The Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party

Aside from being naturally inclined to hate all things democratic, as history has shown democracy is a failure, I find that I dislike this current age of political media circus acting just as much.
It is to my understanding that the worship of Plutus is committed by a creed of: accepting; creating; supporting; enslavement in whole or by degree, slovenly or lazy mannerisms that deny responsibility, and greed with gluttony.
That a Plutocrat is one that happily engages in deciet or treachery to any means to enact a course that is just as a worshiper of Plutus would seems obvious. Surely it is no coincidence that the very economic construct of the USA has now been renamed a Plutocracy. And I would find it difficult to imagine that people who so ardently "work" towards giving themselves raises yearly alongside ceaseless "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" quid pro quo nightmares, do not drink, smoke, and or eat together outside of their job and slowly infect each other with their most negative attributes, regardless of declared allegience when in front of a camera acting the role they have chosen themselves or fulfilling obligations made to each other in private meetings.

So how many actual republicans and democrats remain, and how many are just acts supporting only greed even if it costs 10,000+ lives?
All of them. I have never heard of a representative or senator, in my lifetime, stopping a traitor with a bullet & it has been about 20 years since the law was re-written to absolutely revoke the rights of such people. I have never heard of a judge or a president telling the truth about extra terrestrials, which is arguably the most important intelligence in existence, based on changes in logic/reasoning of the most hardened scientists on the planet- all of them as well.

So what is a democrat or a republican? A homo-sapien sapien that outwardly declares an alignment of their nature based upon a stated code of nobility, and that not one of them upholds this code in their expressed demeanor shows their nature to be in opposition of their chosen labeling. So by actions and inactions committed whole under sworn oath, unilaterally by all involved in politics, a republican & a democrat can both be defined as traitors to the people? Did I just logic myself into a hole?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Don't you get it yet? AugustusMasonicus loves progressivism and the democrats because they align better with Augustus socialist views. Yet he pretends to be "a freedom fighter that is against socialism."

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Bluntone22

Let me help you. Forget parties and answer these questions.

Which demographic mostly supported the Republican Party in the past, Progressive Northerners or Conservative Southerners?

Which group mostly supports them now?

ROFLMAO... From day one Republicans have been "pro-business, pro-U.S. Constitution, pro second amendment, pro- equal rights, pro- less taxes, pro-less government control."

From day one democrats have always been "anti-business by stifling businesses with regulations, anti-U.S. Constitution, anti-equal rights/only some should have more rights than others, more government control, bigger government, and the government knows better than you.

What were "progressive northerners", which were still REPUBLICAN even back then, became Republican conservatives/conserving the original ideals of Republicanism." Not to be confused with RINOs.

What were "conservative southerners" are the same people whom to this day still see a violent, national socialist, and racist white supremacist whom was a nazi sympathizer, Margaret Sanger, as an idol. Even when to this day Planned Parenthood has murdered more black, and other minority babies than the KKK could ever have dreamed of... Now the racism is against whites and anyone (including minorities) whom dare be/support Republicanism. Democrats still use the argument of "they are not human, they are property and we can do whatever we want with them" when it comes to the unborn, and even newborns. Democrats/progressives/socialists are the same people whom argued "minorities don't know what's good for them because they are ignorant, but we the white democrats/progressives/socialists etc, know what's best for minorities." If you vote Republican and your skin is black or brown, you are no longer black or brown according to democrats/socialists. Democrats still value race/the skin color of a person more than the content of a person's character, or what people can contribute willingly.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
What she said is historically correct and true. What does Prager have to do with anything? Where did you expect her to work? Berkeley? Jeesh read a history book

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

How dare you insinuate that right wingers are gullible! You realise that's a crime on ats right now lol.

Apparently it's fair game to allow yourself to be brainwashed when you're leaning to the right of the political spectrum.

You don't have to spend too long on the political forums around here to see the shear scale of conservative brain washing going on. Almost every thread uses right wing propoganda sites as source material!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I noticed in your longwinded reply you didn't address the demographic question.

The Republicans were the party of progressivism for close to 70 years, pro-union, pro-minimum wage, pro-wotkers rights, anti-big business, etc.

You have such a boner for your party you can't even admit its history for fear of looking like a bigger fool than you already are.

a reply to: Paul911GT3

Oh boy, one more insult. '' Read a history book''. Good one Paul. You can, if you wish, add your name to a list of people who know the truth of what that woman pointed out. That may be fine with you, but for me, not so much.

You see, I have read history books, lots of them. And in those books I have found that indeed, over the years and over the decades the two party political system has from it's inception has included many people, mostly men, and white men to boot, who have been either supportive of slavery and racism or anti-slavery and racism.

In both parties. Does that jibe with the history books you have read?

To continue. Within either party there has been a balance between these two factors. And of course there are multiple factors of beliefs on issues but let us, you and I, stick to this one issue for now. When the balance between pro slavery and anti slavery begins to move strongly in one direction, those who hold the other view at times either join the other party to add their influence to that other parties struggle on this issue or go off and form a third party where their positions can be more fully expressed.

So yes, as that woman says in her video, the Democrat Party was the party that most expressed the pro slavery issue. At that time and indeed over the following decades. Even on into that last century, there were remnants of it's pro slavery past.

But what I was trying to point out was that what that woman was saying was, even as true as it was, was only ''part of the story''. The rest of the story was left out. It was not told. It was conveniently ignored.

This seemed queer to me so I looked up what kind of university person who spoke out like that could be. And what I found was that the university person, this woman, a spokeswoman for Prager University, was not working for a REAL university, but rather an on line propaganda outlet called PragerU. That name sounded familiar, so I looked it up.

PragerU is

PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative or right-wing perspective. The organization was co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager

And Dennis Prager is

is an American conservative radio talk show host and writer

And all of that is fine with me, except for the university part. His organization is not a university. It offers no degrees, it offers no classes or anything else. All it offers is conservative propaganda under the name of being a university.

So why not just call his organization a '' think tank'' or a ''news outlet'' or something else. Why call it a university? You can think on that one if you want.

So, have I tried to explain my earlier comments enough for you? Yes, what that woman said was, as you say, '' historically correct and true''. However when I called what she said a ''half truth'' I used that term not to say that what she said was not true, but rather true only as far as it went. It did not deliver the ''whole truth''. Only a partial truth that suited the purposes of PragerU and it's stilted biases.

a reply to: jamespond

Yes, gullible people. I agree but I also recognize this to be a human attribute, human across the board. It's a human weakness I guess. I also suppose that this gullibility springs from our earliest times, training us all to be working parts of a whole. Our earliest training was to listen to the elders of the tribe so that the tribe could survive. Those tribes that survived became towns and then cities that survived. Then nations that survived, all on the foundation of accepting the authority of those who led. Accepting that authority without learning to question it. But that's a whole other topic.

I think that there are two steps in recognizing how gullible we are. First is in recognizing it in other people, and second, recognizing how we ourselves are gullible. ATS, in my opinion is filled with people who have succeeded in that first step.
Being successful in that second step, well, that's the real hard one ain't it?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: jamespond

Yes, gullible people. I agree but I also recognize this to be a human attribute, human across the board. It's a human weakness I guess.

Most definitely. It takes a strong mind to resist a coordinated attempt to corrupt it. And an even stronger mind to break out of that corruption once it has invested into it.

I also suppose that this gullibility springs from our earliest times, training us all to be working parts of a whole. Our earliest training was to listen to the elders of the tribe so that the tribe could survive. Those tribes that survived became towns and then cities that survived. Then nations that survived, all on the foundation of accepting the authority of those who led. Accepting that authority without learning to question it. But that's a whole other topic.

Possibly! I think most people are born followers rather than natural leaders, so that doesn't help when the general narrative is controlled.

I think that there are two steps in recognizing how gullible we are. First is in recognizing it in other people, and second, recognizing how we ourselves are gullible. ATS, in my opinion is filled with people who have succeeded in that first step.

An interesting comment. Personally I'd say the first step is to recognise it in yourself, otherwise its difficult to spot it anywhere else. But i agree that on ATS people only see it in other people and don't give a second thought to how they themselves have been affected.

a reply to: jamespond

An interesting comment. Personally I'd say the first step is to recognise it in yourself, otherwise its difficult to spot it anywhere else. But i agree that on ATS people only see it in other people and don't give a second thought to how they themselves have been affected.

You may be right here James. As I think about it, that makes a lot of sense. Myself, I was caught up in a cult to make the world better when I was young though I broke free of it almost fifty years ago. I looked around and tried to discover what had happened to me and in my study of phychology and stuff came to realized that it was a common aspect of most human behavior. And the more I think about it, the more I agree with you. The way I put it earlier seems to be just too great a step to do it the other way, recognizing it in others first and then yourself. So I think you are correct though of course once recognizing it in others then leads to further insight into ones own self.

Possibly! I think most people are born followers rather than natural leaders, so that doesn't help when the general narrative is controlled.

I wonder though at this concept of a natural leader. Is it natural or is it just the advent of circumstance where one is either stronger or a better fighter or happens upon s certain knowledge that they then either take advantage of either for their own personal desires or that of the tribe. This is a deeper question that I'm not prepared to evaluate for now. I'm sure it will percolate somewhere in my head until I can offer more.

Most definitely. It takes a strong mind to resist a coordinated attempt to corrupt it. And an even stronger mind to break out of that corruption once it has invested into it.

This is a crux discussion to me. If we have all been trained from those early days to follow rather than lead, the question arises was this the best way for humanity to progress. Maybe not the best but what else could we know at this point, it's what happened. So if we hold to that ages long training, what we see now is not in line with how we have always been.

That is this notion of each individual being unique and trying to be all that we can be. I think that this is new. Well maybe not completely new as in the past those avenues to express our individuality or even to develop it were not really available to each and every person.

Now however those avenues seem to be more available. For instance the advent of musical people. We look at the wide range of musical types and the proficiency that is now being displayed, and even by young people is simply amazing. Where in the past there were one or two Mozart's coming along here and there, now we see genius almost everywhere. It's simply amazing.

We look back and Michael Jordan. Before him sure there were great players but he set an entirely new threshold for skill and did things no one else had ever done. Now there are others grown well up to his level. And how about Steph Curry. Until him, NO ONE could hit that three pointer. A few now and then, here and there, but it took him to make it clear that this was a possibility. He single handedly changed the whole game. Now there are others who are surpassing him.

Im sorry James, once again I trailed off into examples, which is another interesting topic. How we so often get side lined from original topics into examples. Oh well.

Toss something back to me, and maybe I can keep on track. Something other than a ball that is.

a reply to: face23785 Libertarians sound great until you get into the reality of what would happen. The economic policy of Libertarians as I understand is to end all welfare programs, minimum wage etc., which would include Social Security, Medicare subsidized health insurance etc. The basis is don't want to be taxed and pay for stuff benefiting others. It takes away from my freedoms to pay that tax.

Most people in the world are honest, hard working, stupid, they have 2 kids, go to work 5 days a week 52 weeks a year, lose their job in their late 50s or early 60s and don't save much money because they never made a lot. They are basically good folks and what make America really great. Generally, they got exploited by the system and kicked out when they are no longer of use. I was an M&A guy in my career and kicked a few people out along the way because of numbers. I slept a bit better at night knowing there was a social net there to catch most of them.

Guess what, if you kick all those folks off of social welfare when they need it, they will come after you with torches and pitchforks. They might be using canes and walkers, but they will come for you. For most of those folks, that social welfare is nothing other than deferred compensation they earned by their hard work during their lifetime. I am not talking about welfare bums here, but truly hardworking good people. We owe them. If you don't think so, fine. But, the system works by taking care of them.

BTW, the other reason why America is so wealthy is we have pushed our economic agenda on a global basis backed by the barrel of the American military weaponry. That stuff is expensive. Corporations whine to the high heavens about how they are over taxed and receive no benefit when they are the greatest beneficiary of government services. You look at American embassies and they are 1/3 diplomatic, 1/3 business development and 1/3 CIA. But, the main goal is to further American interest and in particular economic interests.

I have been around the block a few times in my lifetime. A little empathy and a little sharing buys a lot of peace and harmony. There is real value in that whether you want to accept that or not.

a reply to: 727Sky
I don't like the framing of anti polygamy as pro women. Wasn't it clearly anti Mormon in its intent?

That's the only thing that seems a little misguiding.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The history of Prager U is that it is a non-profit that was formed to counter leftist narratives and slant in higher education. The nonprofit set as its mission statement a desire to educate the general public with a series of educators and experts worthy of teaching at universities in the Western Hemisphere. In this instance the group is not using the term “university” to create the impression that they are a real university, but as a qualifier for the level of product they present. They also believe their content to be a “next level” or a higher education for those who seek to counter leftist arguments.

But nice try on deflecting from the source material rather than attacking the argument.

Today the Republicans and Democrats are two colours of the same party, They both act on behalf of the same big donors, They stopped acting on behalf of the people, a long time ago.

originally posted by: ThouArtGod
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The history of Prager U is that it is a non-profit that was formed to counter leftist narratives and slant in higher education. The nonprofit set as its mission statement a desire to educate the general public with a series of educators and experts worthy of teaching at universities in the Western Hemisphere. In this instance the group is not using the term “university” to create the impression that they are a real university, but as a qualifier for the level of product they present. They also believe their content to be a “next level” or a higher education for those who seek to counter leftist arguments.

But nice try on deflecting from the source material rather than attacking the argument.

I think the point being made was that source material is misleading and biased. Which it is.

When the source material becomes honest and unbiased then we can have an intelligent debate about it.

a reply to: ThouArtGod

Thank you for highlighting the ''spin'' with which Prager excuses the presumption that information, or lack of information as in the case of the video, which aligns with his own perception of complex political issues is best presented to the public under the false claim of ''university status''. The only accreditation of his ''outlet'' is what he himself sets.

If as you suggest ''they also believe their content to be a ''next level'' or a higher education for those who seek to counter lefits arguments'' is true, then I suggest our next step to be just how have they achieved this ''goal'' though that video.

Taking that ''goal'' of countering leftist arguments can be easily accomplished. Either by lying or by not presenting a whole truth. In the case of that video, it did not utilize lying but instead utilized presenting a half truth for those who are willing to accept it as a whole truth. I have posted several times in this threat already, maybe not the whole truth'' but at least a broader truth about the changing attitudes and beliefs within the political party system in this nation over the last hundred and fifty years.

You can find them and if you wish ,may or may not, desire to discuss those with me more fully. Some people from early in the thread have already dismissed this information by discrediting the idea of ''switching parties'' in a two or three sentence expose of ignorance.

As for your claim of deflection, you may notice from my first post that I commented on the veracity of the information contained in the video as being factual, but factual only so far as any ''half truth'' can be. Factual by omission of information pertinent to a full understanding of the issue at hand. It was only when I had been left dumbfounded by the lack of information in the video and had displayed before me on my screen a large swath of videos available from a source calling itself PragerU, that I looked into the ''source'' and relayed what I had found to the thread. I found that indeed, the goal of PragerU was not to educate but rather only to provide fodder for those who would ''counter leftist arguments''.