The Left Does not Reason

[clubgop]

Where has this been proven?
Serious question...
I want to get to the bottom of this Soros thing.

I have heard this on this board and on DCF. It's basically a right-winged conspiracy theory that tries to explain why so many people are protesting Trump- other than that a lot of people fear/hate the guy.

WTF?

It's on tax returns and accounting records. Project Veritas has democratic party operatives admitting they do it on camera. Where the fuck have you been for the past year? Holy shit. No wonder the DNC gets away with murder. You people are oblivious.

There are not oblivious, they are bad parents. LVH admitted to it, people are rejecting identity politics but the left is doubling down on it and throwing a hissyfit and they dont have the intestinal fortitude to discipline the SJWs or corporate establishment (Soros) that funds it. You know it, I know it, they know it. In a couple of post Penner here +1 on the admission of that fact and then in the next post he denies the post he just lauded. The cognitive dissonance on display is concious and purposeful.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Where has this been proven?
Serious question...
I want to get to the bottom of this Soros thing.

I have heard this on this board and on DCF. It's basically a right-winged conspiracy theory that tries to explain why so many people are protesting Trump- other than that a lot of people fear/hate the guy.

Bitch I posted the article. It is public knowledge it is on tax forms. I know it requires research and reading beyond your bubble media world but it is there. Yes everyone fears Trump but your candidate was beloved we are all just misgyonist. Keep on losing bitches.

It's one thing to call me "bitch", but Penner is a female, in case you missed it. Don't cross that line, dickhead.

Point out for us whatever evidence Faux Noise told you about, or shut the fuck up already.

[LVH2]

Usually, when people say operatives turned a protest into a riot, it is the protesting side claiming it was done to subvert them and maybe open the door for police violence.

But, again, supposing hillary and soros did this, what does that have to do woth either the left or reason? It would seem to exonerate them of wrongdoing, if anything. It would all be the work of elite globalist scum.

@clubby, i have, in fact, impotently raged against the authoritarian and anti intellectual left both here and more publicly many times. Probably more than is healthy. And refused to vote climton.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, in this case, it was an employee of the Clinton campaign. Nice try at obfuscation (again).

[JohnDonne]

I was just outlining how the Republicans went from big gov to small gov, I'm not trying to argue policy verse personnel. I don't even think those are mutually exclusive.

When I think about it, it''s not surprising that the South, which was defeated by the Federal government, would always be represented by the party of small government. In any case, I only claim that it is regional culture that defines the parties which control (or rather caters to) them, not the other way around. It's plain to see that the spirit of the 1860s Democrats is alive and well in the Southern Republicans of today.

Just to put a point on it, if the Democrat party is the same as then, why don't those modern confederate flag wavers vote Democrat so that the South will rise again? Why do they look to the Republican party for their leadership, the ones you claim destroyed their way of life?

I see a much more complex South in the voting record. And I think GOP makes an excellent point that if the South is agaist big government why do the vote for big government all the time ? Robert(Cyclops) Byrd of WV is a prime example. People stuck with the Democrat for over 60 years.


The Dems held the south through FDR in 44.
In 48 many in the south started looking for a different party, Florida went GOP, that continued through 68
there were several 3rd parties that gained a lot of attention over that 20 year span
Then in 72 Nixon won in a landslide, pretty much the whole county, over 500 electoral votes
In 76 the south went back to the Dems
in 80 and 84 Reagan won landslides again, probably more a view of how bad the Dems were
in 92 and 96 the Dems and GOP split the south
W won the south in 00 and 04
The south has not been as nearly monolithic in voting as it is portrayed

People will make arguments about this Dixiecrat switch, but that is a myth. Also when you look at who held the Governor seats in these states you see a much different picture. The GOP didn't hold a majority of Governors in the South until 1996. I don't see where there was some magical switch.

Just because Nixon kicked Dems ass in 1972, doesn't mean there was a switch of ideology. Nixon won 49 states.
Then what am I to believe about 1976-1980 when Carter swept the South and the Democrats held 79% of the governor seats ?


I'm not saying the Democrats are the same, but what I do see out of Democrat party that has never changed is there hatred for personal Liberty. The Democrats hold people down all throughout their history and stifle personal liberty.

I agree that it is far from simple. From what I can tell there was no "magical switch moment." That's a red herring.
It's to be expected that over the course of a hundred plus years there were countless moments which caused voter allegiances to shift, moments which defied party identity, and then regressions and reinforcements of old identities. To go through everything and create a seamless picture of how it all happened would be tedious and the task of many historians. Perhaps if looked at from afar the trends would be much clearer, because you're right that it's very convoluted that the South kept switching back and forth, but that's the way life is, complicated.

There are key moments historians point to foreshadowing what now exists. Keep in mind that not one of them is "The moment."

Here are some:

Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Republican president, later runs against Taft as the bull moose party because Taft was too conservative.
Hoover, Republican president, ran against a Catholic Democrat, used the KKK's hatred of Catholic's in the South. Won Texas and other ex-confederate states.
FDR: Progressive Democrat: Created the FEPC and New Deal.
Goldwater. Republican against civil rights, turned many black republicans towards Democrats.
Nixon. Southern strategy, captures the South some more.
Reagan. South is still a stronghold for Democrats, but Reagan Woos the religious right.

If you claim that these are just presidents remember that a president can rebrand party identities and set national agendas.

The fact of the matter is the Democrats are the progressive (Progressive isn't code for not racist) party now and the Republicans are the conservative (Conservative is not code for racist) party. It requires an explanation. The switch theory is generally agreed upon and aligns with our present perceptions, historian accounts, and common sense.

If you deny the switch theory, you can either claim that Democrats were always progressive, which doesn't bear out well in history, or you can say they were never progressive, which is a denial of the present moment. So you have all the work ahead of you to explain the "true" story and how the "myth" has become so pervasive as to be widely accepted by historians and common people alike.

[DrYouth]

Jesus Clubgop... take a pharmaceutical dude... or blow into a paperbag or something...

I'm interested in this Soros funding angle.
I heard about in on No Agenda... in regards to the "women's march" but I haven't heard much about what this guys motives are.
I don't trust the Democratic Party's agenda... I have no doubt they would manipulate the mainstream towards their own ends.
I'm looking to understand this... not to create smokescreens...

I'm not really buying the "right wing conspiracy" angle on the Soros thing...
at least not yet.

[LVH2]

Well, in this case, it was an employee of the Clinton campaign. Nice try at obfuscation (again).

ij

I am not obfuscating or creating a smokescreen.

I'm skeptical of your story but i guess I'd prefer it to be true.

Either hillary and soros, rich globalist elites who have little to do with the left, paid people to be violent. OR the violence happened because there is a problem with authoritarianism on the left.

Can't be both. If it was all hillary and soros I'd be relieved. The real protestors were peaceful and only the hired goons were violent.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, in this case, it was an employee of the Clinton campaign. Nice try at obfuscation (again).

ij

I am not obfuscating or creating a smokescreen.

I'm skeptical of your story but i guess I'd prefer it to be true.

Either hillary and soros, rich globalist elites who have little to do with the left, paid people to be violent. OR the violence happened because there is a problem with authoritarianism on the left.

Can't be both. If it was all hillary and soros I'd be relieved. The real protestors were peaceful and only the hired goons were violent.

The "real protesters" were standing by doing nothing when Antifa began beating on people. Witnesses claim the "protesters" seemed to approve and enjoyed it.

I no longer believe you can be on the side of the democratic party and not condone this violence. You all damned well know this is political violence perpetrated by the democratic party itself. You pretend like you don't approve, but you do nothing, and as we have seen in numerous such riots, you do nothing.

Imagine for a moment if this were the other way around. Imagine if a BLM speaker were holding an event at a university lecture hall, and you saw thousands of republicans protesting outside saying that those people should not be allowed to even speak their views. Then an armed and hooded militia funded by the republican party marched onto the scene in military formation and proceeded to beat the people who attended to the BLM lecture with metal poles. While this happens, the republican mayor orders the police to stand down, allowing the militia to beat several people unconscious break bones, beat several women in their faces and then pepper spray them as they collapsed to the ground, and all the while the republican "protesters" just stood there, enjoying the spectacle.

That's exactly what the left has done in America. If it were the other way around, we would still be hearing about it nonstop in the MSM. We would be talking about America under siege. You guys would be going crazy with outrage and condemnation.

But when you do it, you just write these long-winded posts excusing it. Enough. I have literally had enough of this. You have to either reject this and move on or just admit you support it at this point.

I am telling you right now, If I see some woman getting beaten in the face with a club and then maced for wearing the wrong hat, I am engaged in the fight to try to stop it. I don't care who she is, whether I agree with her, or who is doing the beating. Apparently, that's an important distinction dividing us right now, and it makes me sick.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, in this case, it was an employee of the Clinton campaign. Nice try at obfuscation (again).

ij

I am not obfuscating or creating a smokescreen.

I'm skeptical of your story but i guess I'd prefer it to be true.

Either hillary and soros, rich globalist elites who have little to do with the left, paid people to be violent. OR the violence happened because there is a problem with authoritarianism on the left.

Can't be both. If it was all hillary and soros I'd be relieved. The real protestors were peaceful and only the hired goons were violent.

The "real protesters" were standing by doing nothing when Antifa began beating on people. Witnesses claim the "protesters" seemed to approve and enjoyed it.

I no longer believe you can be on the side of the democratic party and not condone this violence. You all damned well know this is political violence perpetrated by the democratic party itself. You pretend like you don't approve, but you do nothing, and as we have seen in numerous such riots, you do nothing.

Imagine for a moment if this were the other way around. Imagine if a BLM speaker were holding an event at a university lecture hall, and you saw thousands of republicans protesting outside saying that those people should not be allowed to even speak their views. Then an armed and hooded militia funded by the republican party marched onto the scene in military formation and proceeded to beat the people who attended to the BLM lecture with metal poles. While this happens, the republican mayor orders the police to stand down, allowing the militia to beat several people unconscious break bones, beat several women in their faces and then pepper spray them as they collapsed to the ground, and all the while the republican "protesters" just stood there, enjoying the spectacle.

That's exactly what the left has done in America. If it were the other way around, we would still be hearing about it nonstop in the MSM. We would be talking about America under siege. You guys would be going crazy with outrage and condemnation.

But when you do it, you just write these long-winded posts excusing it. Enough. I have literally had enough of this. You have to either reject this and move on or just admit you support it at this point.

I am telling you right now, If I see some woman getting beaten in the face with a club and then maced for wearing the wrong hat, I am engaged in the fight to try to stop it. I don't care who she is, whether I agree with her, or who is doing the beating. Apparently, that's an important distinction dividing us right now, and it makes me sick.

In that hypothetical, if I were to know for a fact that the violence was funded by the party, then I wouldn't blame the bystanders, and certainly not the mainstream Right, much less the people on here.

It takes a special kind of Stupid to blame people completely unrelated, for something you believe to be a false-flag operation.

[Speaker to Animals]

ij

I am not obfuscating or creating a smokescreen.

I'm skeptical of your story but i guess I'd prefer it to be true.

Either hillary and soros, rich globalist elites who have little to do with the left, paid people to be violent. OR the violence happened because there is a problem with authoritarianism on the left.

Can't be both. If it was all hillary and soros I'd be relieved. The real protestors were peaceful and only the hired goons were violent.

The "real protesters" were standing by doing nothing when Antifa began beating on people. Witnesses claim the "protesters" seemed to approve and enjoyed it.

I no longer believe you can be on the side of the democratic party and not condone this violence. You all damned well know this is political violence perpetrated by the democratic party itself. You pretend like you don't approve, but you do nothing, and as we have seen in numerous such riots, you do nothing.

Imagine for a moment if this were the other way around. Imagine if a BLM speaker were holding an event at a university lecture hall, and you saw thousands of republicans protesting outside saying that those people should not be allowed to even speak their views. Then an armed and hooded militia funded by the republican party marched onto the scene in military formation and proceeded to beat the people who attended to the BLM lecture with metal poles. While this happens, the republican mayor orders the police to stand down, allowing the militia to beat several people unconscious break bones, beat several women in their faces and then pepper spray them as they collapsed to the ground, and all the while the republican "protesters" just stood there, enjoying the spectacle.

That's exactly what the left has done in America. If it were the other way around, we would still be hearing about it nonstop in the MSM. We would be talking about America under siege. You guys would be going crazy with outrage and condemnation.

But when you do it, you just write these long-winded posts excusing it. Enough. I have literally had enough of this. You have to either reject this and move on or just admit you support it at this point.

I am telling you right now, If I see some woman getting beaten in the face with a club and then maced for wearing the wrong hat, I am engaged in the fight to try to stop it. I don't care who she is, whether I agree with her, or who is doing the beating. Apparently, that's an important distinction dividing us right now, and it makes me sick.

In that hypothetical, if I were to know for a fact that the violence was funded by the party, then I wouldn't blame the bystanders, and certainly not the mainstream Right, much less the people on here.

It takes a special kind of Stupid to blame people completely unrelated, for something you believe to be a false-flag operation.

Except when the left did this in actuality, you blamed the woman getting her faced smashed with a club and then pepper sprayed.

Again, that's what seems to divide us here. It's revolting that you adhere to this double standard, but you do. It cannot be denied any longer.