So el let me ask you this. Let’s turn the tables for a moment. You would agree that at least some government is beneficial to society right? And in fact the absence of government is anarchy correct? So you would agree that the belief in at least some government is necessary to ensure stability and prevent chaos? So doesn’t that prove that what you just posted, which is an effort to show that belief in government is misplaced is actually a bad argument? In fact not believing in government seems to be irrational since the absence is anarchy, whereas the belief in at least some government by no other alternative is rational and sensible. So therefore liberals are correct in having confidence in the ability of government. I just demonstrated an indisputable logical step by step conclusion.
They do not know how to speak in language that the working class will understand.
Trump does, and did.
That is why he won.
Trump speaks in dumbed down rhetoric that is over-simplified and easily digested by his idiot base of under educated trailer trash racists. It’s intentionally done to manipulate their emotions, get them to believe lies, and con them out of their votes while giving them nothing in return. It’s right out of Hitler’s playbook.
Dems/letists (the usual suspects) use up a lot of time talking about how smart they are but then they spend most of the time catering to the least intelligent, most criminally inclined segments of the population.
The author says that liberals started the Cold War.
That is a bit simplistic, but it does have some merit.
However, it was conservatives who won the Cold War!
So the article you posted is just an excerpt of an author’s book. His analysis is largely painted by his opinions, which are no more informed than mine or yours. So the article you posted doesn’t count as any form of objective evidence in the slightest. It’s the same as going up to a random average Joe in the street and asking him who started the Cold War. The only difference is the author of the book can fool you because he is more educated and articulate. That doesn’t mean his theories are correct though.
Conservatives did not win the Cold War. They illegally plundered vast resources from other nations through secret wars, covert operations, and dishonest deals and eventually priced some of the Communist nations out of the emerging global market, forcing them to abandon collectivism and institute capitalist markets which ended up allowing for the same inequalities in other capitalist societies. The Conservatives didn’t win anything. They out priced nations whose citizens were already struggling under collectivism and made hundreds of peoples lives even worse by pricing them out of basic resources. This led to the perestroika movements and others like it open to freer markets because the only alternative was starvation. How are forcing innocent people into starvation and limiting their choices winning anything? Nobody won anything.
So the article you posted is just an excerpt of an author’s book. His analysis is largely painted by his opinions, which are no more informed than mine or yours. So the article you posted doesn’t count as any form of objective evidence in the slightest. It’s the same as going up to a random average Joe in the street and asking him who started the Cold War. The only difference is the author of the book can fool you because he is more educated and articulate. That doesn’t mean his theories are correct though.
Conservatives did not win the Cold War. They illegally plundered vast resources from other nations through secret wars, covert operations, and dishonest deals and eventually priced some of the Communist nations out of the emerging global market, forcing them to abandon collectivism and institute capitalist markets which ended up allowing for the same inequalities in other capitalist societies. The Conservatives didn’t win anything. They out priced nations whose citizens were already struggling under collectivism and made hundreds of peoples lives even worse by pricing them out of basic resources. This led to the perestroika movements and others like it open to freer markets because the only alternative was starvation. How are forcing innocent people into starvation and limiting their choices winning anything? Nobody won anything.
So el let me ask you this. Let’s turn the tables for a moment. You would agree that at least some government is beneficial to society right? And in fact the absence of government is anarchy correct? So you would agree that the belief in at least some government is necessary to ensure stability and prevent chaos? So doesn’t that prove that what you just posted, which is an effort to show that belief in government is misplaced is actually a bad argument? In fact not believing in government seems to be irrational since the absence is anarchy, whereas the belief in at least some government by no other alternative is rational and sensible. So therefore liberals are correct in having confidence in the ability of government. I just demonstrated an indisputable logical step by step conclusion.
Say, what?
Is my point above really so far beyond your grasp, that you refuse to contend with it?
So the article you posted is just an excerpt of an author’s book. His analysis is largely painted by his opinions, which are no more informed than mine or yours. So the article you posted doesn’t count as any form of objective evidence in the slightest. It’s the same as going up to a random average Joe in the street and asking him who started the Cold War. The only difference is the author of the book can fool you because he is more educated and articulate. That doesn’t mean his theories are correct though.
Conservatives did not win the Cold War. They illegally plundered vast resources from other nations through secret wars, covert operations, and dishonest deals and eventually priced some of the Communist nations out of the emerging global market, forcing them to abandon collectivism and institute capitalist markets which ended up allowing for the same inequalities in other capitalist societies. The Conservatives didn’t win anything. They out priced nations whose citizens were already struggling under collectivism and made hundreds of peoples lives even worse by pricing them out of basic resources. This led to the perestroika movements and others like it open to freer markets because the only alternative was starvation. How are forcing innocent people into starvation and limiting their choices winning anything? Nobody won anything.
At least you admit that people behind the Iron Curtain were struggling under collectivism.
Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin - both conceived by the jew.
Is my point above really so far beyond your grasp, that you refuse to contend with it?
You had a point?
Maybe I could grasp it (I did earn a Bachelor's degree in history.
But, the first thing that you learn to do in core history courses that teach method is how to communicate clearly, concisely, and more importantly, relatably.
You could have the best argument in the world, but if my eyes glaze over reading it, what do you think will become of your message when a tradesman (the people you champion, right?) reads it?
And some of those tradesman went through programs in which they got a liberal arts education alongside their technical expertise.
I know a female welder who can discuss Dante's Divine Comedy.
Researchers have never found evidence that Democrats are smarter than Republicans or vice versa. They have found that both sides have intelligent and unintelligent individuals distributed fairly evenly. Highly intelligent Republicans and Democrats will be able to present their ideas evenly with greater clarity and sophistication, while less intelligent members of either party will find greater difficulty consistently and cogently expressing their political beliefs or why they vote the way they do.
Instead researchers have found that political beliefs and affiliation are largely the outcome of an individual’s temperament, agreeableness, and other personality attributes and generally not their cognitive problem solving abilities.
Researchers have never found evidence that Democrats are smarter than Republicans or vice versa. They have found that both sides have intelligent and unintelligent individuals distributed fairly evenly. Highly intelligent Republicans and Democrats will be able to present their ideas evenly with greater clarity and sophistication, while less intelligent members of either party will find greater difficulty consistently and cogently expressing their political beliefs or why they vote the way they do.
Instead researchers have found that political beliefs and affiliation are largely the outcome of an individual’s temperament, agreeableness, and other personality attributes and generally not their cognitive problem solving abilities.
Wow! The bell curve exists! Never thought of that!
So the article you posted is just an excerpt of an author’s book. His analysis is largely painted by his opinions, which are no more informed than mine or yours. So the article you posted doesn’t count as any form of objective evidence in the slightest. It’s the same as going up to a random average Joe in the street and asking him who started the Cold War. The only difference is the author of the book can fool you because he is more educated and articulate. That doesn’t mean his theories are correct though.
Conservatives did not win the Cold War. They illegally plundered vast resources from other nations through secret wars, covert operations, and dishonest deals and eventually priced some of the Communist nations out of the emerging global market, forcing them to abandon collectivism and institute capitalist markets which ended up allowing for the same inequalities in other capitalist societies. The Conservatives didn’t win anything. They out priced nations whose citizens were already struggling under collectivism and made hundreds of peoples lives even worse by pricing them out of basic resources. This led to the perestroika movements and others like it open to freer markets because the only alternative was starvation. How are forcing innocent people into starvation and limiting their choices winning anything? Nobody won anything.
At least you admit that people behind the Iron Curtain were struggling under collectivism.
Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin - both conceived by the jew.
Of course. You’ve only extracted communism out of this entire discussion. I’ve repeatedly tried to advocate for Democracy, but you are insisting on interpreting that as Marxism.
Trump called Democrats, "evil," and called his own MAGA supporters, "stupid." More than half of the "police actions" to "stop crime" in DC have been detaining undocumented immigrants working at car washes and fast food restaurants. Memphis, TN has the highest violent crime rates in the nation -- but TN voted for Trump so he doesn't bother with it. Like in LA, we are paying millions of dollars for the National Guard and the military to stand around and play video games on their phones. Trump just wants people to get used to the military being in their cities so he can use them to attack his critics, immigrants, minorities, and Democrats. He is gearing up for the military "enforcing" the election in 2026.
Researchers have never found evidence that Democrats are smarter than Republicans or vice versa. They have found that both sides have intelligent and unintelligent individuals distributed fairly evenly. Highly intelligent Republicans and Democrats will be able to present their ideas evenly with greater clarity and sophistication, while less intelligent members of either party will find greater difficulty consistently and cogently expressing their political beliefs or why they vote the way they do.
Instead researchers have found that political beliefs and affiliation are largely the outcome of an individual’s temperament, agreeableness, and other personality attributes and generally not their cognitive problem solving abilities.
Wow! The bell curve exists! Never thought of that!
What do you think of Charles Murray?
Well no I’m not overly confident in bell curve statistics and there could be some shortcomings with the reliability of political studies. This has been a pretty consistent finding though; the evidence suggests that intelligence does not play a major role in determining one’s political affiliation while temperament and agreeable. I was responding to your post where you claimed Democrats have lower IQs, which there is no evidence of.
Is my point above really so far beyond your grasp, that you refuse to contend with it?
You had a point?
Maybe I could grasp it (I did earn a Bachelor's degree in history.
But, the first thing that you learn to do in core history courses that teach method is how to communicate clearly, concisely, and more importantly, relatably.
You could have the best argument in the world, but if my eyes glaze over reading it, what do you think will become of your message when a tradesman (the people you champion, right?) reads it?
And some of those tradesman went through programs in which they got a liberal arts education alongside their technical expertise.
I know a female welder who can discuss Dante's Divine Comedy.
And even if I did concede that you had a point, what is it?
Anarchy is bad, and government is good?
So, why do you oppose what Trump is doing in D.C.?
Is it on federalist grounds, that states and by extension cities, should govern themselves - and in fact are supposed to per certain provisions in the U.S. Constitution?
That is admirable, but it doesn't apply in the current situation since D.C. is a federal district and the Home Rule Act allows the President to take over the police force in certain circumstances.
Those circumstances were present at the time of the action.
Trump called Democrats, "evil," and called his own MAGA supporters, "stupid." More than half of the "police actions" to "stop crime" in DC have been detaining undocumented immigrants working at car washes and fast food restaurants. Memphis, TN has the highest violent crime rates in the nation -- but TN voted for Trump so he doesn't bother with it. Like in LA, we are paying millions of dollars for the National Guard and the military to stand around and play video games on their phones. Trump just wants people to get used to the military being in their cities so he can use them to attack his critics, immigrants, minorities, and Democrats. He is gearing up for the military "enforcing" the election in 2026.
Thank you. Finally, the voice of reason. We’re outnumbered by MAGA on this thread. They’re like talking to drywall.