The Democratic Party is on Fire...

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider
...and its raining gasoline.  

I have to confess to lifting this title from a thread with a similar name from years ago (though it was the GOP that was supposedly in flames).   

Now that we've discussed the 2016 election to death, it's time to move on to current events and the immediate political future.  Since the election, I have been somewhat surprised (though incredibly pleased and entertained) at the Democratic Party's apparent determination to commit suicide in slow motion.  We heard for months that the GOP was in disarray and that Trump would destroy the party.  In fact, the opposite has happened.  Even those who strongly opposed Trump are now at least open to seeing what happens.  Some are openly supporting him (Romney, Cruz, many more).  

The Democratic Party still has some electoral advantages in terms of demographics and on certain issues.  For example, the country is still becoming less white and more hispanic, black, etc.  They still control many important identify politics "blocks," including the young, women (especially single women), blacks, hispanics, gays, etc.  The body politic has also moved left on issues like same sex marriage, marijuana use, increased social spending and others.  But they also have some very serious problems which, as of yet, they don't even seem to be acknowledging:  

1.  The Democratic Party has a limited "bench" of leaders.   Their losses in governorships and legislative seats don't help matters.  But they also chose 76 year old Nancy Pelosi as their minority leader, and kept 77 year old Stenny Hoyer in power.  Schumer is 66, but he's been around forever.  Based on his recent interview performances, it's clear he doesn't have a clue to do with Trump despite knowing him and taking money from him for many years.  The entire leadership of the party is suspect and mostly old.  The Clintons are going to be in their 70's and tarnished with Hillary's loss.  There are few young leaders ready to assume the mantle.  The ones that are?  They are obviously being ignored.  

2.  Since 2009, the party has lost state 1,000 legislative seats, a dozen governorships, nearly 70 House seats, lost control of the Senate, and now, the Presidency.   These are staggering losses, requiring a true re-assessment and post-mortem.  So far, not much other than "messaging" has been discussed as the problem.  If they are going to reverse their losses, they are going to have to figure out what happened.  

3.  The Democrats have always been able to count on the mainstream media (including TV, print and internet news, Hollywood, etc.) for assistance.  With the election of Trump, however, it's clear that vast swaths of the country are just ignoring the legacy media.  Most of the mainstream news media (save Fox and other conservative outlets) went into full liberal sellout mode for the election.  They were always going to lose credibility as a result, but now they've also lost power because their candidate lost.  No one cares when Chuck Schumer goes on 5 cable shows and does his song and dance.   With Twitter, Trump cuts right through to the voters.  The Democrats have no such ability...not yet.  

4.  So far, it seems that Democrats and the Left in general are unable to take a serious, somber look at what happened.  Until they do, they have little change to recover.  Instead of admitting the obvious (that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, and it was a "change" year), they have gone into FULL DENIAL and OUTRAGE mode.   Celebrities (even Martin Sheen!) urged the Electoral College to not honor the will of the voters.  The Electoral College itself needed to be changed.  Director Comey illegally manipulated the election.  The Russians "hacked" the election.  Trump won because...racism.  Sexism.  Misogyny!  Xenophobia!   

5.  The Party is Beholden to Leftist Extremists:  When you count Black Lives Matter, Occupy, extreme environmentalists, socialists, those who support abortion-on-demand, advocates for unchecked illegal immigration and others as your base of support, the rest of the country is going to take notice.  Part of Trump's appeal was that he was the one up there saying "enough."  Enough with the cop-killing and anti-police rhetoric.  Enough with hyper-political correctness.  Enough with the thought and speech police.  Enough with disrespecting the flag and every tradition we've ever had.  He has his flaws, certainly.  But he tapped into what America is somehow.  He tapped into this feeling of "I was raised to love my country and salute the flag, to work hard, provide for my family and enjoy my life...and there's nothing wrong with any of that."  There's something there that the Democrats just don't get.  They don't seem to understand that Trump was't just about rejecting the things I mentioned.  Trump's election was just as much about rejecting the Left's seemingly endless state of agitation.  If it wasn't the confederate flag, it was transgender bathroom rights.  Or it was "Look How Racist Everyone is Because A Poor Muslim Boy Made a Clock."  Or it was forcing wedding bakers to bake cakes for same-sex weddings.  Or Boycotting Chik-fil-a because they are family-owned, Christian business.  On we went for 8 years with an endless stream of grievances against anything even resembling tradition.  Finally, many people revolted against the deluge at the ballot box.  But the extreme Left still seems to think this election was an aberration.   That won't exactly make them more flexible in terms of supporting a new party platform.  

I'll stop the original post here and let the discussion get started.  What should the Dems do?  What will they do?  Anything I'm missing?  

tallest skiljbdragongatorguy
«13456713

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 254
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,392member
  • Reply 2 of 254
    sdw2001 said:
    I’m not entirely sure of the veracity of the claim that the fake report made it all the way to actual intelligence agencies, but the news outlets themselves certainly fell for a 4channer’s scam. It’s absolutely hilarious.
    sdw2001 said:
    What should the Dems do?  What will they do?
    Capitulate immediately. Continue their campaign of legitimate genocide, leading eventually to the execution of many of them for treason. Respectively.

    Why don’t leftists see that importing millions of third world savages is incompatible with their dream of a peaceful, tolerant, LGBT society? I see this asked so many times and too seldom is it explained how different the mind of a leftist is from ours. Short answer is that our brains are different; check the scans. If you are not sure yet which you are, a scientist scanning your brain could tell you.

    Have you ever thought how two highly intelligent and educated men–one a leftist and the other a conservative–can be presented with the same evidence and the same facts yet reach two opposite conclusions? What r/K theory proposes is that political ideology, like much of our behavior, is an expression of our survival strategy. First you are presented with facts and presumptions, then your brain (being wired genetically to be either r or K) interprets the facts in a way that makes sense for your biological survival. Depending on the selective pressures in nature (society), either r or K will be more successful, meaning that the successful strategy will be better represented in the future generation. So far r and K-selected organisms have been living side by side in several species, humans being one of them.

    K-SELECTED ANIMALS

    The prime example here is the wolf. When there are K-selective pressures in nature, the species will adopt K-traits. K-selective pressures include a limited food supply, harsh punishment (death) for failure and fierce competition for resources. If a pack of wolves live in an area inhabited by enough prey to feed X amount of wolves then each new cub is above the environments carrying capacity. As a wolf mother gives birth to her cub that is number X+1 she has to make sure that this cub is strong enough, smart enough, and adaptive enough to outcompete one of the preexisting wolves in the pack or the cub will starve as soon as it is on its own. In this environment, some traits give wolves a clear evolutionary advantage. The wolves that seek the best possible mate, monopolize this mates superior genes through monogamy, wait until they are old enough to take care of their offspring and then spend much time with their offspring which mature more slowly (but advances further) give their offspring the best possible advantage to compete in life. If a wolf would screw around and pop out offspring willy-nilly with no thought to rearing, most cubs would not have what it takes to succeed and would die off as soon as winter comes, being outcompeted by their stronger, more well-trained peers. Other K traits include being able to work well in groups–where in-group loyalty increases everyones survival chances. Hostility to outsiders–if a competing pack encroaches on your territory, they threaten your pack’s survival as they eat your prey and thus they limit your food availability. If not driven out, your pack will weaken and allow for more encroachments until you die out or leave the territory all together. The life of the K is a struggle to perfection, where the weak must perish so that the strong may survive and advance the species as a whole.

    r-SELECTED ANIMALS

    The poster child animal for the r-selected strategy is the rabbit. Think of an unlimited food supply (grass), that could never be eaten in your entire lifetime and predation that kills seemingly randomly (hawks, foxes, hunting, etc.) and your life could end tomorrow. The bunnies that are exclusively monogamous miss out on several mating opportunities that leave them outcompeted by their peers that screw anything and everyone. The bunnies that spend too much time rearing their young cannot produce as many batches of younglings as their less caring peers, and what skills could their mother teach them? Running away, mating, and eating grass is all they need to know, and that’s genetically inbred (also known as ‘instinct’). A rabbit who fights for territory wastes time and energy and gains nothing. There is always more grass to eat and this rabbit will be outcompeted by its peers who simply will eat and, if need be, run away. In such an environment, in-group loyalty offers the rabbits no benefits, anyone can survive fine by themselves, and all are preyed upon equally so why stick your neck out for others?

    A good example of these two strategies existing side by side in the same species is the cuttlefish. During mating, the males outnumber the females 11:1 and the strong K-selected males fight each other to gain the right to mate with the females. Here, the weak die without offspring so that strong win and can reproduce, making the next generation stronger. An underhanded trick the “beta” cuttlefish have adapted is to disguise themselves as females to avoid the hard competition and fighting they clearly stand no chance of winning, to distract males to fight for it and sneak away to mate with the females while the K-selected duke it out. The more successful this strategy is in securing mates, the more cuttlefish will be playing the same strategy during the next generation.

    You can already see which humans are K and which are r-selected. Evolutionarily, a K-strategy makes you loyal to your in-group–which in humans translates to anything between your family, sports team, and your country–while holding an inherent hostility towards out-groups, as they threaten the survival of your group in a world of limited resources.

    Side note: In a nation, you can pick any two individuals of the same race and chances are that they are your sixth cousin or less. It makes biological sense to see yourself as the same group, since you come from the same origin, share the same blood, and a K-selected individual could be ready to sacrifice himself to save strangers he knows belongs to the in-group as their continued survival is a continued survival of much of his genes.

    As for the r-selected humans, they struggle for survival during times of hardship and flourish during times of plenty. Think of ancient Rome. They succeeded by being the strongest, smartest, most well-organized, and best adapted to the environment. Conquering neighboring tribes–and later, nations–they spread their seed and culture beyond horizons their ancestors could not have dreamed. Yet their victory defeated them; the rise of the plebs, the urban poor, lived off handouts from the state while holding an disproportionate amount of political power for the little they produced for the empire. Their wealth emancipated many women, as they were no longer dependent on a husband to support them. In the late republic, many women held powerful positions in the city of Rome. Their riches attracted impoverished clans from the north to move into the empire under the pretenses of setting up farms and villages to become productive, tax paying Roman citizens. Instead, these goths’ descendants sacked Rome in 410 AD. The writer Juvenal raged that the city had lost all that which made it Roman, other writers described how the late period the empire was a mix of tribes from all descents–African, Greek, Assyrian, Teuton, Goth, and so on. Everyone lost their sense of identity in the mix–except for the Hebrew and the Teuton. The empire had lost its character, as it no longer represented the interest of any one group, which led to the constant infighting in Rome which later became its demise. As the Roman state inevitably collapsed, so did the population of Europe.

    Without the carefully constructed artificial environment to suit the needs of the r-selected population, people were once again forced to fend and provide for themselves. Being outcompeted by their superior K peers, the bloated r-selected population of bureaucrats, artists, bohemians, plebs, whores, and degenerates collapsed. Now only hard work, in-group loyalty, monogamy, and religious devotion gave humans the best chance of survival, Europe returned to its natural state where only the strong survive. The very same environment that had created the Roman Empire.

    THREAT DETECTION

    The r-selected individuals within humans have a smaller, underdeveloped amygdala, giving them a poorer threat perception. Where a K-selected person might see Muslims blowing up left and right and perceive them as a threat, the r-selected brain is quite literally unable to make this connection. As their brain is unable to make a connection between ‘Muslims’ and ‘threat’, they assume there is none! After all, that is how their brain is interpreting the incoming information, and as they assume there is no threat they call the K-selected whistleblowers “paranoid” for seeing connections that “do not exist.”

    In practice, this feeds into the r-selected survival strategy, since they need the K-selected peers to fight each other and die off because that opens up more females that they may then mate with. If all males in a nation are K-selected, of the same in-group, and loyal to one another, the r-selected have a very hard time to get laid at all, being outcompeted at every turn since the K-selected males are all alive and can focus more of their energy on wooing the opposite sex. Bring in a group of outsiders and the picture changes. The natural resentment between two Ks from different groups fosters a climate of conflict, like that of clan warfare for territory to race or religious war within a nation. Having the K males kill each other is exactly what the r-strategist wants, and if a neighboring tribe conquers them, the r’s will be the first to change to the winning side. Adopting their culture, habits, and language lets them continue their underhanded reproduction strategy in a new in-group, that is if they did not already betray their K in-group members before the war to win favor and guarantee their place amongst the victorious out-groupers. The r-selected individuals tend to be awfully unaware of their own reproductive strategy while following it to a T. It is therefore always in the K-selected peoples’ interest to find and purge r-selected members wherever they find them.

    If you have no enemies within your walls, the enemy outside can do us no harm.

    – African proverb

    RELIGIOUS DEVOTION

    I briefly touched on this subject. I approach religion out of a completely evolutionary point of view and therefore support it wholeheartedly. At testing, it is found that this gene activates around the age of 6 which is when children start to rationalize the unexplainable with the supernatural. The gene ties in with emotional intelligence, which is why autists lack it and often rage against the concept of religion, which they are biologically unable to understand. During human evolution, this mutation made it possible for people to hold abstract ideas of morality and spirituality. This gene made it possible to foster a stronger in-group spirit and out-group hostility than practicality could ever produce. It fostered trust between in-group members and greased the wheels of social interaction while helping enforce K values like monogamy and purging of ‘heretics’.

    Say, for example, a group becomes too successful and environmental stress starts to decrease. The K-selected members would slowly start to adopt r-traits to gain a reproductive advantage. Yet if you could persuade people with the help of abstract concepts–such as god and morality–to give up some of their personal evolutionary gain by switching to a more r-strategy, the religion could strengthen the survival strength of the entire group. The religious morality would allow for the purge of in-group members labelled ‘heretics’ (i.e. people who break with K-selected strategy). If the religious institution stops purging heretics, the defectors/heretics/degenerates/r-selected–whatever you wish to call them–will slowly increase in number until they become strong enough to dismantle/hijack the religion completely.

    You can see autism as a form of extreme r-strategy, perhaps. It is an expression of a “anything goes” strategy which flourishes during times of moral decay. They are people who would be driven to close to extinction in a better society which would not tolerate their poor hygiene, lack of social skills, and sexual degeneracy. Yet in a society which has replaced moral standards with unconditional tolerance, these human garbage heaps can still find ways to survive. An atheistic autistic island-of-one tolerant man is the expression of the evolutionary peak of r-strategy in modern society. These are the men who pray for a Happening only so that it would kill off more K-selected men.

    On the other hand, a K-selected man would want for a Happening for different reasons. Like, say, if he begins to see that his society has become hijacked and overpopulated by r-selected individuals, he is simply hoping for the collapse that will bring an end to the welfare state and thus destroy the environment that fosters an r-selected population. A collapse would bring about the same population adjustment as the fall of the Roman Empire, where women flocked to the K-selected males who can defend territory and produce food in a resource scarce environment.

    Short version: The left has lost–and will continue to lose horribly–because they have absolutely no comprehension of the physical reality around them. Truth to a leftist is anathema. The only thing that matters is emotion, and if something or someone contests that emotion, it must either be suppressed or killed outright. This is known as mental illness.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 3 of 254
    This is spectacular, too. Explicitly calling CNN fake news… and other organizations in the room applaud.


    SpamSandwichjbdragon
  • Reply 4 of 254
    Okay, I’ll expand on my point. Let’s start with immigration.

    In claiming that immigration is good–or even acceptable–in locations of otherwise decreasing population, there is a huge disconnect between said statement and the will of the native people of the location. Reassessing said belief ought to be a consideration in any analysis of the current collapse of leftist ideologies.

    People are not–and do not see themselves as–interchangeable parts such that “everything remains good” as long as Germany’s population, for example, is “maintained” at 80 million. People do not want to be replaced by strangers who do not look like them, and certainly not by strangers who share neither their language nor their culture. I know it makes leftists apoplectic (I revel in the trauma it causes them, myself), but people are tribal. They prefer their own kin. Arguments such as “we should encourage immigration to maintain population levels” only make sense until you make the inference that it will lead to their nation’s replacement. It doesn’t make sense to try to save Germany by importing Turks and Algerians, because a Germany inhabited by Turks and Algerians wouldn’t be Germany.

    Then leftists invariably turn to casting a “responsibility”–moral or otherwise–on the invaded nations to take in the invaders due to the situation in their home nations. Have your nation invaded while simultaneously pay for the restoration of the lands whence the invaders came. Return home after things are fixed with your money? Of course they won’t! That would be racist!

    Neither Germany nor the EU can solve all the crises that effect the world. Nor can the United States, Canada, Australia, etc. Is the West supposed to dismantle Boko Haram, bring democracy (read: evil) to Eritrea, a stable government to Somalia, peace to Syria, and prosperity to Morocco, to say nothing of quadrupling the GDP of the developing world? Saying “eliminate the causes of mass migration” is a platitude, as it cannot be done, nor is it the responsibility of individual or collective citizens to suffer economic hardship and criminal violence in the streets of Berlin because the government wasn’t able to wave its magic wand and turn Namibia into Switzerland.

    Overall, the left no longer appeals to the people because they are not perceived as living in the real world. In a time in which people are worried about demographic supplantation, crime, and terrorism, they trot out 18th century solutions, imagining that the same dynamics still apply. Back then, industrialists imported people from the countryside to work in factories, but that is not the case today. Populations with huge proportions of illiterates and a dearth of educated people have no place or use in Europe’s high-tech industries. The overwhelming majority of invaders do not work now, nor will they ever work in the future. As a drain on the welfare state and a booster in crime statistics, they don’t even have use as “wage slaves” for capitalists. Not only that, but even if we accept that the EU and NATO caused everything bad in the world (lol), that gives us no solution to the present crisis. These people, with IQs (pop a handful of aspirin so you don’t have a heart attack and can read through the rest) in the 80s and 90s and a hostile attitude to the very concept of Western civilization will never be educated, never be assimilated, and the left still doesn’t want to send them back, either. They don’t even want to stop them from coming!

    To summarize, the left has no explanation, no solution, and an unappealing message. And that is why they lost to Trump. Quite frankly, this is far, FAR from the worst loss they will suffer in the future.
    SpamSandwichjbdragon
  • Reply 5 of 254
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,014member
    Lol, the "stamina" of this guy. Starts a job and straight away takes a day and a half off.  
    singularitySpamSandwich
  • Reply 6 of 254
    crowley said:
    Lol, the "stamina" of this guy. Starts a job and straight away takes a day and a half off.  
    Are you taking the piss ?
  • Reply 7 of 254
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,014member
    crowley said:
    Lol, the "stamina" of this guy. Starts a job and straight away takes a day and a half off.  
    Are you taking the piss ?
    Me or him?  If I'm talking about Trump there's a 99% chance that I'm taking the piss.

    I think he just watches.



    edited January 17 SpamSandwichdasanman69
  • Reply 8 of 254
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,332member
    sdw2001 said:
    ...and its raining gasoline.  

    I have to confess to lifting this title from a thread with a similar name from years ago (though it was the GOP that was supposedly in flames).   

    Now that we've discussed the 2016 election to death, it's time to move on to current events and the immediate political future.  Since the election, I have been somewhat surprised (though incredibly pleased and entertained) at the Democratic Party's apparent determination to commit suicide in slow motion.  We heard for months that the GOP was in disarray and that Trump would destroy the party.  In fact, the opposite has happened.  Even those who strongly opposed Trump are now at least open to seeing what happens.  Some are openly supporting him (Romney, Cruz, many more).  

    The Democratic Party still has some electoral advantages in terms of demographics and on certain issues.  For example, the country is still becoming less white and more hispanic, black, etc.  They still control many important identify politics "blocks," including the young, women (especially single women), blacks, hispanics, gays, etc.  The body politic has also moved left on issues like same sex marriage, marijuana use, increased social spending and others.  But they also have some very serious problems which, as of yet, they don't even seem to be acknowledging:  


    I'm still not of the view that these supposed demographic advantages are going to play out the way they imagine. First as these kids grow up, they will be no different than most other entitled and white American children. I can tell you this because I teach them in California and my own children are friends with them. They are the kids on the block. They act how they act and perhaps some racial resentment might be stirred up for a while in college for a few but for most, they will get their degree and/or their jobs and move on to trying to create a life for themselves that they want to control and make progress on both for themselves and their families.

    The biggest and deepest problem for the Democratic Party is one I've been trumpeting for years. (Yes I chose those words on purpose.) First it is the truth that the major media centers are largely Democratic propaganda centers. You look at the last election and look for blue around New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. You see what there is to see there.

    The problem for the Democrats going forward, and this is where the "fake news" hits, and that is that media and news consumption in general is becoming more and more decentralized. These kids that are going to be the supposed future demographic changes are not all going to be watching MSNBC or Univision or anything else that is pumping out 24 hour "analysis" a day to tell them what to say and how to think. They are following folks on YouTube, checking out Instagram feeds, looking at Snapchat, etc. Some of them are going to be very wrapped up in identity but many others are just going to realize that being an interesting person with no job and no money starts to suck and they will make different choices. Again look at how the Hippies were supposed to transform the country. They did. They became yuppies and elected Reagan.


    1.  The Democratic Party has a limited "bench" of leaders.   Their losses in governorships and legislative seats don't help matters.  But they also chose 76 year old Nancy Pelosi as their minority leader, and kept 77 year old Stenny Hoyer in power.  Schumer is 66, but he's been around forever.  Based on his recent interview performances, it's clear he doesn't have a clue to do with Trump despite knowing him and taking money from him for many years.  The entire leadership of the party is suspect and mostly old.  The Clintons are going to be in their 70's and tarnished with Hillary's loss.  There are few young leaders ready to assume the mantle.  The ones that are?  They are obviously being ignored.  

    2.  Since 2009, the party has lost state 1,000 legislative seats, a dozen governorships, nearly 70 House seats, lost control of the Senate, and now, the Presidency.   These are staggering losses, requiring a true re-assessment and post-mortem.  So far, not much other than "messaging" has been discussed as the problem.  If they are going to reverse their losses, they are going to have to figure out what happened.
    It isn't just that they have a limited bench, even if they had more on the bench, the bench doesn't have any new ideas. It isn't like California's newest elected Senator, Kamala Harris has an original thought or a plan for a change in direction. Many within the Democratic Party aren't holding positions because of any actual ability to get a job done. They engaged in appropriate "virtue signaling" or had one small incident that was blown up in a media narrative that they then coast on for the rest of their lives. Jane Elliot is an example of this with her "Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes" nonsense and yes, John Lewis was a big figure in the Civil Rights movment for a few years and has done exactly zero for his district for nearly 30 years after using those episodes to become an elected untouchable.

    I live in California and with my more political friends, I've tried to have some deep discussions about what should happen in California, which is billing itself as the land of anti-Trump for the next few years. The reality is they just have no real thoughts, not even an understanding of what to do. I mention problems here in California and they are largely unaware of them and when brought up, they largely still don't seem to care. They really don't think much deeper than internet memes or care mostly about mockery and demonization over even gains for their own party. I wish I were joking when I say they have more interest in how SNL is going to make fun of Trump this week than the fact that California wants to raise the highest gas tax in the nation even higher or that we have some nice rain but no new storage capacity built to hold it. They will post about every Trump tweet and highlight the most snarky reply to it. This appears daily on my various social media timelines.

    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan. I've outright said to them, "California is supposed to be leading the way and we are proposing state college tuition increases, we have the worst ranked (or second depending upon the source) roads in the nation while having the highest gas taxes. We haven't build any desalinization plants or water reservoirs during the entire Brown/Obama years. How are we going to show we are different from Trump when we have these outcomes?"

    Let's just say they have no response but we do have legal marijuana so all must be well.

    3.  The Democrats have always been able to count on the mainstream media (including TV, print and internet news, Hollywood, etc.) for assistance.  With the election of Trump, however, it's clear that vast swaths of the country are just ignoring the legacy media.  Most of the mainstream news media (save Fox and other conservative outlets) went into full liberal sellout mode for the election.  They were always going to lose credibility as a result, but now they've also lost power because their candidate lost.  No one cares when Chuck Schumer goes on 5 cable shows and does his song and dance.   With Twitter, Trump cuts right through to the voters.  The Democrats have no such ability...not yet. 

    Of course Democrats have such an ability. You note the corporate media has largely lost their power as gatekeepers both of information and in determining who or what should be allowed as public discourse. The point is that the Democrats have nothing to question, nothing to change and nothing to cut through. The channels they use do engage in full scale demonization and do a pretty good job at it. The point remains though after the opposition is demonized, there still isn't a plan or policy that they really want to put in place afterward.

    I think the clearest example of this has been Obama's governing, especially his foreign policy. I mean you ask people what it was and what it accomplished and it is just a mess. The world is a mess today far worse off than when he took office. You have both Russia and China making very aggressive moves. The entire Middle East is aflame and all the refugees are getting ready to set Europe on fire and problem help break up the EU. Obama added $10 trillion to the government debt and no can really say what it was spent on. (At least with Bush you could argue about needless tax cuts and wasteful wars. Obama spent more and no one can seem to say on what.) History will show that Obama largely purchased any economic growth with borrowing. I would bet that when debt is factored in, we had 8 years of zero growth or near that.

    So Schumer can go on five cable shows. He can tweet and Instagram and link his social feeds to Bill Maher's New Rules or SNL making Trump pretend to be offended by pee, or what have you. Afterwards then what is the plan? There isn't one.

    4.  So far, it seems that Democrats and the Left in general are unable to take a serious, somber look at what happened.  Until they do, they have little change to recover.  Instead of admitting the obvious (that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, and it was a "change" year), they have gone into FULL DENIAL and OUTRAGE mode.   Celebrities (even Martin Sheen!) urged the Electoral College to not honor the will of the voters.  The Electoral College itself needed to be changed.  Director Comey illegally manipulated the election.  The Russians "hacked" the election.  Trump won because...racism.  Sexism.  Misogyny!  Xenophobia!  

    Well the more you cry wolf the less credibility you eventually will have. At some point it all become background noise plus people wise up. Then there is rage fatigue. I suspect a confluence of all these factors has already hollowed out the party and it will indeed collapse soon. Trump honestly will be the thing that determines this. If he is effective then he might have the ability to bring those supposedly demographic hippies into the American middle class where they will hand over their votes for quite a while.


    Back in a bit.

    jbdragon
  • Reply 9 of 254
    trumptman said:
    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan.
    Well, that’s what happens when your entire worldview (and yes, I’m counting liberalism at large here) is predicated exclusively on the unquestioned success of your lying propaganda.  Colbert, Leibowitz, and Oliver, et. al. have created their shows on a purely dialectic model, and this is perhaps why they are so successful and why many people claim to get actual news and opinion from a comedy show.

    Thesis:
    the liberal talking point
    Anti-thesis: Colbert’s character’s response to the liberal talking point
    Synthesis: Usually presented through a punchline, a dismissal by Colbert’s character, or from a “rational and intelligent” guest on the show.

    The Hegelian dialectic model is perfect for introducing apparent problems into a person’s consciousness. Problems that don’t really affect them, that they have never thought before, and under normal circumstances would have little opinion either way. The Hegelian model allows these ideas to be injected into a person’s consciousness without them even realizing. It emphasizes the glaring import of the issue and conveniently provides you with a resolution in the form of synthesis before you had any chance to use your own rational thinking skills to devise a solution agreeable to you as an individual. Instead you are presented the prepackaged liberal idea and you will likely eat it up hook, line, and sinker because of the comical presentation. Political “news” through comedy is a very refined and calculated form of propaganda.
    trumptmanjbdragon
  • Reply 10 of 254
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,014member
    trumptman said:

    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan. I've outright said to them, "California is supposed to be leading the way and we are proposing state college tuition increases, we have the worst ranked (or second depending upon the source) roads in the nation while having the highest gas taxes. We haven't build any desalinization plants or water reservoirs during the entire Brown/Obama years. How are we going to show we are different from Trump when we have these outcomes?"
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

    Good article on how satire and comedy has distorted news and this election cycle.
    singularity
  • Reply 11 of 254
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,332member
    crowley said:
    trumptman said:

    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan. I've outright said to them, "California is supposed to be leading the way and we are proposing state college tuition increases, we have the worst ranked (or second depending upon the source) roads in the nation while having the highest gas taxes. We haven't build any desalinization plants or water reservoirs during the entire Brown/Obama years. How are we going to show we are different from Trump when we have these outcomes?"
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

    Good article on how satire and comedy has distorted news and this election cycle.
    I tried to read and appreciate that article but the premise just didn't jib with what I've seen and likewise the various references being used to support it just don't seem to have much power or pull. I'm supposed to believe Trump is president in part because of 4chan and Tila Tequila? It failed even as an interesting narrative.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 12 of 254
    trumptman said:
    I’m supposed to believe Trump is president in part because of 4chan and Tila Tequila?
    Without wasting too much time on the concept, I’ll say that ludicrousness is a powerful ally. If you can paint yourself as completely insane, you make yourself look completely unthreatening, even when you are. If a group that makes a living out of acting absurd is actually a threat to your establishment, you can’t then go and tell people that they’re a threat–you’ll look like an idiot and destroy your credibility. It’s a lose-lose.
  • Reply 13 of 254
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,014member
    trumptman said:
    crowley said:
    trumptman said:

    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan. I've outright said to them, "California is supposed to be leading the way and we are proposing state college tuition increases, we have the worst ranked (or second depending upon the source) roads in the nation while having the highest gas taxes. We haven't build any desalinization plants or water reservoirs during the entire Brown/Obama years. How are we going to show we are different from Trump when we have these outcomes?"
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

    Good article on how satire and comedy has distorted news and this election cycle.
    I tried to read and appreciate that article but the premise just didn't jib with what I've seen and likewise the various references being used to support it just don't seem to have much power or pull. I'm supposed to believe Trump is president in part because of 4chan and Tila Tequila? It failed even as an interesting narrative.
    Not sure how you ended up with that conclusion, the entire thing wasn't about Trump. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, I think it is an interesting broad article that has a few incisive points about how the current state of the internet is affecting discussion, and is very nicely written.
    edited January 17
  • Reply 14 of 254
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,332member
    crowley said:
    trumptman said:
    crowley said:
    trumptman said:

    I've said it before but I really do think Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and others have done a tremendous bit of damage to the political left. They'd rather smugly laugh at the opposition than engage them or form an actual counterplan. I've outright said to them, "California is supposed to be leading the way and we are proposing state college tuition increases, we have the worst ranked (or second depending upon the source) roads in the nation while having the highest gas taxes. We haven't build any desalinization plants or water reservoirs during the entire Brown/Obama years. How are we going to show we are different from Trump when we have these outcomes?"
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

    Good article on how satire and comedy has distorted news and this election cycle.
    I tried to read and appreciate that article but the premise just didn't jib with what I've seen and likewise the various references being used to support it just don't seem to have much power or pull. I'm supposed to believe Trump is president in part because of 4chan and Tila Tequila? It failed even as an interesting narrative.
    Not sure how you ended up with that conclusion, the entire thing wasn't about Trump. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, I think it is an interesting broad article that has a few incisive points about how the current state of the internet is affecting discussion, and is very nicely written.
    It wasn't entirely about him but basically it claimed him and those like him are advancing and able to do so due to the environment of.........jokes and how they make it impossible for people to judge the truth.

    Time to hit the last point from the beginning.....

    5.  The Party is Beholden to Leftist Extremists:  When you count Black Lives Matter, Occupy, extreme environmentalists, socialists, those who support abortion-on-demand, advocates for unchecked illegal immigration and others as your base of support, the rest of the country is going to take notice.  Part of Trump's appeal was that he was the one up there saying "enough."  Enough with the cop-killing and anti-police rhetoric.  Enough with hyper-political correctness.  Enough with the thought and speech police.  Enough with disrespecting the flag and every tradition we've ever had.  He has his flaws, certainly.  But he tapped into what America is somehow.  He tapped into this feeling of "I was raised to love my country and salute the flag, to work hard, provide for my family and enjoy my life...and there's nothing wrong with any of that."  There's something there that the Democrats just don't get.  They don't seem to understand that Trump was't just about rejecting the things I mentioned.  Trump's election was just as much about rejecting the Left's seemingly endless state of agitation.  If it wasn't the confederate flag, it was transgender bathroom rights.  Or it was "Look How Racist Everyone is Because A Poor Muslim Boy Made a Clock."  Or it was forcing wedding bakers to bake cakes for same-sex weddings.  Or Boycotting Chik-fil-a because they are family-owned, Christian business.  On we went for 8 years with an endless stream of grievances against anything even resembling tradition.  Finally, many people revolted against the deluge at the ballot box.  But the extreme Left still seems to think this election was an aberration.   That won't exactly make them more flexible in terms of supporting a new party platform. 

    I'm not sure if the party elements are extremist in every case or not but what they certainly are is cynical, hypocritical and they have no unifying policy and worldview to bring them all together. Along the way the whole party does toss out more and more groups in an attempt to perhaps try to find some unifying thoughts. The rich white guys were tossed quite a while ago, though now they've been let back in under the guise of education and technology. (You can't be a rich guy from oil or real estate, but Facebook, Apple and others are just fine.) If you are working poor and white, you got tossed though in many ways you had already been tossed for being Italian and Irish White and often Catholic which means you are religious which is also a big no-no.

    The point is that it doesn't really matter if it is extreme or not, the reality is eternal outrage and victimization. Those are the new currency and power for the Democratic Party. Only they haven't really found a way to run an economy on them and the various spinning plates keep crashing down between all the outraged and victimized groups.

    Many news articles are noting that the Democratic Party is at the lowest ebb in power they've had since they were created. Their answer for now is to keep doubling down on failure.

    tallest skil
  • Reply 15 of 254
    crowley said:
    Not sure how you ended up with that conclusion, the entire thing wasn't about Trump. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, I think it is an interesting broad article that has a few incisive points about how the current state of the internet is affecting discussion, and is very nicely written.
    It was indeed one of the most self-aware articles written by a liberal that I’ve ever seen. Give it another shot, @trumptman; it’s worth it. And this is coming from someone who reads leftist dialectic almost solely to gauge the level of mental illness contained therein.
  • Reply 16 of 254
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,332member
    crowley said:
    Not sure how you ended up with that conclusion, the entire thing wasn't about Trump. Sorry you didn't enjoy it, I think it is an interesting broad article that has a few incisive points about how the current state of the internet is affecting discussion, and is very nicely written.
    It was indeed one of the most self-aware articles written by a liberal that I’ve ever seen. Give it another shot, @trumptman; it’s worth it. And this is coming from someone who reads leftist dialectic almost solely to gauge the level of mental illness contained therein.
    I'll share what I consider the premise of the piece.

    "Since November 9th, we’ve heard a lot of talk about unreality, and how what’s normal bends when you’re in a state of incipient autocracy. There’s been a lot written about gaslighting (lies that make you feel crazy) and the rise of fake news (hoaxes that displace facts), and much analysis of Trump as a reality star (an authentic phony). But what killed me last year were the jokes, because I love jokes—dirty jokes, bad jokes, rude jokes, jokes that cut through bullshit and explode pomposity. Growing up a Jewish kid in the nineteen-seventies, in a house full of Holocaust books, giggling at Mel Brooks’s “The Producers,” I had the impression that jokes, like Woody Guthrie’s guitar, were a machine that killed fascists. Comedy might be cruel or stupid, yet, in aggregate, it was the rebel’s stance. Nazis were humorless. The fact that it was mostly men who got to tell the jokes didn’t bother me. Jokes were a superior way to tell the truth—that meant freedom for everyone.

    But by 2016 the wheel had spun hard the other way: now it was the neo-fascist strongman who held the microphone and an army of anonymous dirty-joke dispensers who helped put him in office. Online, jokes were powerful accelerants for lies—a tweet was the size of a one-liner, a “dank meme” carried farther than any op-ed, and the distinction between a Nazi and someone pretending to be a Nazi for “lulz” had become a blur. Ads looked like news and so did propaganda and so did actual comedy, on both the right and the left—and every combination of the four was labelled “satire.” In a perverse twist, Trump may even have run for President as payback for a comedy routine: Obama’s lacerating takedown of him at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. By the campaign’s final days, the race felt driven less by policy disputes than by an ugly war of disinformation, one played for laughs. How do you fight an enemy who’s just kidding?"

    Now I agree with the author about the nature of humor and even how it has been historically used. Jokes are a superior way to tell the truth and that does help everyone. i love humor myself and much like the author I love to use it to expose hypocrisy and pomposity. Also the ruder and cruder the jokes, the more I laugh.

    However the area where I disagree, and this is a continuation of the SMUG style of most liberals, is that rather than believing that anyone who didn't elect Hillary has some truth to them, or even could tell a joke, the entire NATURE of humor has to have changed. Humor now supports lies. It accelerates and motivates them. It now hides the truth and destroys it.

    That simply isn't true. You can't have humor without a point to relate. The reason you can tell a joke about a drunk uncle at the holidays is because just about every family has some sort of member that gets wasted at gatherings. It might rotate or be an aunt instead of an uncle or what have you but there has to be the point of reference, the kernel of truth, or else no one gets the joke.

    So the premise of the article, that the right somehow won the election by changing the nature of humor, just doesn't resonate with me. Perhaps they had their own jokes and jokesters, but the nature of humor has to involve truth.

    When I've said Maher, Stewart, Colbert and others have hurt their causes, that doesn't mean I don't think they are funny or that they don't peddle in the truth. Quite the opposite. They do deal in the truth but the truth beneath their comedy is this, we are the smug elite and the people we are mocking and making fun of are the stupid, the poor, the fat, the religious, etc.

    I don't begrudge them that stance. The problem lies in the fact that the "smug" as it were, the left believes their platform to be tolerance, inclusiveness, and helping their fellow humans. That help really doesn't arrive or it only arrives for a select few and in a crony fashion. Then when they lose elections, we keep reading pieces like this or like the others that basically double down. "Hey we lost the election because all the people we made fun of declared they really need help and they were too stupid to realize that we were pretending to help them but really laughing at them and that means they are even more terrible than we thought."

    The point is that to really recover, they need to get rid of the smug and actually apply their platform for all, not just the folks they label as part of their inclusiveness coalition. (young, of color, female, different orientations, etc.) The white working class didn't turn on Democrats because someone told some funny jokes or fed them some fake news or whatever other bullshit premise someone wants to put forward. They left because they never shared in the economic gains or the supposed economic recovery. They are down on their luck, hurting AND they are mocked for it. They are stupid rednecks. They are hillbillies, hicks, dumbasses clinging to their guns and religions and wanting a fairy tale.

    Shockingly, that doesn't lead to them or anyone who is treated like that, giving you their vote.

    "I love jokes—dirty jokes, bad jokes, rude jokes, jokes that cut through bullshit and explode pomposity."

    So speaking of those who are shocked they didn't get certain votes, they have responded with bullshit and pomposity. You have a Meryl Streep, who hasn't made a decent movie in a decade plus, shitting all over everyone with her pomposity. She made a speech where she actually declared the victims in the world today to be, all the victim classes of the Democratic Party AND the news creators plus Hollywood elite. Of course people are going to grab that and turn it into a joke. It has to be. However declaring "the emperor has no clothes" isn't a new joke or a different joke. It isn't a fake joke or a fascist joke. It isn't someone not realizing their are laughing at themselves while voting against their own self interests. It is just a classic joke and the point is that the emperor doesn't want to admit they are the emperor even while needing $50k of prep and enjoying $250k grab bags.

    The truth is the truth. Democrats are just not very comfortable with the truth right now. The truth is they are a party of elites, mostly coastal, who have managed to grab the votes of some interest groups by feeding them a continual narrative of victimization. They need 24 hour propaganda centers to feed that fire and in areas where there isn't media to do this, the basis for the party and votes, falls apart. Those elites don't like being made fun of at all. They don't want the truth within those jokes to come out. They pay their corporate comedians to make sure the jokes only roll one way. SNL will make sure we chart a true course even if no one laughs at the jokes. Our victim foot soldiers will post their mockery to Facebook, Twitter and what have you the very next day.

    But the humor isnt funny. It doesn't persuade. It doesn't reveal that kernel of truth. So again the double down, if you won't laugh at who we are mocking, then you'll become who we are mocking. Oh and by the way, can we have your vote next cycle so we can stop making fun of you. Rinse and repeat.
  • Reply 17 of 254
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,014member
    I think you've taken rather a singular viewpoint away from the article; it wasn't saying that humour was the only reason Trump won the election, and I doubt the author would even claim it was the main reason he won.  For sure, economics was a big factor, possibly the biggest, there were a litany of issues with Clinton as a candidate, and there is something of a coziness with East Coast democrats with Wall Street and big business that carries a sleaziness.  I don't think the DNC, either as a whole, or on the part of many individual Democrats, are as myopic as you think they are, this has been widely recognised, they know that they need to clean up.  How they do that is likely to be a source of much debate, and it will be interesting to see who wins the Chair.

    Out of interest, why are Meryl Streep's acting performance of the last decade relevant to the validity of her political opinions?  It's not (though worth noting that she's been Academy nominated six times in the period; I think she's doing pretty ok), but this is very much a Trumpian tactic of discredit, just throw in a barb to distract from the meat of the point.  

    I think its pretty clear that the public, mainstream language of political discourse is getting rougher, and "I was just joking/being sarcastic" is being used to excuse unstatesmanlike conduct, and the comedy/advert/propaganda/news cycle.  And you're right, the left is as guilty of that as the right, though I disagree with you about the nature of the smugness, I think that's just a partisan perception.
    singularityfrac
  • Reply 18 of 254
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,332member
    crowley said:
    I think you've taken rather a singular viewpoint away from the article; it wasn't saying that humour was the only reason Trump won the election, and I doubt the author would even claim it was the main reason he won.  For sure, economics was a big factor, possibly the biggest, there were a litany of issues with Clinton as a candidate, and there is something of a coziness with East Coast democrats with Wall Street and big business that carries a sleaziness.  I don't think the DNC, either as a whole, or on the part of many individual Democrats, are as myopic as you think they are, this has been widely recognised, they know that they need to clean up.  How they do that is likely to be a source of much debate, and it will be interesting to see who wins the Chair.
    Well we already know who won leadership for the House and Senate and they both signal no change in direction. I'm sorry if you think my points too "singular" on a piece entitled "How Jokes Won the 2016 election." I'm entitled to my views on it and I justified my opinions. 

    Out of interest, why are Meryl Streep's acting performance of the last decade relevant to the validity of her political opinions?  It's not (though worth noting that she's been Academy nominated six times in the period; I think she's doing pretty ok), but this is very much a Trumpian tactic of discredit, just throw in a barb to distract from the meat of the point.  

    I think its pretty clear that the public, mainstream language of political discourse is getting rougher, and "I was just joking/being sarcastic" is being used to excuse unstatesmanlike conduct, and the comedy/advert/propaganda/news cycle.  And you're right, the left is as guilty of that as the right, though I disagree with you about the nature of the smugness, I think that's just a partisan perception.
    I was noting it because in many areas of life, people have one or two big achievements and then coast on them using them to validate their actions for much longer than that. It isn't just Streep. If someone told me to listen to Michael Jordan in 2016 because he grabbed six rings in the 1990's I'd treat it as similar. She did have a period of time where she had a lot more success. Now she is something that moves along under the weight of past accomplishments. (We might arguing about whether Apple is doing the same right now for example.)

    As for whether it was throwing in a barb, I noted what it was about specifically. Here is the quote to make it even more specific. "Thank you, Hollywood Foreign Press. Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said, you and all of us in this room really belong to the most vilified segments of American society right now. Think about it: Hollywood, foreigners and the press."

    I mean do your get that statement? For Meryl Streep to suggest she is akin to a child dragged over the border by their parents when they are a year old who later discover they are unable to work or go to school through no fault of their own and are caught in the middle, iisn't just absurd, it is outright offensive. It has to be laughable. 

    As for whether public discourse is becoming courser, I disagree. HIstorically it was much worse. People would write under pseudonyms and so forth but all manner of allegations were made. Statemanlike is one of those words the elites use as a one lane road. Bill Clinton was certainly unstatemenlike when getting his hummers. Barack Obama was certainly unstatemanlike with all his comic junkets at those yearly press dinners or with nonsense like "Obama Out" and so forth.  When a Trump declares CNN to be fake news, it is unstatesmenlike. However if Obama or anyone else calls out Fox News, or specifically calls out Faux News, it is just fine. It is par for the course. All is well.

    Speaking of unstatesmenlike though, I would encourage you to review the 2011 White House Correspondence Dinner. It is referenced in your article and many think it is what made Trump decide to run. It features all the "victims" in the room together engaging in their smug style. The press, the stars and the (mostly) Democratic representatives all having a fun "aren't we great" and "we all know" moment. 

    Obviously my comments continue to address more than that particular article. They address the thread in general. President Obama even ends his final news conference with a veiled threat and of course it is "statesmanlike". He'll be watching, of course it will just be from the outside. He can continue to pat himself on the back and ensure himself he is the superior and the victim and the enforcer all at the same time. Meanwhile his party continues to burn itself down.

    This was typed on my iPad Mini so if it read funny, it probably is because of that. open_mouth 

    edited January 19
  • Reply 19 of 254
    trumptman said:However the area where I disagree, and this is a continuation of the SMUG style of most liberals, is that rather than believing that anyone who didn't elect Hillary has some truth to them, or even could tell a joke, the entire NATURE of humor has to have changed. Humor now supports lies. It accelerates and motivates them. It now hides the truth and destroys it. That simply isn't true. You can't have humor without a point to relate.
    Counterpoint: it is true (and the “point to relate” in question is simply ‘a lie’ rather than ’the truth’), as proven by the dialectical model used by leftist television shills (see post 9 above). The humor remains, yet they’re using it for lies.
    So the premise of the article, that the right somehow won the election by changing the nature of humor, just doesn't resonate with me. Perhaps they had their own jokes and jokesters, but the nature of humor has to involve truth.
    Hmm... Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here; I’ll give the article another read. Hopefully it’s not actually saying what I think you say it’s saying.
    the left believes their platform to be tolerance, inclusiveness, and helping their fellow humans.
    They do not nor have they ever believed this. Ever. That’s the lie told to the proletariat so that they don’t notice they’re being told to slaughter a section of the bourgeoise that just happens to be in competition with their leaders. And then the proletariat is slaughtered to the tune of 120 million and counting simply for being in the way of what the leaders want. That’s the lie told to the West so that it becomes complicit in its own FUCKING GENOCIDE. When dealing with leftists, you have to remember that there is no actual belief there. The ideology itself is so fundamentally wrong that only the sheep actually believe it, not the peddlers thereof. Marx was the foremost modern historical example of this.

    In the First International Communist gathering, Karl Marx took the floor and said, “Gentlemen, I am not Marxist.” There was surprise among the audience, loud shouts, and from there many political sects were born, namely, Bolsheviks, Mencheviks, Anarchists, Anarchist-Unionist, etc. It is therefore quite interesting to know that the first enemy of Marxism was Karl Marx. Indeed, Karl Marx, moved by religious fanaticism, invented a destructive weapon in order to reduce all religions of the world to cosmic dust. That weapon is without a doubt a ‘jargon’ that can never withstand an in-depth analysis. By ‘jargon’ I refer to the dialectical materialism.

    The intellectual loafers know very well that Karl Marx manipulated Hegel’s “metaphysical dialectic” in order to elaborate that deceptive “dialectical materialism.” Evidently, Karl Marx took from Hegel’s work all the metaphysical principles that Hegel gave to his work, and with the leftovers Karl Marx elaborated his deceptive dish. Thus, it is not irrelevant to repeat in this lecture that Marx, as the author of such a lie, of such a farce, of such Communistic dialectic, never believed in it, and therefore he did not have any inconvenience in confessing his feelings in the heat of the assembly when saying, “Gentlemen, I am not Marxist.” – Samael Aun Weor

    The truth is the truth. Democrats are just not very comfortable with the truth right now.
    Have they ever been? Seriously.
    They need 24 hour propaganda centers
    I’m told that news stations run at a loss but are explicitly propped up by Hollywood (et. al.; other sources of media absorption) for the sole purpose of maintaining this control.
    But the humor isnt funny. It doesn't persuade. It doesn't reveal that kernel of truth.
    Hear hear.
  • Reply 20 of 254
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,392member

    68 House Dems to Boycott Inauguration 



    Looks like the Dems are committed to destroying their party completely.  Oh, and beating up ball attendees.  That will go over big.  Maybe a pussymarch?   Keep going, liberal loons.  





    edited January 20 jbdragon
Sign In or Register to comment.