- Thread starter
- #61
My meaning was about Democrat voters who simply vote "D" and have been unable to explain what they voted for. The treat politics as though it were a sports team that they are bonded to.
If My Advice Isn't Good Enough......
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #62
How could 75,019,257 voters vote for this:
Race and gender preferences
Language police
No punishment for criminals
Open borders
Attacks on the Supreme Court
Transgender sports competitions
Antisemitism
Wealth tax
Cancel culture
Welfare State
Government run healthcare mandates
Sanctuary Cities
Two-Tiered Justice system
- Thread starter
- #63
Some.
Not enough read 1984
Or maybe not enough understood it......government schooling and all.
Dorian Mode
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2025
- 2,655
- 3,947
- 1,918
You're absolutely right. They voted D because of Identity Politics and not because of the merits of the actual politicians. But let's be fair, how many people voted for GW Bush? Who, in my personal opinion, was the worst POTUS of the last decade. Biden was second worst. Anyway, the system for electing politicians is broken and the system should produce the very best politicians possible for the people to choose from.
- Thread starter
- #65
I hope you don't mind if I give my perspective, and it is not the voters, it is the total control of every means of the dissemination of information by the left. How can people make a considered analysis when they don't have the facts. I consider my role here just that: education.
What is wrong with them is the same thing that is wrong with much of Western Civilization today.....
The Fourth Estate is the most corrupt organization in the nation today. Control of this body is central to the Marxist agenda.
Communism was one of the totalitarian dogma’s that arose from the French Revolution, and their theoretician was Antonio Gramschi.
“Antonio Gramsci, the philosopher who became the iconic thinker of the 1960s, laid down the blueprint for precisely what has happened in Britain: the capture of all society's institutions, such as schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police and voluntary groups. This intellectual elite was persuaded to sing from the same subversive hymn-sheet so that the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the values of those on the margins of society, the perfect ambience in which the Muslim grievance culture could be fanned into the flames of extremism.
At the core of those Western majority values lay the Mosaic code, which first gave the world the concept of morality, self-discipline and laws regulating behavior. Who, then, could be surprised that the Jews found themselves in the left's crosshairs?” Phillips, “Londonistan,” P.118-119
At some point the problems become so clear to society that a Trump has a chance to be elected.
The future? Who knows.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
How much is The Kremlin paying you to produce this Anti-American propaganda?
Yawn.2. "Jones said the party needs to "look inside," which he does not see following President Donald Trump's victory, and apologize for not being truthful about Biden.
3."I do not see that happening. I see people, rather than reorganizing, rethink — Center for American Progress took off in 2005 and came up with a new set of ideas for Democrats. That has to happen.
4. Before we get out here and start trying to tell people why they should like us, we need to look in the mirror, reorganize ourselves, get bad people and bad ideas out of the way, and then we will be able to come forward in the midterm. But right now, we need to apologize to American people that we were part of something that wasn't on the up and up."
Van Jones Drops Hammer on Democrats Regarding Joe Biden's Demonstrable Decline
CNN commentator Van Jones did not beat around the bush when he said,redstate.com
Opinions are like.....well you know those holes back there that we sit on?
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again.
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
This was never on the ballot.
You have been busted GASLIGHTING again
The choice was GWB or Al Gore, the latter of which would be four more years of Clinton without the buffer of Newt Gingrich and Tim Penny and their reformer Republicans and Democrats to rein him in. GWB had his good points. His initial handling of 9/11 earned him approval ratings in the high 90% range, and his handling of the economy had few serious critics. But with education, environmental, energy, immigration policies, and his long range handling of the Afghan and Iraq wars and Katrina that only a leftist could love, Gore wouldn't have made a huge difference there.
But GWB was 17 years ago, not a decade. Obama was worse by far in the harm done to the country. And Biden far worse than Obama assuming that there was any distinction between the two. (We still don't know who was running the country during the Biden administration--we know it wasn't Biden--and an Obama who didn't have a reputation to protect. . . .)
But in truth, I would have voted for a trained monkey with an R after his name with greater confidence than I would vote for a Kamala Harris who has zero credentials or aptitude to govern anything, let alone the United States of America.
That isn't voting partisan. That is voting common sense.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
YOU FUNNY!
catatomic
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2012
- 1,121
- 334
- 198
Right is right and there's no reason to stop defending it1. Since the brutal election defeat that you Democrats suffered, I've posted a number of OPs telling you how to bring your party back. My suggestions included jettisoning the Fascistic, anti-American, woke agenda that brought you to defeat. The dumbest among you insist on defending the policies that resulted in Trump's mandate.
I do not want to see a one-party nation, which it will be if you Democrats continue with the insane agenda.
OK>......how about Democrat political analyst, and admitted communist, who, like moi, wants to see a re-vitalized Democrat Party, and suggest many of the same things I have been writing, Van Jones.
2. "Jones said the party needs to "look inside," which he does not see following President Donald Trump's victory, and apologize for not being truthful about Biden.
3."I do not see that happening. I see people, rather than reorganizing, rethink — Center for American Progress took off in 2005 and came up with a new set of ideas for Democrats. That has to happen.
4. Before we get out here and start trying to tell people why they should like us, we need to look in the mirror, reorganize ourselves, get bad people and bad ideas out of the way, and then we will be able to come forward in the midterm. But right now, we need to apologize to American people that we were part of something that wasn't on the up and up."
Van Jones Drops Hammer on Democrats Regarding Joe Biden's Demonstrable Decline
CNN commentator Van Jones did not beat around the bush when he said,
5. You Democrats have never been able to justify voting for this, and you need to support what you can explain to theAmerican people:
Race and gender preferences
Language police
No punishment for criminals
Open borders
Attacks on the Supreme Court
Transgender sports competitions
Antisemitism
Wealth tax
Cancel culture
Welfare State
Government run healthcare mandates
Sanctuary Cities
Two-Tiered Justice system
- Thread starter
- #70
For clarity, are you saying that this agenda is "right" and should be defended?
Language police
No punishment for criminals
Open borders
Attacks on the Supreme Court
Transgender sports competitions
Antisemitism
Wealth tax
Cancel culture
Welfare State
Government run healthcare mandates
Sanctuary Cities
Two-Tiered Justice system
catatomic
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2012
- 1,121
- 334
- 198
I think the wealthy should pay some tax and some people need help. Otherwise no.
- Thread starter
- #73
Let's see if I understand your position: you realize that the reason why the Democrats suffered a landslide loss is the list of their policies that I provided.
If that is the case, then your earlier post was misleading, and now clear, I agree with you.
As far as tax policy,
a. there is no perpetual class known as the "wealthy" in America:
- The data also show downward mobility among the highest income earners. The top 1% in 1996 saw an average decline in their real, after-tax incomes by 52% in the next 10 years.
America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one's position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...536934297.html - 2. There's a lot of income mobility in America, so comparing poor families today with the poor families of 10 years ago can be misleading because they're not the same families. Every year hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and the young enter the workforce at "poor" income levels. But the CBO study found that, with the exception of chronically poor families who have no breadwinner, low-income job holders are climbing the income ladder.
The Poor Get Richer - WSJ.com
"Some people need help." We are on the same page here.
- Thread starter
- #75
I'd like you to flesh that out a little.
If you are unsure of which party is most concerned with the needy, I believe this would be eye-opening:
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
The media has never told you the truth.
1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.
2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."
3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.
4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.
5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."
6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.
7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."
8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap
Is the right more generous than the left?
- Thread starter
- #76
"You used a bunch of catch phrases that I had to say no to."
I provide sources for my quotes.
"some ideas I have that are meant to please both Republicans and Democrats very much."
This is the place to provide them.
catatomic
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2012
- 1,121
- 334
- 198
Now do how much is given in total when each party is in power ignoring governing philosophy for the moment. I'm sorry but I can read each of those items and say, "Yeah but it doesn't address this."I'd like you to flesh that out a little.
If you are unsure of which party is most concerned with the needy, I believe this would be eye-opening:
View attachment 1123316
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
The media has never told you the truth.
1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.
2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."
3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.
4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.
5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."
6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.
7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."
8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap
Is the right more generous than the left?
reason.com
catatomic
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2012
- 1,121
- 334
- 198
But they're catch phrases that sometimes don't address the bigger issue.
My campaign in one sentence is to let computers help us but protect everyone and give them dignity. I'm another sentence, if people run things well on their own I won't interfere.
New Topics
-
-
Your life - sold to internet scavengers - Welcome to LexisNexis- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
-
