Is there a difference

Post Reply New Topic

Ever notice how liberals endlessly talk about saving the downtrodden but when they contact real poor people in real life they view them as irresponsible and pretty much think they should pull themselves up by there own bootstraps?

My sister a hopeless liberal,always talking about the republicans screwing over the poor and so on.I came to visit her and she and her husband picked me up at the train station.We were confronted by a homeless man and not only wouldn't she give him money,she wouldn't even look him in the eye.Typical liberal.

Are you getting the gist of my post now?

NP my friend

That's one thing I like about Biden.

It's possible he won't do anything he says.

This is a doggy whistle for "I hate the poor. They shouldn't exist, it's their fault they are in poverty."

Also let's hope they don't fall on hard times where they lose their jobs and need help. Lot of them were whining about having to get unemployment and surprise surprise they couldn't get a different perspective and instead pretended this was all a hoax done by democrats and the whole corona thing being made up by them too.

Free healthcare, UK, Canada, Australia has it and they do pretty well. Plus you can still get private healthcare in those countries, you can still get a medical bill but you won't see a $6,000 medical bill in your home.

So sorry for being as burden to anyone because of my disability and that I will never be able to get a college degree because of my learning disorder, I will keep existing to continuing pissing off conservative and republicans.

Now excuse me while I go book a cruise and enjoy my nice time while I continue getting "free" money from the gov since all the republicans seem to think we live a luxurious life.

Obama was reelect, as far as I remember (both by popular vote and electoral college). Clinton ran against Trump, but Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, so I am not quite sure of your point about Obama, who is still a popular president. Bush Senior did not do as well, (cherry picking is not my thing). Clinton (Bill) was able to reverse the deficits of the Reagan/Bush administrations and leave the economy in great shape. Bush Jr with policies of deregulation left America with the worst recession since the Great Depression (although he did bail out the banksters so they could pay their bonuses with TARP and that deregulation is something of a Republican cornerstone from the Reagan administration). Obama started with huge unemployment and a poor economy which made a consistent recover through both his terms. He handed that to Trump. That trend continued with Trump, except Trump had a massive tax giveaway increasing the deficit and leaving the country in a worse shape for another recession. Trump has also bungled the COVID response creating greater unemployment and economic hardship than there needs to be.

[/quote]Reagan did such a bad job governing that he was re-elected in one of the greatest landslides ever. And Trump, well we shall see won't we.[/quote]

Yes, the honest Reagan years. Please Google Reagan's Southern Strategy. I would also look into the Iran-Contra Affair.

As far as governing, are you saying that deficit spending is good policy? He increase our deficit significantly. Naturally, he also attacked our government--he is really the model for anti-government sentiment today. Reagan brought in neoliberal economics (or supply-side economics), which have never been proven to work (tax cuts do not pay for themselves). That simply resulted in increasing economic inequality and the stagnation in poor and middle-call earnings that we still have not recovered from since. Unfortunately, as demonstrated here, elections tend to be personality contests, not policy discussions. Reagan was very popular, but his policies continue to negatively impact this nation today.

BTW, a lot of bad leaders are very popular, Putin, for example. That is why I think we should be talking about the issues and governance.



We were mired in WWI and WWII? I guess we read different history books. We entered WWI very late. In regards to WWII, I guess I don't see fighting fascism a bad thing. Naturally, some Conservative were sympathetic towards the NAZI, but I am happy to be be on the anti-NAZI side here.

I did not condone the Korean or Vietnam wars, although Conservative did support them very strongly. And this is your constant mistake, I am driven by policy and issues. I am not a cheerleader for political personalities or parties. But it is important to not that the Republican and Democratic parties do not represent the conservative or liberal policy divide universally. Southern Democrats were a conservative group and supporters of segregation. There is a huge difference between the Republicans of Lincoln and the modern Republican party.

Now, for balance, do you want to talk about Republican wars? The biggest ones are continuing today. We are currently supporting wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan,



Well, you can worry about Twitter storms. I give you my permission.

We are talking about your sister?

Here's one kind of radical change I suggested in another thread.

I said my sister didn't I,was I talking about someone else's sister

Which is exactly what the liberals believe in there real thoughts,the republicans just bluntly say what they think.

Oh but we should ALL be thankful for those big tax cuts for the super rich because those people are soooo generous with their money (not).

Also according to Evangelicals and their prosperity gospel bs anybody who is rich deserves to get into heaven while the rest of us peasants and beggars deserve to burn in hell forever for being poor.

But remember these rich bastards are soooo generous to us.

Perhaps Marie Antoinette and her hubby Louis XVI suggested the same thing to the people of France before the Revolution happened?

And liberals believe everything you just said,the republicans just crudely say whats on there minds and don't try to lie and pretend to be benevolent.

That is the point of this thread!

Sorry, we are talking about someone else's sister. That is an extremely small sample from which to draw a conclusion.

Last edited by Jiheisho on 22 Aug 2020, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And just because Republicans are more upfront about their evil intentions that does not make them any less evil.

you're confusing Trump with the whole GOP.

Trump may be "blunt" and "direct". But GOP pols in general are no more blunt and straightforward than are any other pols.

Actually that IS a characteristic of populists, right and left. To throw out red meat to the crowd - by saying things on the minds of millions - in a direct way. What they say may actually be the truth, or it maybe big lies that their audience wants to believe. But they spout simple direct stuff that fits into a soundbite, and get big reactions from the crowd.

One man's "populist" is another man's "rabble rouser". So I will let you be the judge who of the below is which, but..

Hitler was a populist/rabble rouser, and he was rather direct and unvarnished in speaking.

Segregationist George Wallace was rather direct, and his campaign rallies sounded like rock concerts.

And in 2016 both major parties had populist uprisings led by straight talkers: Sanders and Trump.

And crowds ate up both of them. Indeed Robert Reich explains how countless frustrated ordinary voters he spoked to across the land eschewed establishment candidates of either party, and said that they wanted "someone like Trump or Sanders". In Reich's mind Sanders and Trump were polar opposites so it was baffling to him how folks could speak of both of them in the same breath. But apparently millions long for change. And both Sanders and Trump offered that.

So, like when Republicans show sympathy for mass shootings and then simply say it is never the time to address the issue? When Republican's claim that environmental regulations kill jobs (they don't, BTW), when what they really mean is they harm profits. Or when Republican's claim to pass anti-union and collective bargaining legislation to protect workers, when they are protecting employers. Or when Republicans pretend to want to prevent voter fraud (which is not an issue in the US), but pass voting restrictions, especially against minorities, to help themselves in elections. When Republicans pretend to care about the Federal deficit and then pass tax cuts and unfunded spending that raise deficits? Naturally, they lie about tax cuts paying for themselves. Or when they state we cannot afford social programs, but then raise spending on defense? This list could go on and on.

Your hypothesis does not stand up to evidence.