Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Kneepocalypse, Jul 15, 2017 at 11:53 PM.
Boy it sure is interesting.
For all their talk about helping the less fortunate... Dems really do seem to give a shit about the less fortunate.
And for all their talk about giving advantages to companies and individuals that already have advantages, the Republicans really do seem to not give a shit about the less fortunate.
Democrats in California just killed single-payer. They don't care about the middle and working classes any more than the Republicans.
They did? thats not what the vote totals said.
The best part of this thread are the conservative responses that prove the original post correct.
Peterson's research found that people vote their temperament. Liberal affiliation is predicted by high trait openness and high trait agreeableness. Conservative affiliation is predicted by high trait conscientiousness and low trait openness, expressing itself as a need to preserve current social structures.
What the guy wrote doesn't suggest a conservative temperament at all. There are signs of high openness and high agreeableness all the way through. If he was actually a GOP supporter, he misclassified himself into the wrong party, it wasn't some kind of epiphany. Obviously the article itself is condescending, virtue signalling garbage about how he overcame "the error of his ways" and found the one true god became a democrat.
On another note, trade deals and open borders isn't really a liberal economic policy. It's a corporation's wet dream: easily outsourcing jobs to other countries and importing desperate, cheap labour to depress wages of natives. The democrats didn't use to be the party of open borders, back in the day they had concerns about labour. They became pro open borders presumably when they realized that Mexicans and South Americans tend to become lifetime supporters of the party which allowed them to get in, even if their cultures are traditionally conservative. But the reason I say it isn't really a liberal economic policy is that people with high trait openness tend to like open borders, they're a bit xenophile by nature. Their need for social openness seems to usually override their need for a pro-labour policy. How useless is that?
Can you give me an example of them caring about the poor? (Didn't even mention the Republicans)
Is it the great social advances in Democratic strongholds like Chicago and Baltimore?
The great charity work they do like donating to the pockets of the Clintons and Obamas after they leave office?
The way they look the other way when Wall Street gets all the breaks at the expense of Main Street?
The way they like bombing poor people in other countries and causing chaos at the huge cost of more poor people?
The way they like arming foreign gangs and are happy for local gangs to have weapons but hate the idea of poor law abiding citizens having the means to adequately defend themselves?
Just explain a bit better this huge love the Democrat Party has for poor people?
Just finishing off I'll leave you with a quote from the defacto founder of the modern day Democrat Party, Lyndon Johnson:
"I'll have those n***ers voting Democrat for 200 years"
Believe me nothing has changed You can just take out the n word and substitute it with any group that fits the identity politics victimhood narrative that is the Democrat calling card.
How about demanding and then passing a universal health care package that insures millions who didn't formerly have anything?
That the GOP ridiculed for decades but are now desperate to mutilate and rebrand as their own?
wait...Trump won, TS expresses butthurt....resulting to Trump supporter jimmies rustled?
Who are you quoting in the OP? Which high level politician just switched parties?
There you go banging on about the ONE issue you actually care about again.
These are my biggest concerns. I have mentioned them often around here. There is a significant number of the Sherdog membership that continually maintains the fiction that its the fault of the poor that they are poor and that the rich are their victims. Fuck them.
How is that any different than when Obama won and the Tea Party was formed?
I thought the exact same thing. Illinois could not be in any worse shape and it's all because of the Democrats. Obvious troll job.
There will always be a certain percentage of poor and it seems to be around 15% no matter what social programs or how much money we throw at it. Why is it not legitimate to question that? And why is it the government's job to do something about it? If you guys really care so much how much time are you spending at the soup kitchen? How much money are you donating to the poor? Or do you just want to b**** about it, blame rich people. Typical for someone on the left.
I have no idea who that guy is. But if he thinks he's trading up then he is nuts.
The Right has too many Russian Sympthizers in their ranks. Their Russian 1st mentality is traitorous. Party is now a bunch of Benedict Arnolds.
Left a political party to become an Independent. Great!
Realized that as an Independent, he wouldn't have access to a political party's coffers and donor lists. So, he join another political party. Booo!
"Scratch a progressive and you'll find an idealist willing to sacrifice some things for progress. Scratch a conservative, and you'll find an idealist who prefers the past over any possible future."
What's typical is misstating information for the purpose of supporting your bullshit idea. Poverty is at an all-time low, or it was, thanks to anti-poverty programs. No program is 100% successful but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. Yes, it seems like there will always be poor people; it doesn't get better by fighting against giving them help, like the Republicans are intent on doing, even though their base appear to be the most dependent upon such programs. They'll keep getting away with it too as the states are allowed to put made up shit in text books so they can keep them stupid. Tell me again about what's typical for someone on the left (although I am pretty centrist from what I can tell-it's a shifting spectrum in NA these days.)