PDA

View Full Version : Why Do Elections Favor Socialists Over Libertarians?




Anti Federalist
11-14-2019, 01:23 PM
Why Do Elections Favor Socialists Over Libertarians?

https://www.libertynation.com/why-do-elections-favor-socialists-over-libertarians/

The socialists are gaining momentum, while libertarians are losing steam.

By: Andrew Moran November 14, 2019

by Andrew Moran

The socialists have had quite the last couple of weeks at the ballot box. Across the United States, self-described democratic socialists were victorious in gaining power or holding onto public office. Most prominently, Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant won her re-election bid and Lee Carter was given another two-year mandate by Virginia’s 50th district voters. Overseas, socialists were victorious in Portugal, and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labor Party is polling in second place ahead of the U.K. election. Put simply, despite being an ideology of failure, ignorance, and envy, socialism continues to be popular.

But what about the libertarians – big L and little L? What happened to a crusade that seemed destined for greatness after attracting millions of Americans in the aftermath of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections?

Where Are The Libertarians?

Libertarians possess very little power in the U.S. today. As of 2019, Libertarian Party members have about 200 elected offices, ranging from school boards to treasury posts. In Congress, there are a handful of libertarian-leaning public officials, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI).

The Libertarian Party (LP) has more than 500,000 registered members, and with many Americans becoming disenfranchised with the two-party system, the porcupines are appealing to more people. But as the LP attempts to allure additional voters, it risks becoming a big tent apparatus that tries to be all things to all people, and this could damage the entity’s long-term integrity.

Today, the LP has a long list of ideologically diverse caucuses within the party, including a controversial socialist caucus. Members hold conflicting views on the most basic libertarian principles. It is doubtful that the socialist wing will agree with the Mises people on fiscal, tax, or gun policy.

Leadership might be even more of a pressing matter. In recent years, the LP has embraced Republican-lite individuals and tossed to the side several well-known libertarians. As the party welcomed former Governor William Weld (R-MA) into the fold, it expressed little interest in having the godfather of libertarianism, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), speak at the 2018 convention. That is not all. The leadership compared the Paul family to the Bushes and Clintons and claimed the Russian government had backed the elder Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. It targeted the Mises Institute, an entity named after the great economist Ludwig von Mises, by comparing it to a Nazi organization.

The New American’s Steve Byas opined in February 2018:

“It would appear that the Libertarian Party has opted to cast itself in such a way so as to appeal to secularists, globalists, and social liberals, and to play down what one would think are libertarian positions, such as limited government.”

Commentator Tom Woods likes to refer to these individuals as won’t-you-please-take-me-seriously-good-Mr.-New-York-Times-reporter-sir libertarians. These people will use politically correct terminology, avoid musing on certain topics, and virtue-signal by signing letters opposing fascism (you’re a libertarian, of course you oppose fascism!).

The LP recently got into some controversy when it disinvited Maj Toure, a black gun rights activist who is running for Philadelphia’s city council, as a keynote speaker at this year’s Libertarian National Convention. Toure claimed that he was asked not to attend because of a false accusation that he outed “a potential ‘big’ donor.” Toure is the type of young blood the party needs, and he certainly would not cave to acceptable opinion purported by the establishment. But the leadership felt differently.

Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

The Libertarian Party has abandoned the spirit of its founders, like Murray Rothbard. It has instead chosen to adopt the vanilla version of libertarianism, known as “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” This could explain why the Libertarians are not having any electoral success.

Let’s face it: The young generation of Republicans has become libertarian-lite. We are currently seeing far more GOP politicians and voters without gray hair spouting some of the rhetoric you would find in a libertarian manifesto, such as drug legalization or an end to regime change wars. Many Republicans have also called out the Federal Reserve and championed gold-backed money. The Libertarians no longer hold a monopoly on these views. The LP’s only shot at electoral success is to go back to its roots and start local.

Is talking monetary policy, proposing abolishing student loans, and suggesting a withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) sexy in an election campaign? You would not think so, but that is how Dr. Paul generated millions of votes in ‘08 and ‘12 and introduced an entire generation to the libertarian movement. Instead of just espousing politically expedient positions, like legalizing marijuana, the LP could make controversial stances key planks of its platform.

Following the 2016 election, Mises President Jeff Deist made the compelling case that the LP needs to reallocate its resources into state and local contests. This was a pragmatic suggestion, considering it is highly unlikely that it could take on the two-party system and win the presidency. A couple of seats in state legislatures and a few city council seats nationwide can make a world of difference in the long-term – look at the socialists! It would be more effective than wasting millions of dollars on a vanity national campaign that does not even involve making it to the debate stage.

A Purity Ring

Do Libertarians need to wear purity rings? Do they need to sport a Very Murray Christmas sweater all year long? Do they need to recite Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom by memory? Much of the small-L crowd would prefer a Libertarian Party candidate to uphold the most basic principles of libertarianism, not the watered-down version that the mainstream media peddles. Being milquetoast is not the path to long-term electability or even sustainability. Sure, the duopoly in American politics is broken, but election results keep supporting the theory that the socialists have done a better job of taking advantage of the decrepit situation and are presently erecting hammers and sickles across the country.

The Libertarian Party candidate in 2020 should be interesting to witness, so pass the Milton Friedman popcorn bowl.

Anti Federalist
11-14-2019, 01:26 PM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free shit is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

PRB
11-14-2019, 02:05 PM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free $#@! is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 02:07 PM
Simple, IMV;


Libertarianism = Freedom
Socialism = Freebies

America is saturated with post adolescent voters indoctrinated to expect
government support cradle to grave, and should not be required to do anything,
to receive that help, why on earth would they vote for freedom , freedom of choice, self reliance and
self determination.
We also have (now) generations of fat welfare recipients that wouldn't dream of
getting off their asses to fend for themselves, thanks to the progressives.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 02:14 PM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

How many of those illegal aliens invading our borders did you say earned more than $35,000 in their 3rd world socialist utopias?



Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right , NONE.


:frog:

Schifference
11-14-2019, 02:39 PM
Freedumb

Anti Globalist
11-14-2019, 03:05 PM
Because the majority of Americans love free stuff and hate freedom and liberty.

Origanalist
11-14-2019, 03:09 PM
Does that Milton Friedman popcorn come with gubment cheese on it?

Superfluous Man
11-14-2019, 03:33 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.

Superfluous Man
11-14-2019, 03:35 PM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

Plus good luck ever getting an explanation from an immigration restrictionist of how their own favored policies aren't socialist.

Zippyjuan
11-14-2019, 03:37 PM
How many of those illegal aliens invading our borders did you say earned more than $35,000 in their 3rd world socialist utopias?



Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right , NONE.


:frog:

How many of those illegal immigrants are eligible to vote?

Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right, NONE.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 03:58 PM
How many of those illegal immigrants are eligible to vote?

Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right, NONE.


How many of them vote, not nada, many vote, way too many to keep track of.

How many collect welfare , MOST.

How many do not belong here = ALL

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:31 PM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

Poor Americans don't vote for communism at the rate the immigrants do.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:31 PM
How many of those illegal immigrants are eligible to vote?

Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right, NONE.
They cheat and so do liberal government workers.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:32 PM
Plus good luck ever getting an explanation from an immigration restrictionist of how their own favored policies aren't socialist.
They aren't, socialism is welfare conducted by the state.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:33 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.
Use the right account for pushing monarchist tyranny, R3v.

Zippyjuan
11-14-2019, 04:35 PM
They cheat and so do liberal government workers.

Ah yes, the unsupported cliches.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:38 PM
The LP has done it's level best to make Americans despise it and to undermine liberty candidates.
When you add in the invasion and excessive immigration from socialist countries and the allure of free stuff it's not really mysterious why things have gone the way they have.
Small "L" libertarians also do a very good job of driving away anyone who disagrees with them slightly in the conservative direction while pandering to those who violate orthodoxy in the socialist direction, this is doubly stupid because it is conservatives who are not well served by one of the mainstream parties while socialists have less reason than ever to be dissatisfied with the Demoncrats.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 04:39 PM
Ah yes, the unsupported cliches.
It's been proven many times.
You are the one peddling unsupported cliches.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 05:36 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.

Nope, it was brought about by the circumvention of the Constitution, not the constitution , adherence to the constitution
would have prevented our current condition.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 05:38 PM
How many of those illegal immigrants are eligible to vote?

Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right, NONE.

Ah yes, the unsupported cliches.


:frog:

Zippyjuan
11-14-2019, 06:17 PM
Nope, it was brought about by the circumvention of the Constitution, not the constitution , adherence to the constitution
would have prevented our current condition.

Which part of the Constitution was circumvented?

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 06:27 PM
Which part of the Constitution was circumvented?
What part of the constitution ushered in socialism?

Zippyjuan
11-14-2019, 06:34 PM
What part of the constitution ushered in socialism?

I see. You can't find a part of the Constitution which was circumvented so deflect and ask about something else.

The Constitution does allow people to choose their own representatives to the House and Senate. Congress shall have the power to make laws and collect taxes.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 06:38 PM
I see. You can't find a part of the Constitution which was circumvented.

The Constitution does allow people to choose their own representatives to the House and Senate. Congress shall have the power to make laws and collect taxes.
LOL

There have been uncountable words written regarding the circumventions of the Constitution, your stupid question isn't worth answering.
But I'll give you a hint: There are limits placed in the Constitution on the Congressional powers to make laws and collect taxes.

Try reading the Constitution for the first time in your life, it won't kill you.

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 06:45 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.


Which part of the Constitution was circumvented?

lol
What part of perf's post makes sense to you , and why ..... :frog:

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 06:49 PM
LOL

There have been uncountable words written regarding the circumventions of the Constitution, your stupid question isn't worth answering.
But I'll give you a hint: There are limits placed in the Constitution on the Congressional powers to make laws and collect taxes.

Try reading the Constitution for the first time in your life, it won't kill you.

Income tax
welfare
bailouts
a hundred alphabet agencies
cps
ebt food stamps
sanctuary cities................

There are a million examples of confiscatory taxes to pay for programs that no one
asked for, I don't see a sincere bone in the bodies of zip or perf worth educating.


:frog:

enhanced_deficit
11-14-2019, 06:53 PM
Simple, IMV;


Libertarianism = Freedom
Socialism = Freebies

America is saturated with post adolescent voters indoctrinated to expect
government support cradle to grave, and should not be required to do anything,
to receive that help, why on earth would they vote for freedom , freedom of choice, self reliance and
self determination.
We also have (now) generations of fat welfare recipients that wouldn't dream of
getting off their asses to fend for themselves, thanks to the progressives.


^this.


In this age, hard for anyone to bring enough population to move without supporting populous demands including some freebies/socialist/prtectionist policies.
Smart politicians know this and support things like universal healthcare, debt boosting big gummit spending..

Donald Trump: Ron Paul Can't Get Elected President
Feb 10, 2011

Socialist Sanders supporters vow to support Trump if Bernie isn’t the nominee (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533827-Sanders-supporters-vow-to-support-Trump-if-Bernie-isn%92t-the-nominee&p=6799725&viewfull=1#post6799725)
https://cmgpbppostonpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/daily-news-trump-tax.jpg




Related

How did Bolsheviks manage to take over control of GOP? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534157-How-did-Bolsheviks-manage-to-take-over-control-of-GOP&)

The Number of Democrats Showing Up at Trump Rallies Is Stunning (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533784-Why-are-the-Bolsheviks-pushing-for-felon-s-voting-restoration&p=6884832&viewfull=1#post6884832)

US debt surpasses $23 trillion for first time (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?540765-US-debt-surpasses-23-trillion-for-first-time&)

07/12/2019
FEDERAL SPENDING SMASHES RECORDS
(https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/3355970000000-federal-spending-sets-record-through-june-deficit-hits)
ENHANCED DEFICIT: BUDGET DEFICIT WIDENS 23% (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-gap-widened-23-in-first-nine-months-of-fiscal-year-11562868054)

Stratovarious
11-14-2019, 07:14 PM
^this.


In this age, hard for anyone to bring enough population to move without supporting populous demands including some freebies/socialist/prtectionist policies.
Smart politicians know this and support things like universal healthcare, debt boosting big gummit spending..

Donald Trump: Ron Paul Can't Get Elected President
Feb 10, 2011

Socialist Sanders supporters vow to support Trump if Bernie isn’t the nominee (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533827-Sanders-supporters-vow-to-support-Trump-if-Bernie-isn%92t-the-nominee&p=6799725&viewfull=1#post6799725)
https://cmgpbppostonpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/daily-news-trump-tax.jpg




Related

How did Bolsheviks manage to take over control of GOP? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534157-How-did-Bolsheviks-manage-to-take-over-control-of-GOP&)

So true, universal health care, and UBI Basic Income............lol
What does all this free stuff mean ?
Take from someone that works, and give it to those that wouldn't dream of it , give it
to slugs so they'll vote for you.

:frog:

Krugminator2
11-14-2019, 07:22 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.

Not really. The Framers hated democracy. It doesn't seem as though they were naive at all. How do you not know this? That's why they curbed democracy at every point. The Senate was originally chosen by state representative. The Constitution they ratified limited voting to white, male property owners. That's a pretty small slice of the population and it worked quite well for over 100 years. John Adams even thought this was too much democracy and wanted a monarchy.

Here is what the author of the Preamble of the Constitution said. The guy didn't want non-business owners voting.

"Nine-tenths of the people are at present freeholders... The time is not distant when this country will abound with mechanics and manufacturers who will receive their bread from their employers. Will such men be the secure and faithful guardians of liberty? Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them"

https://www.quotetab.com/quote/by-gouverneur-morris/nine-tenths-of-the-people-are-at-present-freeholders-the-time-is-not-distant-w#5XQsfY3g3Xcd2GdV.97

Zippyjuan
11-14-2019, 07:33 PM
LOL

There have been uncountable words written regarding the circumventions of the Constitution, your stupid question isn't worth answering.
But I'll give you a hint: There are limits placed in the Constitution on the Congressional powers to make laws and collect taxes.

Try reading the Constitution for the first time in your life, it won't kill you.

I see. You can't find anything either but had to post anyways. Gotta get that post count up! Thanks for trying.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 07:37 PM
I see. You can't find anything either but had to post anyways. Thanks for trying.
Your feigned ignorance is not a reason anyone should waste their time correcting you.
You have been here long enough to know the answer.

Slave Mentality
11-14-2019, 08:35 PM
So true, universal health care, and UBI Basic Income............lol
What does all this free stuff mean ?
Take from someone that works, and give it to those that wouldn't dream of it , give it
to slugs so they'll vote for you.

:frog:

Or take it from someone who works and give it to multinational corporations for military contracts to kill people in countries most people couldn’t point to on a map. Corporate welfare is some evil shit too. Slugs are abound when money can be printed.

Grandmastersexsay
11-14-2019, 08:38 PM
Who's seen this and what do you think about it?

https://europathelastbattle.wordpress.com/watch/

Gumba of Liberty
11-14-2019, 09:03 PM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free $#@! is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

D. Propaganda starting in the 1920s by the likes of Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmond Freud, has manipulated the minds of the American people, created an illusion of choice, and manufactured consent for tyranny by using propaganda to tap into the subconscious and make people “feel” certain ways about certain things, groups, and even words. These techniques were used by the CIA/M16 British Empire to create duopolies of false choice “Republicans v Democrats” “Pepsi v Coke” etc. Political parties were infiltrated to ensure all polices benefit the empire. This includes running wacky candidates (think David Duke) and attaching themselves to the self-proclaimed enemies of the empire, be it: libertarian, constitutionalist, tea party, truther, patriot, militia, gun owners etc.

euphemia
11-14-2019, 09:08 PM
Because Libertarians mock actual voting.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2019, 10:10 PM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free shit is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

Free stuff is key. Americans are increasingly becoming dependent children. Someone else has to do things for them. Someone else needs to take care of them. Socialists offer to do that, even though they really can’t and won’t (it’s a scam, they just want power). On top of that, they rationalize the helplessness by giving them an excuse. They are all victims, and it’s not their fault. No need to take responsibility for anything, because you are not responsible for anything.

Brian4Liberty
11-14-2019, 10:20 PM
“It would appear that the Libertarian Party has opted to cast itself in such a way so as to appeal to secularists, globalists, and social liberals, and to play down what one would think are libertarian positions, such as limited government.”

Some elements of the LP and the “libertarian” community have found where their bread gets buttered. Globalism pays the bills and serves so many special interest agendas.

Swordsmyth
11-14-2019, 10:48 PM
Some elements of the LP and the “libertarian” community have found where their bread gets buttered. Globalism pays the bills and serves so many special interest agendas.
The wages of evil are lucrative in this life.

Stratovarious
11-15-2019, 03:58 AM
Or take it from someone who works and give it to multinational corporations for military contracts to kill people in countries most people couldn’t point to on a map. Corporate welfare is some evil $#@! too. Slugs are abound when money can be printed.

Absolutely, and take if from the producers/tax payers and give it too the bank bailout funds.

...and today , a decent loaf or bread is about $5.00 , print and steal with inflation.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 07:39 AM
Not really. The Framers hated democracy.

Some of them said that. But those who ratified the Constitution didn't hate it enough to not ratify it.


The Constitution they ratified limited voting to white, male property owners.

Nowhere is that in the Constitution they ratified.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 07:42 AM
Some of them said that. But those who ratified the Constitution didn't hate it enough to not ratify it.

Nowhere is that in the Constitution they ratified.

He's right, you know...

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 07:49 AM
Who's seen this and what do you think about it?

https://europathelastbattle.wordpress.com/watch/

I haven't seen it. But it looks like it's up to no good.
https://www.quora.com/Can-someone-refute-this-anti-Semitic-and-neo-Nazi-film-Europa-The-Last-Battle

Philhelm
11-15-2019, 07:57 AM
Which part of the Constitution was circumvented?

Bill of Rights, "necessary and proper," and "interstate commerce."

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 07:59 AM
Bill of Rights, "necessary and proper," and "interstate commerce."

Possibly. On the other hand, maybe the wiggle-room some of those clauses gave was there on purpose all along. Hamilton, who was the primary author of the Constitution, certainly had an agenda of focusing power on a centralized federal government more than he let on in the Federalist Papers.

Grandmastersexsay
11-15-2019, 08:29 AM
I haven't seen it. But it looks like it's up to no good.
https://www.quora.com/Can-someone-refute-this-anti-Semitic-and-neo-Nazi-film-Europa-The-Last-Battle

From your link, I found this link:

https://secretsourcesblog.wordpress.com/

I ofcourse don't trust this as an authoritative source, but it gives some credence to the videos being somewhat accurate. One of the key premises of the videos are that the bolsheviks were in large Jewish, and that they ended up killing more Christians than the nazi's did Jews during the holocaust. They go on to say 12 out of every 13 gulags were commanded by a jew.

Now, I'm not defending national socialism. It is almost as bad as communism. I'm just interested in learning about the supposed history written from the loser's perspective. I doubt what we are taught in history class about WWII was 100% accurate either.

I find it interesting the nazis were fighting the same people we fought during the cold war, the same forces that steadily gain power in our own country today. I find it suspicious that the only label that can out trump racist is an anti semite. Who controls the news, the media, even social media? You can't even come close to asking such a question at the national level. Consequently, the only sources you find about such history comes from videos like these, that have little credibility.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 08:30 AM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free $#@! is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

How do you explain the election of Trump?

shakey1
11-15-2019, 08:37 AM
Who's seen this and what do you think about it?

https://europathelastbattle.wordpress.com/watch/

Only watched the first one... gruesome... history on track to repeat itself? :confused:

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 08:38 AM
Why is this still so complicated to people here? Surely the answer is obvious to us by now.

The two major parties nominate nothing but socialists. Nothing. But. Socialists. We've seen how that works.

Then comes the general election...


https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75361047_3428226073884353_2354532424928460800_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQncl0D1CatsDu3yrElkIDlauackGG_OttUuCV0PZrY q_2a-QvpJXtGlMXRcH80bBdwHFEaTfyoQU2ZaWBqhncX5&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=ed16d5adb7a829b025213e0ebd3ab4f3&oe=5E467093

PAF
11-15-2019, 08:43 AM
Why is this still so complicated to people here? Surely the answer is obvious to us by now.

The two major parties nominate nothing but socialists. Nothing. But. Socialists. We've seen how that works.

Then comes the general election...


Out of + Rep, so here ya go.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 08:55 AM
From your link, I found this link:

https://secretsourcesblog.wordpress.com/

I ofcourse don't trust this as an authoritative source, but it gives some credence to the videos being somewhat accurate. One of the key premises of the videos are that the bolsheviks were in large Jewish, and that they ended up killing more Christians than the nazi's did Jews during the holocaust. They go on to say 12 out of every 13 gulags were commanded by a jew.

Now, I'm not defending national socialism. It is almost as bad as communism. I'm just interested in learning about the supposed history written from the loser's perspective. I doubt what we are taught in history class about WWII was 100% accurate either.

I find it interesting the nazis were fighting the same people we fought during the cold war, the same forces that steadily gain power in our own country today. I find it suspicious that the only label that can out trump racist is an anti semite. Who controls the news, the media, even social media? You can't even come close to asking such a question at the national level. Consequently, the only sources you find about such history comes from videos like these, that have little credibility.

That word "somewhat" is a pretty big loophole. The best liars and the best propaganda work by being somewhat accurate.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:02 AM
Poor Americans don't vote for communism at the rate the immigrants do.

This is not true.

In most elections, including the most recent three, nonhispanic whites vote (which means they vote for Socialists) at higher rates than nonhispanic blacks, hispanics, or other.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

And among those whites, it isn't primarily the poor ones who are voting, but the wealthier ones.
https://econofact.org/voting-and-income

It is literally the case that the group in America that votes for socialism at the highest rates is wealthy whites, to the tune of about 85%. And as you move outside of that group to nonwhites and lower income people, they vote for socialists at progressively lower rates to the point that among the lowest income groups a full majority refrains from voting for socialists, and this percentage that refrains from voting for socialists is especially high among nonwhites, particularly hispanics.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 09:08 AM
How do you explain the election of Trump?

A squeaker, possible only because of the vagaries of the electoral college.

If the millions of migrants in California that voted Hillary had been tallied in some way, she would have won handily.

That, and the people that support him just want a different variety of socialism, as I am reminded of all the time.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 09:11 AM
That, and the people that support him just want a different variety of socialism, as I am reminded of all the time.

If you knew the real answer all the time, why did you type those two silly paragraphs first?

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 09:14 AM
A squeaker, possible only because of the vagaries of the electoral college.

If the millions of migrants in California that voted Hillary had been tallied in some way, she would have won handily.

The general election doesn't explain him winning the primary. Libertarians aren't winning the GOP primary.


That, and the people that support him just want a different variety of socialism, as I am reminded of all the time.

I agree. But I don't recall Trump pushing socialism during the primary. Maybe he did. It's hard to say. Drunk monkey was all over the map on so many things.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 09:18 AM
This is not true.

In most elections, including the most recent three, nonhispanic whites vote (which means they vote for Socialists) at higher rates than nonhispanic blacks, hispanics, or other.

Huh?

In 2008 blacks voted 94 to 4 for Obama
Hispanics voted 67 to 31 for Obama

In 2012 blacks voted 93 to 6 for Obama
Hispanics voted 71 to 27 for Obama

In 2016 blacks voted 89 to 8 for Clinton
Hispanics voted 66 to 28 for Clinton.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:22 AM
I agree. But I don't recall Trump pushing socialism during the primary. Maybe he did. It's hard to say. Drunk monkey was all over the map on so many things.

I do recall that. He praised other nations' socialized healthcare programs, while campaigning for the Republican primaries. He mocked other Republicans for wanting to cut agricultural subsidies. He mocked the most modest entitlement reform proposals as wanting the elderly to starve. He openly advocated protectionist trade policies. And he made his most defining issue the construction of a border wall. He touted his leftist sister as a great option for a Supreme Court justice (his later adoption of the list of candidates that Heritage Foundation gave him didn't come until after he had already won the nomination). He sounded like a mid-twentieth century Democrat running in a general election. And he won the Republican primary that way.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 09:24 AM
The general election doesn't explain him winning the primary. Libertarians aren't winning the GOP primary.

You're average GOPer doesn't care for freedom any more than a Bolshie democrat.

Trump won the primary, assuming no hank panky was going on, because the democrats have abandoned white working class people (to be fair, they have abandoned working class folks of all types) in exchange for an identity coalition of circus freaks.

There's still enough of the old electorate around to make jobs the number one issue.


I agree. But I don't recall Trump pushing socialism during the primary. Maybe he did. It's hard to say. Drunk monkey was all over the map on so many things.
No, he wasn't, not that I recall...but yeah, who knows as he ambles about all over the map, what might have been said.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:24 AM
Huh?

In 2008 blacks voted 94 to 4 for Obama
Hispanics voted 67 to 31 for Obama

In 2012 blacks voted 93 to 6 for Obama
Hispanics voted 71 to 27 for Obama

In 2016 blacks voted 89 to 8 for Clinton
Hispanics voted 66 to 28 for Clinton.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

Yes. And the others voted for McCain, Romney, and Trump.

But the number who voted for none of the above (i.e. who didn't vote for socialism) was higher among blacks than whites in all except 2012. And income was an even more significant factor than race, with only a tiny minority of the highest income group refraining from voting for socialists, while the majority of the lowest income voters refrained.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 09:27 AM
I do recall that. He praised other nations' socialized healthcare programs, while campaigning for the Republican primaries. He mocked other Republicans for wanting to cut agricultural subsidies. He mocked the most modest entitlement reform proposals as wanting the elderly to starve. He openly advocated protectionist trade policies. And he made his most defining issue the construction of a border wall. He touted his leftist sister as a great option for a Supreme Court justice (his later adoption of the list of candidates that Heritage Foundation gave him didn't come until after he had already won the nomination). He sounded like a mid-twentieth century Democrat running in a general election. And he won the Republican primary that way.

Trump praised the Affordable Care Act? I don't recall that. Protectionist trade policies predate socialism. So do border walls. I'm not saying I agree with either of those things, I don't see a viable argument for labeling them as "socialist." But I agree on your other points. I didn't remember all that but I'll take your word for it. As I told AF he was all over the map.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:29 AM
You're average GOPer doesn't care for freedom any more than a Bolshie democrat.

Now reconsider what you wrote in post #56 in light of this fact.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 09:30 AM
You're average GOPer doesn't care for freedom any more than a Bolshie democrat.

Trump won the primary, assuming no hank panky was going on, because the democrats have abandoned white working class people (to be fair, they have abandoned working class folks of all types) in exchange for an identity coalition of circus freaks.

There's still enough of the old electorate around to make jobs the number one issue.


No, he wasn't, not that I recall...but yeah, who knows as he ambles about all over the map, what might have been said.

Okay. Look at it another was. Tulsi Gabbard is barely getting enough traction to get into the debates. Why is that? It's not because she's not socialist enough. Hint, it's the same reason Ron Paul struggled in the GOP primary. The MIC will not be denied.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:32 AM
Trump praised the Affordable Care Act?

No. The Affordable Care Act is what we have here now. The Affordable Care Act also is not socialized medicine. Trump, like Bernie Sanders, wanted to repeal and replace that. Sanders openly said that he wanted to replace it with socialized medicine, while Trump, like Romney before him, refrained from saying openly what he wanted to replace it with.

What Trump did was openly praise the socialized medicine of Canada and Scotland. And he did it right in one of the Republican debates.

And he won that party's nomination while doing that.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 09:38 AM
But I agree on your other points. I didn't remember all that but I'll take your word for it. As I told AF he was all over the map.

He was, and still is, all over the map. His supporters may fall back on that as a way to avoid pinning him down as an all-out socialist. But at the very least, we can definitely say that he won the Republican primaries by being the candidate who was hardest to pin down, while defeating a field of opponents who ran to the right of him as more consistently anti-socialist than he was willing to be.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 09:48 AM
Trump won the primary, assuming no hank panky was going on...

You mean besides the MSM giving him 100% of the publicity, to the point where every time they interviewed any of the other seventeen candidates, they asked all of them questions about Trump?

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 09:56 AM
You mean besides the MSM giving him 100% of the publicity, to the point where every time they interviewed any of the other seventeen candidates, they asked all of them questions about Trump?

Yeah besides that.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 10:16 AM
Yeah besides that.

Glad to hear you say that.

If making Ron Paul into He Who Must Not Be Named was hanky panky, then clearly giving someone more publicity than everyone else combined is also hanky panky. I paid some attention to what the MSM was up to during the primaries...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463629-Sunday-Morning-Sit-Down-Stand-Up-Comedy

...and no candidate got their three questions' worth of publicity without ceding a third of their publicity to Trump. Every candidate had to answer questions about Il Douchebag.

If denying someone coverage is hanky panky, drowning someone else in coverage is hanky panky too.

Socialists win general elections because only socialists win primaries. I thought we already learned this.

I can't believe anyone here can still pretend issues matter. We've all seen Republican primary voters. "I'm gonna vote for the winner of this Horse Race no matter how bad he is!"

dude58677
11-15-2019, 10:16 AM
Because we have had career politicians in office. Even a career politician who complains about growing government isn’t sincere given that they spent most of their lives as part of the government. Also a lawyer makes their living off the State and when you have career politicians who are lawyers you end up with excessive regulations because as lawyers they want to pass as many laws as possible so they have something to litigate. The litigation is how they make their money.

PAF
11-15-2019, 10:28 AM
Because we have had career politicians in office. Even a career politician who complains about growing government isn’t sincere given that they spent most of their lives as part of the government. Also a lawyer makes their living off the State and when you have career politicians who are lawyers you end up with excessive regulations because as lawyers they want to pass as many laws as possible so they have something to litigate. The litigation is how they make their money.

True dat. But trump, the career politician he was not, had enough of a record during his life that it stuck out like a sore thumb. But wait, he “changed” to “republican” so get on board and act now before it’s too late! He’s “electable”, after all!

dude58677
11-15-2019, 10:35 AM
True dat. But trump, the career politician he was not, had enough of a record during his life that it stuck out like a sore thumb. But wait, he “changed” to “republican” so get on board and act now before it’s too late! He’s “electable”, after all!

Non politicians are going to be inspired to run for office in the future because of 2016. The 2016 election is far far bigger than Donald Trump. Politics is about perception and perception of 2016 is going to lead to less career politicians in the future.

PAF
11-15-2019, 10:43 AM
Non politicians are going to be inspired to run for office in the future because of 2016. The 2016 election is far far bigger than Donald Trump. Politics is about perception and perception of 2016 is going to lead to less career politicians in the future.

It doesn’t matter. It wil be another waste of time and money.

Until The People understand what true liberty really means and how it would benefit us all, republicans, democrats, and independent voters will still continue to vote as they always have while sacrificing liberty and wads of money for false security. Look at the past hundred years or so, for instance.

The way politicians talk at the podium (rhetoric), lie, give in, along with common core public schools and colleges, media and whirl-wind unicorns and utopia... only a small few who understand will carry the torch as the majority, Democrats, indy’s, yes even republicans, attempt to put out its flame.

dude58677
11-15-2019, 10:52 AM
It doesn’t matter. It wil be another waste of time and money.

Until The People understand what true liberty really means and how it would benefit us all, republicans, democrats, and independent voters will still continue to vote as they always have while sacrificing liberty and wads of money for false security. Look at the past hundred years or so, for instance.

The way politicians talk at the podium (rhetoric), lie, give in, along with common core public schools and colleges, media and whirl-wind unicorns and utopia... only a small few who understand will carry the torch as the majority, Democrats, indy’s, yes even republicans, attempt to put out its flame.

With the 2016 election, non voters voted for Donald Trump. Non voters are more likely to vote for freedom because they were so upset at the system when their choices were only career politicians.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 10:56 AM
With the 2016 election, non voters voted for Donald Trump. Non voters are more likely to vote for freedom because they were so upset at the system when their choices were only career politicians.

But of course, most non voters are rank amateurs who seldom even look to see who's not getting publicity.

In America, a No Confidence Vote can go either way. After the double nightmare of World War One and the Influenza Epidemic, Wilson strangled the economy by nationalizing entire industries. This led to Harding, who shifted power out of Washington and back to the people. A dozen years later, another recession led to FDR socialism.

This financial house of cards we have right now isn't prosperity. This bubble is the Dead Cat Bounce from 2008, being feverishly prolonged by quantitative panic pumping from the Fed. When it pops this time, the FDR model will be pushed hard.

The question is, can the Harding/Coolidge model be implemented without bloodshed?

I know one thing: Confidence in government is almost certainly at a one hundred year low. People here read the MSM rhetoric and look at the polls, and they're convinced support for government is a mile wide. Well the Canadian River is a mile wide, too. But it's only an inch deep.

PAF
11-15-2019, 11:00 AM
With the 2016 election, non voters voted for Donald Trump. Non voters are more likely to vote for freedom because they were so upset at the system when their choices were only career politicians.

For the most part, voters and non do not care about facts and records. They only care about podium rhetoric and empty promises. The key to liberty in the future is to educate the ones coming up in this world. This is exactly what Ron Paul and other freedom advocates understand and preach.

It is not elections that matter. It is the hearts and minds of people that matter.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 11:06 AM
Glad to hear you say that.

If making Ron Paul into He Who Must Not Be Named was hanky panky, then clearly giving someone more publicity than everyone else combined is also hanky panky. I paid some attention to what the MSM was up to during the primaries...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463629-Sunday-Morning-Sit-Down-Stand-Up-Comedy

...and no candidate got their three questions' worth of publicity without ceding a third of their publicity to Trump. Every candidate had to answer questions about Il Douchebag.

If denying someone coverage is hanky panky, drowning someone else in coverage is hanky panky too.

Socialists win general elections because only socialists win primaries. I thought we already learned this.

I can't believe anyone here can still pretend issues matter. We've all seen Republican primary voters. "I'm gonna vote for the winner of this Horse Race no matter how bad he is!"

My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 11:10 AM
For the most part, voters and non do not care about facts and records. They only care about podium rhetoric and empty promises. The key to liberty in the future is to educate the ones coming up in this world. This is exactly what Ron Paul and other freedom advocates understand and preach.

The Bolshevik mob has control of the state propaganda organs, the media, the entertainment complex, the schools from kindergarten to graduate school, the internet and social media.

"Education" of liberty ideas is basically forbidden in all realms.

I'd like to hear how to accomplish that.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 11:29 AM
Glad to hear you say that.

If making Ron Paul into He Who Must Not Be Named was hanky panky, then clearly giving someone more publicity than everyone else combined is also hanky panky. I paid some attention to what the MSM was up to during the primaries...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463629-Sunday-Morning-Sit-Down-Stand-Up-Comedy

...and no candidate got their three questions' worth of publicity without ceding a third of their publicity to Trump. Every candidate had to answer questions about Il Douchebag.

If denying someone coverage is hanky panky, drowning someone else in coverage is hanky panky too.

Socialists win general elections because only socialists win primaries. I thought we already learned this.

I can't believe anyone here can still pretend issues matter. We've all seen Republican primary voters. "I'm gonna vote for the winner of this Horse Race no matter how bad he is!"

All that is true, but not the complete story. It's not the most socialist candidate that wins. It's the most globalist / militaristic candidate that wins. Bernie Sanders was more socialist than Hilary but he lost. Tulsi is more socialist than Joe Biden from what I understand but she hasn't gotten a lot of traction. She also doesn't get as much press and Google has been caught suppressing information about her.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2019/08/02/representative-tulsi-gabbard-lawsuit-against-google-makes-case-for-regulating-online-political-ads/#23823e2e2e8a

In fact when SNL did it's most recent debate skit, even though Tulsi was in the debate she wasn't featured. But politicians that were polling lower than her were.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgA0fjztqaQ&t=300s

So....can we all agree that the real issue isn't whether or not people like 'freedom" or "free stuff" but whether or not we still have a "free press?" What say ye Anti Federalist?

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 11:37 AM
My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

I thought the same thing. Now I think we were underestimating the enemy.

1. The sanest observation I've seen come out of this place is, they don't care who wins the general election because they chose the two contenders still standing at that point. As long as they can weed out the "unelectable quixotic kooks" during the primaries, and keep people convinced third party votes are thrown away by the people who cast them, why would they worry about the general election? Clinton might have cared if Trump beat her, but no one else who counted needed to.

2. The Republican Drunken Monkey is nothing new. We may chuckle and go on our way when we read H.L. Mencken telling us people want to elect an idiot (a rich alpha idiot perhaps, but in any case, as dumb as the average voter). But they pay attention to such truths. Dubya was pure Drunken Monkey. He was the Establishment Drunken Monkey, but a Drunken Monkey nonetheless. Reagan leaned heavily toward Drunken Monkey, and filled his cabinet with a barrel of monkeys. Remember Al Haig? And Nixon, for all the trouble he went to to "appear presidential", was a total Drunken Monkey. Fact is, Republicans are suckers for Drunken Monkeys. They are amused by them, get a charge out of defending them, and the more socialism creeps in, the more hope they hold out for a Drunken Monkey Wrench in the works.

3. If you were the Establishment, and you saw Ron Paul get the traction he did despite your best efforts to Unelectable Quixotic Kook him out of the race, what would you do? Would you put forth a tool who could play outsider, and do your best to convince voters you were scared of him?

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 11:38 AM
My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

That's not just a thought. That's proven fact.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016

So here's the question. How did the rank and file republican voters fall for it? Why were so many people willing to overlook Donald Trump's anti-gun, pro abortion, pro Clinton past? And not just McCain / Romney backing republicans. Hardcore "socialism is evil" republicans. Simply saying "people love socialism" doesn't answer it. Ultimately socialist Bernie Sanders lost to corporitist Hillary Clinton.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 11:43 AM
I thought the same thing. Now I think we were underestimating the enemy.

1. The sanest observation I've seen come out of this place is, they don't care who wins the general election because they chose the two contenders still standing at that point. As long as they can weed out the "unelectable quixotic kooks" during the primaries, and keep people convinced third party votes are thrown away by the people who cast them, why would they worry about the general election? Clinton might have cared if Trump beat her, but no one else who counted needed to.

2. The Republican Drunken Monkey is nothing new. We may chuckle and go on our way when we read H.L. Mencken telling us people want to elect an idiot (a rich alpha idiot perhaps, but in any case, as dumb as the average voter). But they pay attention to such truths. Dubya was pure Drunken Monkey. He was the Establishment Drunken Monkey, but a Drunken Monkey nonetheless. Reagan leaned heavily toward Drunken Monkey, and filled his cabinet with a barrel of monkeys. Remember All Haig? And Nixon, for all the trouble he went to to "appear presidential", was a total Drunken Monkey. Fact is, Republicans are suckers for Drunken Monkeys. They are amused by them, get a charge out of defending them, and the more socialism creeps in, the more hope they hold out for a Drunken Monkey Wrench in the works.

3. If you were the Establishment, and you saw Ron Paul get the traction he did despite your best efforts to Unelectable Quixotic Kook him out of the race, what would you do? Would you put forth a tool who could play outsider, and so your best to convince voters you were scared of him?

Great analysis!

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 11:48 AM
So here's the question. How did the rank and file republican voters fall for it? Why were so many people willing to overlook Donald Trump's anti-gun, pro abortion, pro Clinton past? And not just McCain / Romney backing republicans. Hardcore "socialism is evil" republicans. Simply saying "people love socialism" doesn't answer it. Ultimately socialist Bernie Sanders lost to corporitist Hillary Clinton.

They love calling Democrats sheep, but Republicans are the real herd animals. They really do view the primary process as a horse race. They really don't want to vote for a loser, no matter how much better off we'd all be if they all did vote for a horse that the track touts all say can't win.

They're incredibly easy to manipulate. No wonder the GOP doesn't need superdelegates.

Brian4Liberty
11-15-2019, 12:12 PM
My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

Agree. Trump was a hand grenade thrown into the GOP primary. They wanted him to turn it into a shitshow and smear everyone. It worked. Remember all of the talk before that about how good the GOP primary field was? Remember when Hillary and other pundits greatest fear was Rand Paul? They took care of that.

And we must add that the ratings were another factor. People loved the reality TV show. Making money is always an additional incentive.


That's not just a thought. That's proven fact.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016

So here's the question. How did the rank and file republican voters fall for it? Why were so many people willing to overlook Donald Trump's anti-gun, pro abortion, pro Clinton past? And not just McCain / Romney backing republicans. Hardcore "socialism is evil" republicans. Simply saying "people love socialism" doesn't answer it. Ultimately socialist Bernie Sanders lost to corporitist Hillary Clinton.

Trump was loud and outrageous. He said things that the majority of voters had yelled at their TV from time to time. He addressed issues like immigration that no one would touch. He related to Joe Sixpack.

And we can never forget, in the purest and non-derogatory definition of the term, voters are extremely ignorant. And to make it worse, they think that they know everything.

Ender
11-15-2019, 12:16 PM
My thought on this is simple:

The powers that be propped up Trump because they figured he was a sure loser against Hillary.

I think they propped him up because it didn't matter which one won- 2nd verse, same as the first.

Trump talked to the Clintons before he ran- my POV is that no matter who won, Hitlery was safe & the same BS would continue.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 12:26 PM
I think they propped him up because it didn't matter which one won- 2nd verse, same as the first.

Trump talked to the Clintons before he ran- my POV is that no matter who won, Hitlery was safe & the same BS would continue.

If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of him.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.

PAF
11-15-2019, 12:31 PM
The presidency typically, more than usually, lasts 2 terms, unless something very drastic takes place. Knowing this, the people support 2 terms of a democrat, before figuring out that things really don’t get better, then decide it is time for republicans to take over for 2 terms, same downward spiral... back and forth, left, right, under the same structured corporate government and federal reserve.

Bill served 2, GWB served 2, Obama served 2, it was clearly the republicans turn regardless of who it was. Trump supported Hillary’s bid to senate, which she won, on top of being friends with the Clintons. Trump was a shoe-in the democrat that he is, only stick an R after the name and everything is good to go. Rand and others being necessary nuisances, required for TV ratings and to appear “fair”.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 12:41 PM
If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of Bill Clinton.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.

Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 01:04 PM
Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

Yah. This is clearly history repeating itself.

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 01:08 PM
Oh, wait, that's not what you said. You don't see the Clinton and Trump impeachments the same way at all. Clinton's impeachment was clearly a sideshow designed to fail to remove him in the Senate. You see it as a way to make Democrats hate and resent Republicans, a way to (ironically, and illustrative of their chutzpah) insulate Clinton from things like Koreagate by distracting the public from it, a pure circus.

You don't see the Trump impeachment that way because... Why, exactly, don't you see them as being the exact same thing, again? Don't let me lie about this. I'm not totally clear on your concept.

The Clinton impeachment was designed to fail, it was theater, as you noted.

In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

I think he will be removed or resign by the summer of 2020.

Hard to tell what Machiavellian purpose that may serve, as there are so many.

But it is clear to me the system is scared to death of Trump, more than likely because of that loose cannon, Drunken Monkey aspect.

I know I can't figure him out...he's flip, flopped and flown on so many issues I don't know where the hell he is coming from, minute to minute, let alone day by day.

I do know that presidents who run around bashing the Federal Reserve usually have very bad things happen to them.

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 01:19 PM
The Clinton impeachment was designed to fail, it was theater, as you noted.

In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

I think he will be removed or resign by the summer of 2020.

Hard to tell what Machiavellian purpose that may serve, as there are so many.

But it is clear to me the system is scared to death of Trump, more than likely because of that loose cannon, Drunken Monkey aspect.

I know I can't figure him out...he's flip, flopped and flown on so many issues I don't know where the hell he is coming from, minute to minute, let alone day by day.

My "Machievellian" feeling is that Trump engineered the impeachment in order to increase his chances of getting re-elected. There's no way in hell they will find 20 Republicans to vote on removal based on what they have so far.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 01:26 PM
In the case of Trump, I do not see it the same way because I think they will be successful.

Well, by the time it fails, we will all be older and wiser. Especially if we help each other keep an eye out for what's being overshadowed in the news...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541137-What-Went-Unnoticed-Because-Impeachment&p=6884963#post6884963

Certainly Biden's getting protection from the process.

Cleaner44
11-15-2019, 01:42 PM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

No need to ignore the reality either. Should we ignore the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be liberal than conservative or libertarian?

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 01:48 PM
No need to ignore the reality either. Should we ignore the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be liberal than conservative or libertarian?

May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

jmdrake
11-15-2019, 02:18 PM
May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

https://media.giphy.com/media/YGJBp5EgyVP9K/200.gif

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 03:25 PM
May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".

What if you're wrong?

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 03:33 PM
What if you're wrong?

Don't think I am. I remember a time when many Hispanics voted Republican.

But what if I am? Are Republicans dissuading migrants from coming, or encouraging Democrats to turn them away, by wasting all day every day telling immigrants they don't vote Republicans?

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:35 PM
This is not true.

In most elections, including the most recent three, nonhispanic whites vote (which means they vote for Socialists) at higher rates than nonhispanic blacks, hispanics, or other.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

And among those whites, it isn't primarily the poor ones who are voting, but the wealthier ones.
https://econofact.org/voting-and-income

It is literally the case that the group in America that votes for socialism at the highest rates is wealthy whites, to the tune of about 85%. And as you move outside of that group to nonwhites and lower income people, they vote for socialists at progressively lower rates to the point that among the lowest income groups a full majority refrains from voting for socialists, and this percentage that refrains from voting for socialists is especially high among nonwhites, particularly hispanics.
Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.
You are attempting to make voting at all count but it doesn't, voting for Demoncrats is voting for communism and the immigrants vote communist at much higher rates.
Not voting is not virtuous, it is consenting to the outcome whether it is for larger or smaller government.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 03:37 PM
Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.

Recent decades of history prove the opposite, with an absolute perfect record.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 03:41 PM
Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.

Voting in Republicans has never resulted in any of that in my lifetime. Perhaps you meant to say voting Republican is paying lip service to that stuff?

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:42 PM
Recent decades of history prove the opposite, with an absolute perfect record.
Not at all.

CCTelander
11-15-2019, 03:43 PM
What if you're wrong?


I may have more to say on this when I can get in front of my actual computer, depending on how I feel at the time and whether I think it's worth a half-hour to an hour's worth of my time to compose and type up something that's lkely to just be ignored by anyone but those who already agree anyway, but for now suffice it to say this:

What if he IS wrong? So what?

You've already admitted, many times, that you've already lost the battle over immigration, that it's too late and is therefore a lost cause. That being the case, what have you got to lose trying something different? When does one finally decide to give up on what they already know to be an ineffective strategy and start looking at other options?

CCTelander
11-15-2019, 03:45 PM
Voting in Republicans has never resulted in any of that in my lifetime. Perhaps you meant to say voting Republican is paying lip service to that stuff?


Exactly.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 03:45 PM
Not at all.

When in recent decades have Republicans reduced government or welfare?

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:49 PM
If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of him.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.
There have been attempts with other methods.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 03:49 PM
Voting for Republicans is a vote for reduced government and welfare.
You are attempting to make voting at all count but it doesn't, voting for Demoncrats is voting for communism and the immigrants vote communist at much higher rates.
Not voting is not virtuous, it is consenting to the outcome whether it is for larger or smaller government.

Since 1995, (13 sessions of Congress- two year terms each), Republicans controlled the House nine times, the Senate ten times, and the White House six times and all three five times along with both houses eight times. Each time, government got bigger- not smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:53 PM
May God grant us enough relief from the most spammed factoid of our age to forget it for five minutes.

Maybe if Republicans didn't spend all day, every day on the net telling immigrants they don't vote for Republicans, they might give it a try. Look up "self-fulfilling prophesy".
WRONG.
Republicans bent over backwards for immigrants and they taught us that they would vote communist anyway.

And even if you were right we don't want voters that have to have their feet kissed in order to get them to vote for less government instead of communism, we only want people who vote based on principle.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 03:55 PM
WRONG.
Republicans bent over backwards for immigrants and they taught us that they would vote communist anyway.

And even if you were right we don't want voters that have to have their feet kissed in order to get them to vote for less government instead of communism, we only want people who vote based on principle.

So how many times has the Communist party won an election in the United States- with all those commies voting? (more fake news cliches)

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:56 PM
Since 1995, (13 sessions of Congress- two year terms each), Republicans controlled the House nine times, the Senate ten times, and the White House six times and all three five times along with both houses eight times. Each time, government got bigger- not smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Most of that time they didn't control all of government and RINOs were able to claim a need to "compromise".
The problem has never been Republican government but government that wasn't Republican enough.
And government grows like a wildfire when Demoncrats are in power.
A look at Republican states vs. Demoncrat states is all one needs to see the truth.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:57 PM
So how many times has the Communist party won an election in the United States- with all those commies voting? (more fake news cliches)
They win every time the Demoncrats win.
Demoncrats are communists with a different name and have been for a long time.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 03:58 PM
WRONG.
Republicans bent over backwards for immigrants and they taught us that they would vote communist anyway.

And even if you were right we don't want voters that have to have their feet kissed in order to get them to vote for less government instead of communism, we only want people who vote based on principle.

LOL

WRONG

But it's funny to see you say that after all the times you said we were purists, impractical, and ineffective because we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And no, Hispanics did not abandon the GOP before the GOP abandoned them. You weren't even born yet.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 03:58 PM
Most of that time they didn't control all of government

But some of that time they did. And when they did, they used that opportunity to grow government, not to reduce it. Their record doing so is perfect. There are zero exceptions.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 03:59 PM
When in recent decades have Republicans reduced government or welfare?
Under Clinton the Republicans forced welfare reform and Trump is reducing welfare as best he can without help from Congress.
Trump and the Republicans rolled back many Government regulations as well.
There are plenty of examples but I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate with a poster I know isn't interested in the truth.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:01 PM
But some of that time they did. And when they did, they used that opportunity to grow government, not to reduce it. Their record doing so is perfect. There are zero exceptions.
Their record is not consistent but it isn't consistent in favor of bigger government either, they do reduce government whereas the Demoncrats only ever vastly increase it.

Krugminator2
11-15-2019, 04:01 PM
Since 1995, (13 sessions of Congress- two year terms each), Republicans controlled the House nine times, the Senate ten times, and the White House six times and all three five times along with both houses eight times. Each time, government got bigger- not smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

It is a nice talking point but factually untrue. Spending fell on per capita basis adjusted for inflation when Newt became speaker in 94 to when Bush took office and fell again in the Tea Party wave in 2010.

The only two times spending has been restrained in recent memory has been with Repub congresses.

Chart is halfway down

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/rise-capita-federal-spending

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:01 PM
But some of that time they did. And when they did, they used that opportunity to grow government, not to reduce it. Their record doing so is perfect. There are zero exceptions.

Republicans have controlled all three for a total of a decade since 1995. Not once did they reduce the size of government or welfare. Even Ron and Rand Paul avoid talking about cutting the welfare state (Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid).

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:02 PM
Trump and the Republicans rolled back many Government regulations as well.
There are plenty of examples but I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate with a poster I know isn't interested in the truth.

Translation: Everyone has a right to say "many" when talking about a tiny drop in a monstrous bucket.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:04 PM
LOL

WRONG

But it's funny to see you say that after all the times you said we were purists, impractical, and ineffective because we let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And no, Hispanics did not abandon the GOP before the GOP abandoned them. You weren't even born yet.
Nothing you said makes any sense.

Immigrants have always voted more for Demoncrats than Republicans.
And I notice you trying to make this about hispanics instead of immigrants, that allows you to try to claim credit for American hispanics who have been here for many generations while avoiding immigrants from all other sources.

Immigrants come from cultures far more socialist than our own and bring their beliefs with them, our soil doesn't magically erase their education and cultural conditioning.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:07 PM
I may have more to say on this when I can get in front of my actual computer, depending on how I feel at the time and whether I think it's worth a half-hour to an hour's worth of my time to compose and type up something that's lkely to just be ignored by anyone but those who already agree anyway, but for now suffice it to say this:

What if he IS wrong? So what?

You've already admitted, many times, that you've already lost the battle over immigration, that it's too late and is therefore a lost cause. That being the case, what have you got to lose trying something different? When does one finally decide to give up on what they already know to be an ineffective strategy and start looking at other options?

Immigration is a battle that can't be abandoned, it will destroy any progress we make on any other front.
You can't salvage a sunken boat unless you patch the holes below the waterline.

Superfluous Man
11-15-2019, 04:08 PM
Immigrants have always voted more for Demoncrats than Republicans.

In 1992 55% of Asian Americans voted Republican.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:09 PM
It is a nice talking point but factually untrue. Spending fell on per capita basis adjusted for inflation when Newt became speaker in 94 to when Bush took office and fell again in the Tea Party wave in 2010.

The only two times spending has been restrained in recent memory has been with Repub congresses.

Chart is halfway down

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/rise-capita-federal-spending

https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Chart1-Spending-Per-Capita-vero_0.png

They (Republicans) controlled both the House and Senate from 1995 through 2007. It was pretty flat during Clinton but soared under Bush. Obama's first two years faced the Republican controlling both Houses and Democrats controlled his last two years. The middle four were divided. Trump's first two years had Republicans in control of all three branches and spending took off again.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:13 PM
In 1992 55% of Asian Americans voted Republican.
Did I say "asians"?

I said immigrants.

And even those that vote Republican tend to vote for the worst Republicans, the RINOs.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:14 PM
Nothing you said makes any sense.

I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate with a poster I know isn't interested in the truth.


Immigrants have always voted more for Demoncrats than Republicans.
And I notice you trying to make this about hispanics instead of immigrants, that allows you to try to claim credit for American hispanics who have been here for many generations while avoiding immigrants from all other sources.

Condemning Republican voters because you figure you're condemning more Democrats at the same time is a collectivist thing to do, and very self-defeating. And we were discussing Hispanics before you even horned in on the conversation, so clearly your blood pressure was not the reason the subject came up.


Immigrants come from cultures far more socialist than our own and bring their beliefs with them, our soil doesn't magically erase their education and cultural conditioning.

Collectivism and inference.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:14 PM
In 1992 55% of Asian Americans voted Republican.

Asians and Canadians (North Americans) combined make up 75% of US immigrants.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:19 PM
https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Chart1-Spending-Per-Capita-vero_0.png

They (Republicans) controlled both the House and Senate from 1995 through 2007. It was pretty flat during Clinton but soared under Bush. Obama's first two years faced the Republican controlling both Houses and Democrats controlled his last two years. The middle four were divided. Trump's first two years had Republicans in control of all three branches and spending took off again.
If you look closely you will see that with the exception of Clinton (who was restrained by Republicans), O'Bummer (likewise restrained) and Bush II (who started wars) it always goes up much faster under Demoncrats.

And government spending is not the complete picture of the growth of government, tyrannical laws and regulations are always much worse under Demoncrats.
A comparison of Republican states and Demoncrat states is quite clear.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:21 PM
In 1992 55% of Asian Americans voted Republican.

Doesn't matter, because, um, because...


we don't want voters that have to have their feet kissed in order to get them to vote for less government instead of communism, we only want people who vote based on principle.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:22 PM
I'm not going to engage in a lengthy debate with a poster I know isn't interested in the truth.
I'm always interested in the truth, that's why I'm never interested in what you have to say.




Condemning Republican voters because you figure you're condemning more Democrats at the same time is a collectivist thing to do, and very self-defeating. And we were discussing Hispanics before you even horned in on the conversation, so clearly your blood pressure was not the reason the subject came up.
Immigrants have no right to come here and aren't being "condemned" when we limit their numbers.
We have a right and a duty to limit immigration to preserve liberty for ourselves and our posterity.




Collectivism and inference.
Facts.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:27 PM
Facts.

This from the liar who said I was referring to third-generation Americans as "immigrants".

Anti Federalist
11-15-2019, 04:28 PM
I may have more to say on this when I can get in front of my actual computer, depending on how I feel at the time and whether I think it's worth a half-hour to an hour's worth of my time to compose and type up something that's lkely to just be ignored by anyone but those who already agree anyway, but for now suffice it to say this:

What if he IS wrong? So what?

You've already admitted, many times, that you've already lost the battle over immigration, that it's too late and is therefore a lost cause. That being the case, what have you got to lose trying something different? When does one finally decide to give up on what they already know to be an ineffective strategy and start looking at other options?

What would be different?

I'm trying to prevent my home from turning into New Brazzaville, because of unchecked immigration being facilitated, with my tax dollars for the sole and express purpose of displacing me and my posterity.

If I give up and blow away, tell me, what will change that outcome?

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:29 PM
Doesn't matter, because, um, because...



Yeah, that's the ticket!
We don't want voters that have to have their feet kissed in order to get them to vote for less government instead of communism, we only want people who vote based on principle.

We also don't want those who vote for the worst Republicans.

And we can allow some immigration and pick and chose where the immigrants are from. (After we deal with the excessive immigration from all over the world)

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:29 PM
This from the liar who said I was referring to third-generation Americans as "immigrants".
That's not what I said, liar.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:31 PM
Asians and Canadians (North Americans) combined make up 75% of US immigrants.
I see you are changing the subject to include Canadians.
They are much more socialist than Americans.
And we don't want Asians that vote for Communists if we don't allow them to flood us with millions of their relatives and who vote for the worst Republicans when they do vote Republican.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:33 PM
And I notice you trying to make this about hispanics instead of immigrants, that allows you to try to claim credit for American hispanics who have been here for many generations while avoiding immigrants from all other sources.


This from the liar who said I was referring to third-generation Americans as "immigrants".


That's not what I said, liar.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:34 PM
I see you are changing the subject to include Canadians.
They are much more socialist than Americans.
And we don't want Asians that vote for Communists if we don't allow them to flood us with millions of their relatives and who vote for the worst Republicans when they do vote Republican.

Yes, everybody is a RINO or a Communist. Very collectivist of you. Guidebook cliches to use in political discussions. 94% of all the votes cast in the last election were by native born Americans. If America is a mess, it is Americans faults.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:35 PM
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Yes, you demonstrate your own lies easily.

I said you were trying to make the conversation about hispanics when I was talking about immigrants, I never said you were calling third-generation Americans immigrants.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:36 PM
Yes, everybody is a RINO or a Communist. Very collectivist of you. Guidebook cliches to use in political discussions.
Facts are stubborn things and the truth is a force of nature.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:39 PM
94% of all the votes cast in the last election were by native born Americans. If America is a mess, it is Americans faults.
Immigration has been undermining liberty for generations and the current immigrants tip the balance in favor if its enemies.

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:39 PM
Facts are stubborn things and the truth is a force of nature.

The usual "I can't refute you" response from the guidebook.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:40 PM
Yes, you demonstrate your own lies easily.

I said you were trying to make the conversation about hispanics when I was talking about immigrants, I never said you were calling third-generation Americans immigrants.

You can't spin my conversation about Hispanic immigrants into a conversation about citizens no matter how hard you try. But you've already tried hard enough that everyone can see you're not being honest, so you might as well keep trying.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:42 PM
The usual "I can't refute you" response from the guidebook.
That is what you are using.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:42 PM
You can't spin my conversation about Hispanic immigrants into a conversation about citizens no matter how hard you try. But you've already tried hard enough that everyone can see you're not being honest, so you might as well keep trying.
You are the one using obvious spin but keep projecting.

acptulsa
11-15-2019, 04:44 PM
You are the one using obvious spin but keep projecting.

I'm spinning and projecting at the same time?

Damn I'm good! I didn't even know that was possible!

Zippyjuan
11-15-2019, 04:45 PM
I'm spinning and projecting at the same time?

Damn I'm good! I didn't even know that was possible!

He does it all the time.

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 04:48 PM
He does it all the time.
Says the biggest troll on the forum.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
11-15-2019, 06:43 PM
[belch]


Hey! My old nemesis is back! How goes it, PRB?

Gumba of Liberty
11-15-2019, 08:11 PM
For the most part, voters and non do not care about facts and records. They only care about podium rhetoric and empty promises. The key to liberty in the future is to educate the ones coming up in this world. This is exactly what Ron Paul and other freedom advocates understand and preach.

It is not elections that matter. It is the hearts and minds of people that matter.

Like this: sonsoflibertyso.com

Swordsmyth
11-15-2019, 08:13 PM
For the most part, voters and non do not care about facts and records. They only care about podium rhetoric and empty promises. The key to liberty in the future is to educate the ones coming up in this world. This is exactly what Ron Paul and other freedom advocates understand and preach.

It is not elections that matter. It is the hearts and minds of people that matter.
You can't educate them as fast as they immigrate or breed.
You have to stop the flood before you can educate.

Ender
11-16-2019, 09:46 AM
If that was the case, they wouldn't be making such a fuss to get rid of him.

I'm frankly amazed nobody has taken a shot at him yet.

Dude- it's called the US Reality Show- something to please/piss off everyone & take their eye off the man behind the curtain.

PRB
11-22-2019, 04:20 PM
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that half of Americans make $30,000 or less.

Swordsmyth
11-22-2019, 04:29 PM
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that half of Americans make $30,000 or less.
Maybe that has to do with all the socialism.

PRB
11-22-2019, 05:06 PM
Maybe that has to do with all the socialism.

how so? this country never was and never will be socialist.

You're the worst Trumplover ever. Pay attention to our President's words for a change.

acptulsa
11-22-2019, 05:11 PM
how so? this country never was and never will be socialist.

You're the worst Trumplover ever. Pay attention to our President's words for a change.

He totally pays attention to half of what Trump says, and is totally in denial about the rest.

revgen
11-22-2019, 05:27 PM
Our public schools don't teach kids about:

1) Private property.
2) Honest currency.
3) The Constitution. Especially the Bill of Rights.

PRB
11-22-2019, 05:31 PM
Out public schools don't teach kids about:

1) Private property.
2) Honest currency.
3) The Constitution. Especially the Bill of Rights.

I love how parents don't take responsibility.

PRB
11-22-2019, 06:23 PM
How many of those illegal aliens invading our borders did you say earned more than $35,000 in their 3rd world socialist utopias?



Zero, nada, nein, nyet, that's right , NONE.


:frog:
how are they socialist?

PRB
11-22-2019, 06:24 PM
No need to ignore the reality either. Should we ignore the fact that immigrants are much more likely to be liberal than conservative or libertarian?

why would they be? don't they know capitalism is best for uplifting them from poverty?

Stratovarious
11-22-2019, 06:32 PM
how are they socialist?
Most of them collect welfare , how does that make them capitalists?

PRB
11-22-2019, 06:41 PM
Most of them collect welfare , how does that make them capitalists?

in what definition of socialism does collecting welfare make it so?

Stratovarious
11-22-2019, 06:43 PM
in what definition of socialism does collecting welfare make it so?
None really, lets go with useless, blood sucking, leaching slugs.

misterx
11-23-2019, 09:43 AM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

There are several problems with your statement. Being poor has always been pretty normal. In modern America it is not the poor who support socialism, but the middle class and rich. Immigrants whether poor or not prefer socialism because they come from cultures with different values, so that makes the situation worse.

PRB
11-23-2019, 04:00 PM
but the middle class and rich. proof?

Republicanguy
11-23-2019, 07:51 PM
Socialism is about making society fairer, that is the theory. It is about not allowing the wealthy to escape with a serious amount of money. They may seem alike, as power can corrupt, and does the money really go to the people it needs to.

Origanalist
11-23-2019, 08:11 PM
I love how parents don't take responsibility.

Don't take responsibility? Stick that straight up your ass. The only possible way they could would be to homeschool. The social engineers have made that pretty tough. Thankfully many are doing it anyway.

PRB
11-23-2019, 08:21 PM
Don't take responsibility? Stick that straight up your ass. The only possible way they could would be to homeschool. The social engineers have made that pretty tough. Thankfully many are doing it anyway. tough how? what law is making it hard?

Origanalist
11-23-2019, 08:30 PM
tough how? what law is making it hard?

Ughhhh, hur- der....what law....????

I remember you, nice try.

What do homeschoolers have to provide to the state to "prove" they aren't abusing their own children?

Why is it harder now to raise a family with a single provider?

What happens when a agent of the state decides you aren't raising your children properly?


A better question would be what law isn't making it hard. But you already knew that.

heavenlyboy34
11-23-2019, 08:51 PM
The inevitability of democracy bringing about socialism is why it's clear that bringing about socialism was either the intended result of ratifying the US Constitution, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who did.
+rep Though "Socialism" didn't exist as a coherent, thought out political philosophy that we know it today back in 1780-90, (it's a 19th century thing) there were some weird "proto-socialist" political philosophers/influential rabble-rousers back then that Jefferson, et al were aware of.

Swordsmyth
11-23-2019, 08:55 PM
+rep
For utter nonsense?

I have a better one:

The inevitability of anarchy bringing about tyranny is why it's clear that bringing about tyranny is either the intended result of advocating for it, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who do.

PRB
11-24-2019, 02:42 AM
Ughhhh, hur- der....what law....????

I remember you, nice try.

What do homeschoolers have to provide to the state to "prove" they aren't abusing their own children?


Nothing.



Why is it harder now to raise a family with a single provider?


Its not, unless you're an idiot who is bad with money



What happens when a agent of the state decides you aren't raising your children properly?


you tell them to fuck off, or Ben Shapiro said he'll pick up a gun.



A better question would be what law isn't making it hard. But you already knew that.
nope. the law is the only thing that matters. everything else is your own fault.

acptulsa
11-24-2019, 07:59 AM
Nothing.

Which state are you talking about?

Pauls' Revere
11-24-2019, 10:56 AM
A little too much navel gazing for my taste...no need to make this difficult.

A - Free $#@! is popular, especially to a nation of retards.

B - Freedom is NOT popular, for the same reason.

C - Socialism is popular to the millions and millions of migrant invaders fleeing socialist failures to the south.

1) Socialism = Government cares for all your shit and interferes with people.
2) Libertarianism = Take care of your our shit and interfere with no one.

heavenlyboy34
11-24-2019, 01:56 PM
For utter nonsense?

I have a better one:

The inevitability of anarchy bringing about tyranny is why it's clear that bringing about tyranny is either the intended result of advocating for it, or else proof of inexcusable naiveté on the part of those who do.
None of that is actually true. It's actually very old, well worn ground. We've known for quite a long time now that it is fact that minarchies inevitably become epic tyrannies. Here's a whole book about it: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41L-rmC3mYL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

PRB
11-24-2019, 02:37 PM
Which state are you talking about?

all 50.

acptulsa
11-24-2019, 02:53 PM
all 50.

They're all the same?

PAF
11-24-2019, 03:02 PM
Our public schools don't teach kids about:

1) Private property.
2) Honest currency.
3) The Constitution. Especially the Bill of Rights.

Good order. +Rep

Swordsmyth
11-24-2019, 06:42 PM
None of that is actually true. It's actually very old, well worn ground. We've known for quite a long time now that it is fact that minarchies inevitably become epic tyrannies. Here's a whole book about it: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41L-rmC3mYL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
All societies tend toward tyranny, it's human nature.
But minarchy does the best job of resisting and giving the people a chance to turn things around from time to time.
Anarchy is swiftly replaced by tyranny.

PRB
11-25-2019, 01:20 AM
They're all the same?

they all lack laws that force you to prove you're not abusing your children

Origanalist
11-25-2019, 03:23 AM
they all lack laws that force you to prove you're not abusing your children

Complete and utter garbage.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-homeschool-kids-who-spent-two-months-in-state-custody-to-return-home-on-trial-basis.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/4-year-old-homeschooler-illegally-taken-from-parents-after-they-disagree-with-doctor

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25487-homeschool-mom-arrested-children-seized-by-cps-for-educational-neglect

https://www.inquisitr.com/2075629/why-did-this-off-the-grid-homeschooling-kentucky-family-lose-custody-of-their-ten-kids/

https://homeschooliowa.org/wellness-checks-for-homeschoolers/

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2019/02/iowa-house-bill-requires-health-and-wellness-checks-of-homeschoolers/

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/can-the-state-force-homeschooled-kids-into-public-school-classrooms

https://www.inquisitr.com/488734/homeschooling-mother-in-colorado-wins-landmark-case-retains-custody-of-kids/

https://a2zhomeschooling.com/laws/homeschool_laws_legalities/homeschooling_court_cases/

PRB
11-25-2019, 06:26 PM
Complete and utter garbage.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-homeschool-kids-who-spent-two-months-in-state-custody-to-return-home-on-trial-basis.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/4-year-old-homeschooler-illegally-taken-from-parents-after-they-disagree-with-doctor

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25487-homeschool-mom-arrested-children-seized-by-cps-for-educational-neglect

https://www.inquisitr.com/2075629/why-did-this-off-the-grid-homeschooling-kentucky-family-lose-custody-of-their-ten-kids/

https://homeschooliowa.org/wellness-checks-for-homeschoolers/

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2019/02/iowa-house-bill-requires-health-and-wellness-checks-of-homeschoolers/

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/can-the-state-force-homeschooled-kids-into-public-school-classrooms

https://www.inquisitr.com/488734/homeschooling-mother-in-colorado-wins-landmark-case-retains-custody-of-kids/

https://a2zhomeschooling.com/laws/homeschool_laws_legalities/homeschooling_court_cases/

posting a bunch of conservative sites proves nothing.

Origanalist
11-25-2019, 10:27 PM
posting a bunch of conservative sites proves nothing.

It proves you're full of shit.

PRB
11-26-2019, 02:04 AM
It proves you're full of $#@!.
nope.

Origanalist
11-26-2019, 04:56 AM
nope.

Yep.

jon4liberty
11-26-2019, 07:24 AM
why would they be? don't they know capitalism is best for uplifting them from poverty?

Look at how they vote. Your little utopia of let them read Mises, Friedman etc they will be free market capitalist and Baltimore will be a paradise HAHAHAHA this is why I couldn't take LP members seriously and stopped working their campaigns

jon4liberty
11-26-2019, 07:26 AM
Freedom and Liberty is not popular...especially with the continents of South America and Africa

Origanalist
11-26-2019, 07:32 AM
Look at how they vote. Your little utopia of let them read Mises, Friedman etc they will be free market capitalist and Baltimore will be a paradise HAHAHAHA this is why I couldn't take LP members seriously and stopped working their campaigns

I think you're confusing him with someone else, I could be wrong but I highly doubt he's ever been a member of the LP or is a fan of the free market.

Mach
11-26-2019, 08:43 PM
PRB, so you are just a Socialist Troll?

How many other sites are you assigned to?

angelatc
11-26-2019, 11:57 PM
no need to blame immigrants, half of Americans make less than $35,000. being poor is pretty normal now.

Economics isn't your strong suit. Adding millions of workers to the labor pool keeps wages down, duh.

PRB
11-27-2019, 06:45 AM
Economics isn't your strong suit. Adding millions of workers to the labor pool keeps wages down, duh.

you say it as if wages haven't gone down before and without new competition from immigrants.

here's just a few other ways wages go down (or can't keep up with cost of living)
1. increase in population without immigrants
2. automation
3. perpetual inequality (rich get richer leaving the poor with less over time)

PRB
11-27-2019, 06:45 AM
PRB, so you are just a Socialist Troll?

How many other sites are you assigned to?

nope

jon4liberty
11-27-2019, 06:55 AM
Don't take responsibility? Stick that straight up your ass. The only possible way they could would be to homeschool. The social engineers have made that pretty tough. Thankfully many are doing it anyway.

This

jon4liberty
11-27-2019, 06:57 AM
you say it as if wages haven't gone down before and without new competition from immigrants.

here's just a few other ways wages go down (or can't keep up with cost of living)
1. increase in population without immigrants
2. automation
3. perpetual inequality (rich get richer leaving the poor with less over time)

1. Birth rates have plummeted...
2. Automation is a serious concern in the future
3. The rich aren't taking the hours. They are running their own businesses providing jobs. Unless you are a fortune 500 corporation then it is stock buybacks in today's system

angelatc
11-27-2019, 11:39 AM
you say it as if wages haven't gone down before and without new competition from immigrants.

here's just a few other ways wages go down (or can't keep up with cost of living)
1. increase in population without immigrants
2. automation
3. perpetual inequality (rich get richer leaving the poor with less over time)

Like I said, economics isn't your strong point. Economically speaking, wealth inequality is a meaningless gauge. It's a political theory, not an economic theory.

Both of your other ''points'' actually provide evidence for the theory I presented.

Superfluous Man
11-27-2019, 12:13 PM
Lower cost of labor is a good thing, right?

Swordsmyth
11-27-2019, 04:27 PM
Lower cost of labor is a good thing, right?

No.

It is not necessarily.

PRB
11-28-2019, 08:53 AM
Like I said, economics isn't your strong point. Economically speaking, wealth inequality is a meaningless gauge. It's a political theory, not an economic theory.

Both of your other ''points'' actually provide evidence for the theory I presented.

I'm sure a lot of things are not meaningful in economic theory, after all, economics only looks like economics. so yeah, I'm not an economist :)

What theory you presented?

PRB
11-28-2019, 08:54 AM
No.

It is not necessarily.

you got this one right.

is cheap labor a good or bad thing?

Depends who you ask.

As with anything, if you're a buyer of labor you want it cheap. If you're a seller of labor (aka working class, proletariat), you want it expensive.

PRB
11-28-2019, 08:56 AM
1. Birth rates have plummeted...
2. Automation is a serious concern in the future
3. The rich aren't taking the hours. They are running their own businesses providing jobs. Unless you are a fortune 500 corporation then it is stock buybacks in today's system

birth rates dropping should be a good thing
why is automation a serious concern unless you're a loser who can't outsmart computers and machines?
why is providing jobs a virtue? providing jobs is just a slower way of making the job creator richer.

Anti Federalist
11-28-2019, 09:00 AM
why is providing jobs a virtue? providing jobs is just a slower way of making the job creator richer.

Because an idle rabble without jobs eventually turns out in the streets as a Bolshevik mob and slits your throat and takes your shit.

PRB
11-28-2019, 09:38 AM
Because an idle rabble without jobs eventually turns out in the streets as a Bolshevik mob and slits your throat and takes your $#@!.

that's like saying a person who doesn't pay his taxes will go to prison.

yeah, but why is that the only reality we should keep embracing?