What changing attitudes have you noticed in your average leftist voter?

[dannno]

You seem to think it's better to jog towards tyranny instead of sprinting. I don't share that view.

Which is precisely why you are wrong.

If you jog towards tyranny, you have more opportunity to stop it before you fall off the cliff. That is a fact. There is no benefit in sprinting toward the cliff over jogging. If those are your two options, jogging is much better.

This is how people who base their decision on logic operate, as opposed to basing their decisions on emotion.

But that's not even what I'm talking about.. I see Trump as a someone who can derail the train (think Back to the Future Part III). He is putting less fuel in the engine, and throwing rocks on the track. Hillary would be throwing more fuel in the engine and greasing up the tracks.

[AuH20]

2008 above, the good old days.
2018 below.

They support corporate welfare for ideologically Progressive corporations.
They support war in Syria, Russia and wherever else Trump is against going to war. They are for war even if it risks a WIII type total annihilation of the world. If Trump is for war in a region, they are against war in that region.
They want government in the personal lives of white males.
They are socially and culturally accepting to everyone except white males, particularly old white males which they rabidly hate.
They are supportive of full blown Soviet models.

Back in the 70s and 80s, your typical democrat was defined by their support of labor unions and a fair wage. Fast forward to 2018 and the anti-white SJW fanatics have launched a full bore offensive against every facet of American life. No stone shall be untouched.

[RJ Liberty]

Wrong..

I live in a city that used to have anti-war protests regularly.. there was an anti-war memorial down at the wharf. They have been largely inactive for the last 10 years, the memorial is gone.

That is great there is a group in DC that is still anti-war, but it looks like about a dozen people and I doubt they were all on the left.

ANSWER is a Left organization. They've protested this last year in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Washington, DC; San Francisco, California; Boise, Idaho; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Boston, Massachusetts; and other cities and towns across the country. This is just one of many organizations on the left protesting the continued endless wars. CodePink and WinWithoutWar are still making headlines every week.

Republicans ARE still balanced w/ Democrats on war.. Bush started the wars, and started arming the extremists so they could fight sovereign nations in proxy-wars. Obama kicked it up a couple notches, and armed the extremists even more than Bush so they could fight our proxy-wars. Trump came in and took out the extremists

"Trump came in and took out the extremists". You heard it here, folks!

[CaptUSA]

Which is precisely why you are wrong.

If you jog towards tyranny, you have more opportunity to stop it before you fall off the cliff. That is a fact. There is no benefit in sprinting toward the cliff over jogging. If those are your two options, jogging is much better.

This is how people who base their decision on logic operate, as opposed to basing their decisions on emotion.

But that's not even what I'm talking about.. I see Trump as a someone who can derail the train (think Back to the Future Part III). He is putting less fuel in the engine, and throwing rocks on the track. Hillary would be throwing more fuel in the engine and greasing up the tracks.

And that is where you have made your mistake. You have errantly resigned yourself to believing there are only two options. As long as that is the case, your destination is assured.

[RJB]

Back in the 70s and 80s, your typical democrat was defined by their support of labor unions and a fair wage. Fast forward to 2018 and the anti-white SJW fanatics have launched a full bore offensive against every facet of American life. No stone shall be untouched.

Exactly. The democrat's bread and butter, the blue collar worker, is now seen by the party as the uneducated racist redneck.

[AuH20]

2008 above, the good old days.
2018 below.

They support corporate welfare for ideologically Progressive corporations.
They support war in Syria, Russia and wherever else Trump is against going to war. They are for war even if it risks a WIII type total annihilation of the world. If Trump is for war in a region, they are against war in that region.
They want government in the personal lives of white males.
They are socially and culturally accepting to everyone except white males, particularly old white males which they rabidly hate.
They are supportive of full blown Soviet models.

The only thing I agree with them on is animal rights and habitat preservation. Besides that, your average progressive is a bane on humanity. They are being led around by the nose by Luciferians I suspect and don't even know it.

[dannno]

And that is where you have made your mistake. You have errantly resigned yourself to believing there are only two options. As long as that is the case, your destination is assured.

After the primary, those were the two options. I voted Gary Johnson to get more money for the libertarian party, but between Trump and Hillary who were the only ones who had a chance of winning, Trump was the best choice for improving our future prospects for liberty. I care about improving our future prospects for liberty.

[dannno]

"Trump came in and took out the extremists". You heard it here, folks!

He took out 90% of ISIS... you should read the rest of what I posted for why that is important.

[RJ Liberty]

He took out 90% of ISIS...

Forgetting, for a moment, your "90%" made-up statistic, this is not what you previously claimed. You stated "Trump came in and took out the extremists"; this statement is ridiculous on multiple levels. Extremists are found throughout the world. They cannot, and never will be, "taken out" by a single US president, even one as glorious and large-handed as President Trump.

In fact, killing an extremist only creates more: his sons. This was known as far back as 2001: Bombing to eradicate terrorism actually produces the opposite effect:

In an interview with Radio Sputnik, IPS Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis argued that these air assaults on Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere were largely ineffective at combating terrorism.

“You can’t bomb terrorism out of existence,” she added. “You can bomb cities, you can bomb people, you can kill them, and once in a while you can bomb a terrorist.” But ultimately, that does not end terrorism.


Rather, it breeds more terrorism, because people who may be viewed as a terrorist by U.S. intelligence officials aren’t viewed the same in their communities. Killing them only sparks “more terrorism, antagonism, and violence,” Bennis explained.

This was Ron Paul's message years ago. Killing people in the Middle-east only causes blowback. You understood this years ago, but have forgotten Ron Paul's wise words. You've become the extremist advocating for the killing of extremists. You believe Trump has done the right thing by killing "90%" of the extremists. And you and your ilk have doomed us to the inevitable blowback.

"We'll be greeted as liberators."

"They have weapons of mass destruction."

"Now that we've killed 90% of their extremists, we'll finally have peace."

[Swordsmyth]

Um, I consider acptulsa to be an individualist who understands the real principles of liberty. He is unconcerned with the left/right paradigm that permeates most discussion here. Sorry, that you are unable to recognize that.

That must be why he wants government speech control.

[Swordsmyth]

And that is where you have made your mistake. You have errantly resigned yourself to believing there are only two options. As long as that is the case, your destination is assured.

When there is another option please let us know, Trump isn't up for re-election and nobody is running against him, in 2016 Rand lost the primary.

[RJ Liberty]

That must be why he wants government speech control.

Where did Tulsa say he wanted "government speech control"? He said he would like to see the banning of political ads in the mass media. Political ads aren't government speech, are they?

[CaptUSA]

When there is another option please let us know, Trump isn't up for re-election and nobody is running against him, in 2016 Rand lost the primary.

What if we just voted against every incumbent that didn't represent us??? Yeah, that's a novel idea. And we don't EVER excuse ANY politician by saying, "at least he/she's not as bad as the other one". If you ever want to get off this runaway train, you have to stop giving fuel to the engineers.

[Anti Federalist]

Don't get me wrong. I know they're being trained to make scary noises. And there could certainly be geographic differences involved.

But I don't want their game to succeed. How do we stop playing it and short-circuit it instead?

You just said it:

Stop Playing.

If we concentrate on real liberty values/issues and stop spreading the hate, I think we could attract many more to the cause of freedom.

I hear you both loud and clear, and am open to suggestions.

Right now I'd be happy to be just left alone, but it seems that TPTB are not going to allow that, one way or the other I'm going to be forced to make a choice.

[Anti Federalist]

What if we just voted against every incumbent that didn't represent us??? Yeah, that's a novel idea. And we don't EVER excuse ANY politician by saying, "at least he/she's not as bad as the other one". If you ever want to get off this runaway train, you have to stop giving fuel to the engineers.

That's pretty much exactly what happened in the NH House, NH Senate and NH Executive Council.

And now I am going to get gun control, income taxes, sales taxes, mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory helmet laws, mandatory insurance laws, new restrictions on home schooling, new restrictions on land use, MedicAid for all, and a hundred other prog initiatives.

Joy...

The only finger in the dyke to stop it is that people, for some unknown reason, voted for an incumbent GOP governor, probably due to name recognition alone.

[CaptUSA]

That's pretty much exactly what happened in the NH House, NH Senate and NH Executive Council.

And now I am going to get gun control, income taxes, sales taxes, mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory helmet laws, mandatory insurance laws, new restrictions on home schooling, new restrictions on land use, MedicAid for all, and a hundred other prog initiatives.

Joy...

The only finger in the dyke to stop it is that people, for some unknown reason, voted for an incumbent GOP governor, probably due to name recognition alone.

What? In the NH Senate, only 3 incumbents lost - two R's and one D (a couple are still undecided)
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshir...lections,_2018
The NH House, it was worse for team red, but the overall incumbent percentage was still pretty high. https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshir...lections,_2018

It's really the best predictor of an election - who is the incumbent?

[Todd]

The average Democrat is disaffected, disenfranchised and disgusted, and tired of the media characterizing them all as Antifa. For proof one need look no farther than the numbers of them who held their noses and voted for Trump, because they couldn't hold their noses tight enough to keep Clinton's stench out.

This is very true. I know of a socialist.

I'll say again........

"A SOCIALIST".

Not a Democrat but a real live Noam Chomsky, Fidel Castro loving Socialist.

Who voted for Trump because he had no political background or history and he absolutely would not vote for the Clinton corporate machine.

[Krugminator2]

Politics are tribal. The way people will change views is if they have a niche view that a party caters to that causes that person to vote for that party. Those people will then accept the views of that party. For example evangelical Christians. Ronald Reagan won a lot of those people over to be Republicans and all of sudden those people accepted the Republican economic agenda, guns, foreign policy, etc. Grover Norquist is really big on this. Get gun owners, vapers, smokers, etc on your side and they accept the other stuff.

A lot of blue collar workers are now voting Republican because of Trump so they will likely accept more of the Republican agenda by default. Unfortunately it works in reverse. I live in a suburban district, whose last elected Dem served one term in the 1960's, that just put a Dem in the House because of Trump. It will be interesting to see how permanent the Trump influence is.

[Swordsmyth]

Where did Tulsa say he wanted "government speech control"? He said he would like to see the banning of political ads in the mass media. Political ads aren't government speech, are they?

They are speech that he wants the government to control.


I'm still waiting for any of the holier than though self proclaimed anarchists and libertarians to join me in condemning him for it, so far we have one anarchist agreeing with him.

Apparently as long as you support open borders to let communist hordes invade and foreign trade wars against us while opposing Trump it's just fine to support shredding the 1stA.

[Swordsmyth]

What if we just voted against every incumbent that didn't represent us??? Yeah, that's a novel idea. And we don't EVER excuse ANY politician by saying, "at least he/she's not as bad as the other one". If you ever want to get off this runaway train, you have to stop giving fuel to the engineers.

What if I told you it doesn't matter who loses an election? What matters is who wins, causing someone to lose an election doesn't stop their agenda from happening, it may even cause it to happen worse depending on who wins.

The enemy has an unlimited supply of puppets to do their bidding, no matter how many you throw out they will always have more, the only effective thing you can do is to support the best available option until a better option is available.

You aren't cutting off fuel to the engine, you are allowing the speed freak to take over the controls.

[kahless]

That must be why he wants government speech control.

You are not Libertarian enough I guess and you should open yourself up to these suggestions. You know he has been here 10 years, the posting of Soros talking points and free speech restrictions are considered Libertarian here if one simply repeatedly says they are Libertarian. Anyone that disagrees is a trumpcuck. /s

[Swordsmyth]

You are not Libertarian enough I guess and you should open yourself up to these suggestions. You know he has been here 10 years, the posting of Soros talking points and free speech restrictions are considered Libertarian here if one simply repeatedly says they are Libertarian. Anyone that disagrees is a trumpcuck. /s

As long as you hate Trump anything you say is libertarian, the more you hate Trump the more libertarian you are.

McCain actually was a libertarian and Hitlery is the greatest libertarian who ever lived.

[Dr.3D]

Should I jump off a bridge now or should I jump off later?

That might depend on if you like to wait in line.

[kahless]

They are speech that he wants the government to control.


I'm still waiting for any of the holier than though self proclaimed anarchists and libertarians to join me in condemning him for it, so far we have one anarchist agreeing with him.

Apparently as long as you support open borders to let communist hordes invade and foreign trade wars against us while opposing Trump it's just fine to support shredding the 1stA.

Ongoing sham again exposed daily here. Another member will come to give it cover and admonish this kind of talk without taking sides as if we are all libertarians fighting with one another. What a joke.

[dannno]

Forgetting, for a moment, your "90%" made-up statistic, this is not what you previously claimed. You stated "Trump came in and took out the extremists"; this statement is ridiculous on multiple levels. Extremists are found throughout the world. They cannot, and never will be, "taken out" by a single US president, even one as glorious and large-handed as President Trump.

In fact, killing an extremist only creates more: his sons. This was known as far back as 2001: Bombing to eradicate terrorism actually produces the opposite effect:



This was Ron Paul's message years ago. Killing people in the Middle-east only causes blowback. You understood this years ago, but have forgotten Ron Paul's wise words. You've become the extremist advocating for the killing of extremists. You believe Trump has done the right thing by killing "90%" of the extremists. And you and your ilk have doomed us to the inevitable blowback.

"We'll be greeted as liberators."

"They have weapons of mass destruction."

"Now that we've killed 90% of their extremists, we'll finally have peace."

Ya, you are missing a lot here..

I meant the ISIS extremists, specifically the ones we were funding, that were causing massive amounts of death and destruction. Trump destroyed most of them.

That's why you need to read my posts as a whole entity rather than try and pick apart line by line.

[RJ Liberty]

I meant the ISIS extremists, specifically the ones we were funding, that were causing massive amounts of death and destruction. Trump destroyed most of them.

*Sigh* Trump didn't destroy most of the ISIS terrorists: when you kill a terrorist, all you do is create two more.

[acptulsa]

Which is precisely why you are wrong.

If you jog towards tyranny, you have more opportunity to stop it before you fall off the cliff. That is a fact.

You say it's a fact, but the facts don't support your statement.

It's beginning to look like the only chance the American Experiment with Freedom has is the cliff. I'm doubtful these Americans are even going to stop and ask how to fix it until after it gets smashed to pieces.

[nobody's_hero]

Politics is a chicken-egg situation.

Which came first? The politicians? Or the people who voted them into office?

If it's the politicians, we're f'ked, because there's not much we can do and might as well shut the site down and go home because it doesn't matter how many people we "wake up."

If it's the people who voted them into office, then I'm curious to know which side is waking up.

Has the left ever any variation of a tea party? I think the Democratic party is ripe for an internal civil war, but it's not coming. Too focused on beating up the right all the time until they get power again. No policy discussion, no self reflection, just 'Run:Command:'hate the orange man.exe'. The Republican party has had its self-reflection and in my opinion they will have another soon. A tea party 2.0. God willing, it won't be co-opted again, but the point is that the people on the right seem capable of open-mindedness, whereas from what I've seen on the left, they've doubled down on crushing free speech and debate. The Right had their civil war when they were out of power, came back stronger. What has the left done during their time off?

On the Right, the cat's out of the bag. It's sometimes quirky, I'll give you that. When Trump says at a rally, "I want a strong military because I don't want to have to use it" and the crowd erupts into applause, I'm sitting here like, WTF that makes no sense but I've gotta admit it's a start. Republicans would never have cheered for something like that during the Bush or Obama administrations. They couldn't get enough of war.

If your goal is to shrink government, I've always found it easier to work with the average conservative who wants to restrain government than the average liberal who wants to grow it. But if someone can come up with a good reason to support the belief that the left is salvageable, maybe I'll go spend some time on democraticunderground and try to convert them. I'd hate to be missing out on any low-hanging fruit.

[Swordsmyth]

Politics is a chicken-egg situation.

Which came first? The politicians? Or the people who voted them into office?

If it's the politicians, we're f'ked, because there's not much we can do and might as well shut the site down and go home because it doesn't matter how many people we "wake up."

If it's the people who voted them into office, then I'm curious to know which side is waking up.

Has the left ever any variation of a tea party? I think the Democratic party is ripe for an internal civil war, but it's not coming. Too focused on beating up the right all the time until they get power again. No policy discussion, no self reflection, just 'Run:Command:'hate the orange man.exe'. The Republican party has had its self-reflection and in my opinion they will have another soon. A tea party 2.0. God willing, it won't be co-opted again, but the point is that the people on the right seem capable of open-mindedness, whereas from what I've see on the left, they've doubled down on crushing free speech and debate.

On the Right, the cat's out of the bag. It's sometimes quirky, I'll give you that. When Trump says at a rally, "I want a strong military because I don't want to have to use it" and the crowd erupts into applause, I'm sitting here like, WTF that makes no sense but I've gotta admit it's a start. Republicans would never have cheered for something like that during the Bush or Obama administrations. They couldn't get enough of war.

If your goal is to shrink government, I've always found it easier to work with the average conservative who wants to restrain government than the average liberal who wants to grow it. But if someone can come up with a good reason to support the belief that the left is salvageable, maybe I'll go spend some time on democraticunderground and try to convert them.

I'd say you would be wasting your time but they will ban you before you have a chance to waste much.

[RJ Liberty]

Has the left ever any variation of a tea party?

The Left's tea party was OWS: a grassroots effort to remove moneyed interests from politics.

The Republican party has had its self-reflection and in my opinion they will have another soon. A tea party 2.0. God willing, it won't be co-opted again, but the point is that the people on the right seem capable of open-mindedness, whereas from what I've see on the left, they've doubled down on crushing free speech and debate.

I seem to recall a GOP primary where Ron Paul's followers were illegally crushed and removed from the debate, pushed out of event halls, and mocked and denounced by the GOP wing of the press. Don't pretend that the Dems have a lock on crushing free speech. Everyone here witnessed the events of 2007, many of us first-hand.