I call "insincere" conservatism or a "country club" version thereof. We have to be blue collar...bring over the Unions...spit in the face of Socialism...loudly damn the PC Cancel culture...and constitutional originalists to the core...and we must do those things, as Trump did, with no apology with a damning condescension of this "hate America's past" crapola.

[roamer_1]

   That is not true @christian @roamer_1 catches a lot of flak here and if I'm not mistaken he, like all of us old timers here, have been banned (temporarily) or timed out on numerous occasions, we're just humans.

No @corbe ... That's only you... 

I have the advantage of typing like I speak, which includes an almost always reflexive 'y'all', which assumes a group, and thereby is automatic protection from 'making it personal'... Other than a couple times calling folks out, for the most part, I keep it between the ditches that way.

Don't make it personal.
Don't take it personal.
Feed da' puppies.

[corbe]

   Great group of people here, keeps it interesting. 

[Wingnut]

Criticizing roamer is risky, regardless of being right, you risk the threat of being banned.

I have called that sumbitch Roams out many a time and have never been banned.  I have on several occasions called him an ass hole, a dumbass, a dipshit, and a few other things that good taste and decorum prevents me from posting these days.   Now, little newbie @christian  if you really want to know how to get banned, I can teach a clinic on that.  Am I right @mystery-ak
So till then STFU.

[SZonian]

Criticizing roamer is risky, regardless of being right, you risk the threat of being banned.

Uhm, no.

[Hoodat]

If every Republican had the same conviction as @roamer_1 , we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now.  His position has been consistent which is something the GOP has lacked for decades now.

Personally, I have hoped that for at least one year in my lifetime our Congress would live within its means.  I am now pushing 60, and that has never happened.  Not once.  Not a single year.  Let that one sink in.  Sixty-three years in a row of deficit spending.  Roamer is right.  We won't survive as a nation on our current path.

[roamer_1]

I assume allegiance to Conservatism is not sullied by winning a majority of voters so Conservatism is in a position to govern.

So, instead of arguing over and over and over again that your allegiance is the quintessential expression of honor, integrity and purity, why not spend some time winning over those looking for a new political home?  Why not give others the chance to see what you see in Conservatism?  There will never be a more opportune time to garner converts to your political philosophy @roamer_1

So tell us, other than the elimination of our national debt, what can Americans expect in a country governed by (your) Conservatism?  What are goals two through four of the conservative movement you envision?

LOL! You're saying I need to win 'converts' on a Conservative forum? As if there is more than one Conservatism? Only to those who don't know what it is, I'd guess. 

But alright. This is actually a good venue for it, as probably the first thing that needs fixed is Libertarianism. Start in Goldwater. It should be in the party DNA,, and is the genesis, at least in modernity, of the Republican Right Wing. Tons of Libertarians have left way before me, because your party refuses to do more than pay lip service to libertarian causes.

That is in and of itself a mighty cure against this runaway government. That is federalism - Restore to the respective states the duties that ARE the states. whole departments would be gone from the fed, or might only exist to assure 'weights and measures', that things are defined the same and ordered the same across the various states. That is originalism, Real originalism, not just mouthing the words.

That is distributed authority - where states and communities can do as they see fit - the power emanating through the counties to the states, and from the states to the fed. Not the fed dictating from 3000 miles away. Not one-size-fits-all.

That is giving the senate back to the states, so they are able to be represented.
That is drastically diminishing the commerce clause and all of it's abuses.

The libertarians among us, and those who have left have had it coming a long long time. And invariably they are thrown under the bus. Look at what libertariarism is and what libertarians think of today's conservatism - Because if you cannot embrace the tenets of libertarianism, considering political conservatism begins there, I would doubt one's capacity to be called a conservative at all.

And the thing to be worked for, more than any other thing, is not a leader. But rather, a Conservative controlled Congress and Senate, jealous of its power, with Conservatives at the helm. Another mighty salve toward better governance, as such a body would call the SCOTUS on the carpet and write laws rescinding the SCOTUS' every penumbra and emanation, tearing such violations away and receiving unto itself the power it has lost. And the very same against the administration. The abuses performed with treaties and executive orders that flatly violate Congressional power are manifold, and can be fixed no other way.

And the very same repeated in the state houses.

Those two fixes alone, structural repair, framework, not 'issues' will block a million sins.

And I can continue if you want me to. But between reining in spending and returning to libertarianism, and imbuing Congress with a jealousy for its power, zealously guarded, that is plenty enough to talk about in its own right.

If you care for more, @Right_in_Virginia , as anybody here will know, I can go on... 

[christian]

The message looked like it came from a moderator, perhaps not.

roamer_1 is one of the bedrocks of this forum.  If you want to stay here, I suggest you get off roamer_1.  He is brilliant in many areas, is an individualist and respected as such.  I have told you, so do what you want, knowing what I have told you.

Sure looked like a threat to me.  I'm wrong or must be confused?  I think not, you assume much.

[roamer_1]

Roamer is a true conservative and I credit him with holding the right positions on nearly every issue.

Thanks for that. It means more coming from an opponent than from my own... And like-in-kind: We ain't as cross-threaded as we seem to be.

Unfortunately, his idea of "unity" on the Right is nearly identical to the Dems idea of national "unity"...in that it means...unity in total and perfect agreement with their positions ONLY.

Well in the first place : it is working for the Democrats. They are winning on every front, and they serve their most extreme in lockstep. No one among them is calling for compromise. No mealy-mouthed need to eschew their basic values for popularity's sake... They got the balls to the wood all the time.

And no... I am fine with differences. I recognize factional conservatism... And I am fine with compromise, beyond the principled framework.

And your statement has a philosophical discontinuity - You are basically saying that SOME principles (truths) can be sacrificed in the service of unity... That is dissonance itself, and a rabbit trail that should be followed to it's end, just for giggles.

But winning an election can never be so perfect...it requires a coalition of likeminded folks who DO disagree on a number of issues. Without such a coalition, its not possible to win a national election...roamer's approach locks the right into that position, in which the positions we take are so narrow that winning 50% of the populace to our side simply can't be done.

Rejected outright. If Republicans actually performed according to their promises (which are all always conservative on the stump) there would be no worry getting elected. Conservatism has worked every time it's tried. Every major movement of the right has been Conservative - In the 90's the talk was always about whether a candidate could harness the the three factions of Conservatism to bring forth the Conservative juggernaut - And the only time Republicans have done anything is when that juggernaut moves.

And it can be done - After all, Democrats seem to be able to perform.
Burn the damn big circus tent down, and fill the Congress with true believers. see what happens next.

Akin to the old Reagan axiom...we have to run the MOST conservative candidate who CAN win....not simply the most conservative candidate.

Not when the 'most conservative that can win' is a McCain't or a Romulus... Or a NYC liberal... 

[roamer_1]

I have called that sumbitch Roams out many a time and have never been banned.  I have on several occasions called him an ass hole, a dumbass, a dipshit, and a few other things that good taste and decorum prevents me from posting these days.   Now, little newbie @christian  if you really want to know how to get banned, I can teach a clinic on that.  Am I right @mystery-ak
So till then STFU.

One thing they'll never accuse you of Wings, it'd be civility. I like that. 

[roamer_1]

If every Republican had the same conviction as @roamer_1 , we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now.  His position has been consistent which is something the GOP has lacked for decades now.

Personally, I have hoped that for at least one year in my lifetime our Congress would live within its means.  I am now pushing 60, and that has never happened.  Not once.  Not a single year.  Let that one sink in.  Sixty-three years in a row of deficit spending.  Roamer is right.  We won't survive as a nation on our current path.

  I figure just the same about you @Hoodat

[Bigun]

If every Republican had the same conviction as @roamer_1 , we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now.  His position has been consistent which is something the GOP has lacked for decades now.

That right there is just plain fact @Hoodat!

Personally, I have hoped that for at least one year in my lifetime our Congress would live within its means.  I am now pushing 60, and that has never happened.  Not once.  Not a single year.  Let that one sink in.  Sixty-three years in a row of deficit spending.  Roamer is right.  We won't survive as a nation on our current path.

You can make that 72 years in my case.  We no longer have to worry about our survival as a nation though as it died once and for all on December 11, 2020.