Why We Should Fear the Left

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (175 posts)
  1. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 18 months ago

    With Ford's testimony coming under greater scrutiny it is falling apart. Lies are being exposed. One can't blame the Democrats on the committee from attempting to take advantage,politically. But, looking at Ford brings deeper problems to light.

    She began preparing for the attack before she sent the letter. She used the circus of the#metoo movement because it is evident a life can be ruined in this atmosphere with no proof. She will be the recipient of over half a million dollars, just for her effort to ruin a man's career. Hers will be ruined once the full lie is exposed, yet knowing that she did it anyway. I do not consider her fool enough to not realize that, yet this action was worth it. To her.

    If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Did I miss something? Which "lies" have been "exposed"? It's hard to keep track.

      I heard about allegations from an ex-boyfriend about Ford helping a friend (Monica McLean) prepare for a lie detector test.

      But McLean has reportedly written a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying: "I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime"(1).

      Has something else happened I'm not aware of?

      (1) https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/kavana … 1538577632

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Well, (waving hand dismissively) we all know that McLean is lying - we have testimony that it DID happen!

        Isn't that how it works?  You believe whichever one fits best with your desires and just wave away anything that doesn't?  Should be especially easy as McLean was never implicated in the letter from the boyfriend, anyway!

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Following the same logic, everyone can assume Kavanaugh is responsible for what he has been accused of then, no?

          1. Live to Learn profile image78
            Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            That is the logic of the left in this instance.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Well I'm on "the left". That's not my logic. So your claim about The Left is demonstrably wrong.

              If you mean to say that's the logic of some people on The Left, then yes it is.

              Just as it's the logic of some people on the right that we should simply assume Ford is lying because someone alleged she is.

              Can we now claim that to be the logic of The Right?

              Or shall we all admit that generlizations about The Left and The Right are not particularly helpful?

              1. Live to Learn profile image78
                Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I do apologize if this does not refer to you. Reason, when it prevails, makes us left or right leaning. Fairness, when it prevails, does likewise.

                There are goose stepping morons on both sides.

                1. IslandBites profile image86
                  IslandBitesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  "Disagreeing makes sense but the name calling is ignorant."

    2. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      No generalizations on this thread.  wink

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Please, where is the generalization on that post? I am speaking of Ford but anyone who supports such behavior would also be guilty of advancing lies and innuendo for political gain.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for asking. The title of the thread is a generalization.

          "Why We Should Fear the Left"

          Likewise, comments including:

          "If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared."

          I'm no fan of the left, but I don't believe everyone on the left belongs in one category. Nor do I think everyone on the right belongs in one category, such as true conservatives like myself.

          1. Live to Learn profile image78
            Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Notice I said a liberal mind. That's singular. Had I said the liberal mind it might imply all.

            1. Aime F profile image82
              Aime Fposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              But wouldn’t all liberals have a liberal mind?

              Anyway, your defence still falls apart because the title itself says “why we should fear THE LEFT” which is not singular and most certainly a generalization.

              1. Live to Learn profile image78
                Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                The fact that you stand in defense of her behavior does indicate that another liberal mind is to be feared. That's ok though. You're Canadian. I don't fear you.

                1. Aime F profile image82
                  Aime Fposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I don’t stand in defence of her behaviour if she’s lying. But good luck proving that she is. And innocent until proven guilty, right?

                  1. Live to Learn profile image78
                    Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. But, she is the one who cried wolf. She needs to prove wolf.  No one forced her to say it.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    LtL is right; innocent until proven guilty does not apply to those that cause harm to others by making claims they cannot show to be true.  Don't know about your country, but it is a crime here (slander and libel). 

                    That she made the claims is not debatable, only that they can be proven true.  And if they can't, and actual harm (usually financial, but other forms can apply) can be shown then it is a crime.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Ha! Let me play contrarian again promiem, but this time in a more ight-hearted vein.

            You call yourself a "true conservative," but, thanks to a My Esoteric prompt, (you probably saw the thread), I read about 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' definitions that I hadn't considered before.

            My perspective of those terms had always been as, (as I perceived them),  they were commonly used in today's political discussions.

            Oops! Was I wrong. I discovered that I am damn near a 'Classic Liberal' - not completely, the box had holes, so I will stick with being a 'Purple', but, I was made aware that the labels we freely use today aren't really accurate.

            So, check it out. I bet you will find you aren't really a "true conservative" at all. I would bet that, like me, you might find yourself more comfortable with the "classic Liberal" label.

            Come on bud, it could be fun, take a look. Find My Esoteric's thread or Google it.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              GA, in fact I was reading about classical liberalism recently in "The Metaphysical Club". I bet it's your kind of book.

              https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282 … sical_Club

              When I refer to myself as a true conservative, I mean it in a more modern sense:

              1. Individual responsibility
              2. Civic duty
              3. Balanced budgets (other than war)
              4. Government as a last resort solution

              I'm not too keen on completely free markets because they can get out of control. They're like good wines (or good martinis). They taste great in the beginning and cause headaches after too many.

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                I classify myself as a Liberal Democrat but I believe in individual responsibility, civic duty, balanced budgets other than war, & as little government interference as possible.  Conservatism doesn't have a monopoly on these four virtues.   I staunchly believe in accountability & responsibility & doing for self & I am anything but conservative.  I am vehemently against welfare except for those who are physically, mentally, emotionally, & psychologically disabled.  I believe in the premise of work or starve.   I believe in capitalism.   Conservatives don't have a monopoly on these things.  I am a Liberal in the classical sense.  What LTL is talking about is EXTREME LIBERALISM= LEFT.

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Points well taken!

                2. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  If what you say about yourself is true, you'd be at serious odds with fellow liberals and Democrats.  They stand for things that are the complete opposite of what you've stated.

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Ha1 That was an appropriate analogy promisem  - with one small note. Even though I have over-indulged at times, my Stolis martinis have never given me a headache or hangover. Double ha!

                But I get your point. I think I might just fool around with that Classic Liberal designation in a few select conversations - just to add some confusion.

                I will checkout your link.

                GA

    3. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I have MORE to fear from the RIGHT than from the LEFT.

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Good to know.

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it is GOOD to know.  The RIGHT wants to curtail, even eradicate human & civil rights for women, Blacks, Latinos, and the LGBT community.  The RIGHT wants to return America to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos,  and the LGBT community have VERY LIMITED or NO human & civil rights.  It appears that you want that...….hmmmm………………..

          1. Live to Learn profile image78
            Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            You have nothing but emotion running rampant to back up that opinion.

            Curtailing human and civil rights? I'd say the left has no interest in due process, equality or fairness and truth. I'd consider those traits standing in the way of human and civil rights.

            The right wants to take us back? The left is the one with a lynch mob mentality. That takes us back hundreds of years. If I believed you (which even a fool couldn't), then I'd say better ten years back than say, 50 where the left could easily emulate the tactics of Stalin or 100s, where the left would have public executions so their base could throw a tailgate party.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Using hyperbole now. The left doesn't have a lynch mob mentality.  Stop drinking THAT koolaid, please...………...The so-called left wants to take America forward while the right wants to take America BACKWARDS...………..   Stalin?  Get real, girl...………….stop with the fantastical hyperbole...…...

              1. Live to Learn profile image78
                Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Yes. Hyperbole. Just following your lead. See how silly you sound?

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  Far from silly.  If you applied inductive & deductive logic, it is the intention of the RIGHT to have America to go on a backward spiral.  The intention of the RIGHT is to have a strictly hierarchal America akin to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, other minorities, & the LGBT communities either had very limited or no rights.  Please READ some sociological books- remember READING is fundamental.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image78
                    Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    I disagree. Obviously. And I don't need all caps to point that out.

                    Reading is fundamental. Critical thinking is mandatory.

          2. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            "the intention of the RIGHT to have America to go on a backward spiral.  The intention of the RIGHT is to have a strictly hierarchal America akin to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, other minorities, & the LGBT communities either had very limited or no rights."

            Can't people on the left come up with any new lies to tell about the Republican party?  Seriously?  This is the same clap trap that has been coming from the left since the 1980s when Reagan crushed Mondale in the election.  Wasn't true then, isn't true now.  It's time to stop recycling your propaganda and come up with something new.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    "She will be the recipient of over half a million dollars, just for her effort to ruin a man's career.

    Hers will be ruined once the full lie is exposed, yet knowing that she did it anyway.

    I do not consider her fool enough to not realize that, yet this action was worth it. To her.

    If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared." LTL


    Who is paying  her?
    Why is she risking her career?
    Why are they trying to destroy a perfectly fine judge who has done a perfectly fine job serving his country, being a faithful husband and doting father.

    It IS scary!!!!

    1. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      She has collected over half a million, already, from her Gofundme page. This sets the stage for anyone, anywhere, to claim anything. If it tickles the earof the left they'll pay them to do it. I'd say political ideology pushed this attack.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        WOW!

      2. IslandBites profile image86
        IslandBitesposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Brett Kavanaugh's Family

        $580,276 of $600,000 goal
        https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          WOW!

          big_smile

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
            Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            WOW!

            wink

      3. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Just to get the facts out there.

        She did not set up the several Gofundme pages that are raising money for her.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/p … augh-.html

        There is also at least one gofundme page for Brett K, which has raised over $500,000.  Are you similarly outraged at that?

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 510256002/

        1. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Let's think about that. He was blindsided by an allegation that, as of now, has not found anyone who can support it, has offered no corroborating evidence and a story full of holes. He is under attack for what only looks like political reasons.

          So, yes. I can understand a fund to help him with legal fees ( I haven't seen any lawyer publicly say they would work for him, pro bono). Nor did he attack her. With unfounded accusations.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            LOL

            1. Live to Learn profile image78
              Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Definitely not surprised that would be your response. It appears the left thinks slinging mud in every direction, knowing none can stick, is good. Probably, because many on the left just want the mud. Truth, facts, fairness. Doesn't matter to many on the left. And people wonder how the gulags started.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                I seem to recall a conversation where you vowed to stop lumping "the left" all together into a big, giant negative basket.  You must've forgotten.

                You all are so damned dramatic.  "And people wonder how the gulag started."  LOL.  Seriously.

                Speaking of truth and facts, you never did admit that Brett lied under oath about when he first heard about the Ramirez allegations.

                Oh never mind.  There really is no point.

                1. profile image0
                  Ed Fisherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  https://hubstatic.com/14236189.png

                  It's as simple as the party you support .

                  1. Live to Learn profile image78
                    Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't know that he did. The sad thing is we have to tip toe through everything, waiting for confirmation from multiple sources before we can say anything is news. Well, some of us. Some just jump on a bandwagon, as long as it is party approved.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 18 months ago

    The point is the left is behind this crap.

    ... and it is crap. I think I'll stop listening to the news.

  4. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 18 months ago

    Democratic mid -term believability , If , in the midterms we see a failing democratic wave , Democrats should take notice that the majority of American swing voters have lost faith in the media war against the right [eous ] ,Trump Obstructionism , adoptive socialism , #Metoo phoniness  and a myriad of phony outrages , Just saying ..............

    There will be no room left for whining !

    Are you ready ?
    https://hubstatic.com/14236071.jpg

  5. Aime F profile image82
    Aime Fposted 18 months ago

    You have become quite ridiculous. It’s rather unfortunate.

    1. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      This may be politics as usual, in Canada. Not in America.

      1. Aime F profile image82
        Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        My response doesn’t have much to do with politics. It’s referring to the fact that once upon a time you struck me as a reasonable person but at some point your posts became more or less interchangeable with ahorseback’s.

        1. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Ok. Thanks for the input. I take great offense to lies. That's just me.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            Unless they're Trump lies, of course.

            1. Live to Learn profile image78
              Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Argh. Name a trump lie. If I agree then I'll take great offense. Deal?

              Edit. One that is designed to ruin another person. We'll keep this in context.

              1. profile image0
                Ed Fisherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                LTL , Have you forgotten the 4,000 or so Trump lies ................;-]

              2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                OMG, seriously?

                His bizarre and very public insistence of the guilt of the Central Park Five.
                https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-e … na-n661941
                https://thinkprogress.org/trump-central … eaf664f20/

                His bizarre, years-long effort to promote the lie that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.
                https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ertificate

                1. Live to Learn profile image78
                  Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  I remember the Central Park Five. Yes, I was highly offended. I wouldn't say I was highly offended about the birther thing. Man, that went on for years. It was ignorant and, in my opinion, unwarranted. But, highly offended? I didn't reach that level.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                    YOU:  I take great offense to lies. That's just me.

                    ME: Unless they're Trump lies, of course.

                    Sounds about right, then.

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

          It is Ed, now...

    2. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Par for the course for Ed.  It isn't unusual for Ed to be an embarrassment.  Embarrassing himself is second nature to Ed.  Ed loves to put his foot in his mouth.  He is the emperor of pure conjecture, Aime F.  Inductive & deductive logic are foreign concepts to Ed.  It is pointless to even argue w/him.  I wasted hours presenting facts to Ed but it was FUTILE...…...Ed isn't logical. Never was-never will be.  Let Ed continue to commit faux pas- he is so good at it!

  6. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 18 months ago

    Aime , as much as It must be scary for you and  yet educational at the same time , by now you should be coming to the realization that your party is in a substantial failure pattern .    Your Trump  Obstruction has failed at exactly how many issues ,  he's going to be reelected on the economy alone , Kavanaugh's confirmation is close at hand ,  Hillary followers watch as she dies a slow agonizing death , your party's ties to socialism is becoming THE thing that is driving your party's popularity into the dirt , even young people are staring at the DNC in embarrassment , midterms are here and it's not looking well , ...............

    But yea ......I'm the ridiculous one.

    1. Aime F profile image82
      Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      I care about all of that much, much less than you think. I’ve reached the point in all of this where both sides strike me as being consistently unreasonable. The fighting back and forth about which side is worse is like trying to decide whether it hurts more to have your index finger or your ring finger chewed off. It freaking sucks either way.

      I don’t care about Trump or Kavanaugh or Hillary nearly as much as I care about everyone sucking.

      1. profile image0
        Ed Fisherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        Remember Aime , This is ALL caused by the party that you favor ,    You can turn away from all of it or you can chose reason and righteousness . It IS that simple.  I understand your frustrations , we on the right  ---and center too  dealt with that for eight years through Obama's  war against America .  Politics  in itself is NOT a child's game , it is a very serious responsibility , chose apathy or chose action ,   the choice is yours .

        1. Aime F profile image82
          Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Phew, I was worried that with the name change you might not continue to be a shining example of the “consistently unreasonable” I was referring to... but that hasn’t changed. What a relief.

          You know I’d probably be more tempted to lean right if you weren’t such a vocal representation.

          1. profile image0
            Ed Fisherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            So , You don't have any respect for those who're fixed in conservatism and so unreasonable , what a surprise . .......Not. 

            Same here  Aime.

            1. Aime F profile image82
              Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              Being fixed in conservatism and being reasonable are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to be both and if someone is, then I respect them. But you are not. So there you go.

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

        As a Canadian, you can bask in the cool with your Prime Minister Trudeau. We at the other side of your Southern border have differing problems as we have to live with the clowns that you can just speak about, as Americans cannot afford the luxury of being detached or indifferent.

        1. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

          Funny. I'd have said the opposite. Sounds like a bit of a zoo up north.

          But, unlike some, I understand their politics is their business. I wouldn't butt my nose into it.

          1. Aime F profile image82
            Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            In what way does it sound like a “zoo” to you?

            1. Live to Learn profile image78
              Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

              I hate to comment in length on politics in other nations. But, I was disheartened by a video I saw of a middle aged woman requesting answers. Trudeau refused any response other than claiming she was a racist and, with no provocation, his goons attempted to remove her. Didn't look like democracy or freedom.  Also, the demonization of Jordan Peterson seemed a little zooish. Disagreeing makes sense but the  name calling is ignorant. And, Trudeau does appear to be a virtue signaler with no clear moral compass.

              Just from a casual outside observer. I don't really follow news in your country. Which is why I refrain, normally, from comment. I don't live there so I should not attempt to influence opinion.

              1. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                It’s okay to become interested in another country’s politics you know. Especially when their politics affect yours - we are neighbours and allies and partners, afterall. I realize this is your passive aggressive way of telling foreigners (or maybe just me specifically) to not care about what goes on in your country but I think that’s pretty silly.

          2. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Kinda of like living in Florida, I can comment about the blizzards around the country during Winter season that  I  can watch on HD, but that is quite different from being in it and having to dig out....


            Having visited 6 or 7 provinces within the last 40 years, yes I like Canada.


            I welcome comments from anywhere and everywhere, and I am free to make them in inquiry about what goes on in other countries, but those in the thick of the fray are naturally going to have more credibility because "their skin" is in the game

    2. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      https://hubstatic.com/7848563.jpg

  7. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 18 months ago

    I have no problem with anyone being against Kavanaugh for political reasons. I do take exception to lies, subterfuge, innuendo, etc being used to turn an attempt to vet a judge into a three ring circus.

    1. profile image74
      Hxprofposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      And that's exactly what it became.  The Democratic Senators were, in lockstep, predictably opposed to Kavanaugh's nomination - no big deal there.  What WAS a big deal was using Ford's accusation as a hammer to try and derail the Kavanaugh's nomination.  In the process they betrayed Ford's trust, putting her life on national display, doing her no favors.  In the same process they put Kavanaugh's on display as well, digging up everything they could from Kavanaugh's youth to try and humiliate him.

      The Democratic Senators warped this process, making it strictly a political show, demonstrating NO desire to vet the man, to get to the truth.

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 18 months agoin reply to this

        I don't know that Ford is someone you need to feel sorry for. I think, considering how this all came about, she's enjoying the show.

  8. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 18 months ago

    I've known leftist mass media was a social cancer my entire life. If this all causes more persons to see it that way, then I'm glad it happened. Brett K. is absolutely going to be confirmed. I can't wait for Trump to replace Ginsberg.

  9. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 18 months ago

    This article sums up what have always been my concerns with this episode.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 488329002/

  10. ananceleste profile image55
    anancelesteposted 18 months ago

    Why him? Why push a nomination that's clearly tainted? There were over 300 candidates in the president's list, why the one that just purged himself on national TV and had a hissy fit over questioning? It's embarrassing.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Lying only matters sometimes, you see. Lying under oath by a SC nominee that your President put forth is to be rationalized and excused, just as your President's lies are rationalized and excused. Get it?

    2. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      This is a very good question. I'm sure they can find someone with pretty much the exact same conservative views who has not been accused of sexual assault. Also, his partisan rant, evasiveness, and outright lying should be  automatically disqualifying.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        It wouldn't matter who President Donald Trump put forward.  The Democrat sleaze and dirt machine would create false accusations on them just as they did Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh.  This was a message to the right saying no matter how good a person you put forward, we will create something in an effort to control the process.  These Democrat senators are the lowest of the low.

  11. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 17 months ago

    The left many fear is the group thought left , It's a cult actually , a Zombie like mentality that devours reason , common sense and thrives on the destruction of traditional government .

    1. Aime F profile image82
      Aime Fposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Same can be said for the far right (minus the traditional government part) but you seem incapable of acknowledging that.

  12. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 17 months ago

    The left is going to whine no matter the reason or no reason ,  If it took another six months for the FBI to investigate they'd STILL whine .

  13. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 17 months ago

    Sexual McCarthyism ,   
    Pretty simple .
    For the left ,Thank you for giving Trump a break , time to shift that focus to Trump again .

  14. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 17 months ago

    LTL , Ken , you are both correct and Ken that was a pretty good  description of where America voters stood and now stand with the Trump presidency .

  15. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 17 months ago

    This thread is giving me the impression that modern liberals are VERY uncomfortable when Alinskyism is used by the conservative party against the leftist originators , Trump for one seems to have simply reversed the chain of events against the left ,  it's working extremely well for him .

  16. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 17 months ago

    Hi Live to Learn. Essentially I agree with your opinion. I even agree with the black and white truth of your original point, and, your 'slippery slope' point. But real life decisions almost always involve some aspect of "slippery slopes."

    I don't know how to search for old forum threads, but we had one on this topic that covered it well. In a nutshell, I believe there are "slippery slope" instances where above-board political maneuvering, even when it is on that slippery slope, is legitimate.

    A politician is elected first, to represent the voice of those that elected him/her. And I think they, (ha, there's one of those plural singulars), have a duty to carry that voice to all the decisions they make. But, when their decisions affect more than just their constituents, then that constituent voice must take a back seat to the national voice.

    I'm sticking with the reality of 'degrees,' even while agreeing with the 'rightness' of your point.

    GA

    1. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I don't understand what you're trying to say.  A Senator's SOLE obligation is to represent his constituents.  They elected the senator to represent their interests. The senator is THEIR voice in the government.  If a senator doesn't represent their interests, the senator will lose their job.  This is how it works in a representative republic.

      1. Live to Learn profile image78
        Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Representing the interests of some constituents, to the detriment of other Americans, is not their task; nor is it part of their oath of office.

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          This makes no sense to me.  Everybody has a congressman and senator.  The majority votes for them and it is their job to represent the majority.  That's how a representative republic works.  If you are not in the majority, work hard and elect your person.  If you lose, you lose, the winners get the spoils.  That how it has always worked.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            And yet...our constitution and concept is more about protecting the minority from the majority than it is about "majority take all".  That's how it has been since 1788, when that constitution, the root of our country, was ratified.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image92
        Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly.

        An argument I myself tried to make, in a different format.

        Those Senators/Representatives have an obligation to their voters.  If they do something that is in opposition to what those voters want, they will get voted out of office... we saw this direct result after they rammed through the ACA.  Their constituents didn't like it, they voted them out.

        In contrast the Republicans, when they held off on voting for a Supreme Court nominee as they did prior to the 2016 election, were voted back in, apparently this is what the majority of American people (outside of NY and CA for the most part) wanted... if this wasn't the case, then there would have been a 'blue wave' in 2016.

        And what we see with various forms of unsubstantiated reporting in the media (and biased non-reporting of good news), and un-corroborated accusations that do not stand up to scrutiny against a SCOTUS nominee now, are the dirty tactics of people who don't care about civility, truth, or common decency... they want control, and will use whatever means they have at their disposal to try and usurp it. 

        One thing that has occurred in the last decade, or two, that many still don't recognize.  The Democrats went from being the party of the Middle Class, the Union workers, the Blue Collar types... to outright selling out the American worker, American ideals, and American interests.

        They did this when they supported NAFTA, they do this when they support open borders (illegal workers lower wages and job opportunities), they do this when they support the ACA which enriches the Big Pharma and Insurance corporations at the expense of the hard working Americans and what coverage they can get for their families.

        The Democrats have become the anti-American party as sure as Iran's Supreme Leader is anti-American.  They do not have the best interests of American workers, or the American people at large, at the center of their agendas and actions.

        Republicans, a couple decades back, was the party of the college educated and well off, because of and with Trump, it has now become the party of working Americans, pro-Americans, and Conservatism all rolled into one.

      3. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Readmikenow, It is fortunate, for my perspective, that you mentioned the Senate.

        This issue can only be a matter of opinion, but here is why I think mine is right, and that a Senator's "sole" obligation is not to represent the voice, (their interests and desires as they, (the constituents),  see them), but to represent the best interests of the citizens as the body of the state.

        The Framer's thoughts behind, and the construction of the legislative branch - through the Constitution, designates the House of Representatives as the 'popular' voice of the people, and the Senate to be the 'sage' voice of the state.

        Narrowly speaking, the House represents the state's citizens, (hence the larger number of representatives, and the Senate represents the state - as a whole. From the beginning it was recognized that the "popular" voice of the people could sometimes be a bit rash or imprudent - the larger number of members in the House was intended to allow for more diverse views of a diverse citizenry. (think of the House factions, like the Tea Party, or the extreme factions of either party represented in the House - they all represent a voice of the people)

        Whereas the Senate, with only two members, was, also from the beginning, intended to represent that state as a whole. Their views were intended to be more wise and nationally oriented than the popular voice representation of the House.

        To further support that reasoning, look at their contrary terms of office. House Representatives have two year terms - which allows for a more accurate and updated representation of the "popular" voice of the citizens, which we know can quickly change. Whereas the Senators have six year terms and the body only turns over one third, (figuratively speaking), of its members every two years - to allow for continuity of achieved wisdom and experience to best represent the state in national issues.

        I didn't mean that as a lecture, (you probably already understood that Constitutional reasoning), it was just intended to show the foundation of my reasoning.

        So, consider, from your perspective, that the popular voice of a state's citizens, through their House Representatives, demand something that is demonstrably bad for them - but they want it anyway. Further, that same "demand" is demonstrably bad for the nation.

        Would you still expect that Senator to vote based on the voice of the people, or to vote based on what can be known to be best for the state and the nation?

        GA

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          The Senator is an employee of his voters.  They have a job only because of the voters permit them to have it.  If a Senator's employers tells them to vote a certain way, it is their job to vote that way. It is the responsibility of the citizens to determine what is best for the state and the nation.  Otherwise, you don't have a representative republic, you have what they had with the politburo.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            We do have different views on this one Readmikenow. However, I have the impression that you are picking your validations based on your perspective.

            In your exchange with Live to Learn, you argue against her black and white standards of political principles with facts of reality. Yet on this Representative issue you seem to be adopting Live to Learn's black and white position - just on another issue.

            An important note is that here, I am only speaking to the Federal level, Senators, not House of Representatives.

            If you picked up that reality mantel again, which includes party politics, could you say that you believed;

            On complicated issues the voters always understood the issue and what was at stake - at least enough to know if they really wanted what their votes said they wanted?

            That on a vote such as Kavanaugh's a Senator should abandon supporting his party's position when his voters were against it? (just because a Senator is of a party does not mean his state is of the same party)

            There could be other illustrations, but arguing for validation via reality, as you did on that "slippery slope" exchange, would seem to be contrary to your "black and white" validation here.

            I am treading lightly here Readmikenow, and trying to walk a line, because I feel similarly to you, (particularly for the House), that a political representative must carry the voice of their constituents to their decisions, but in the case of Senators, I feel just as strongly that if a Senator does that, yet at the time of decision must vote contrary to that voice - for national reasons, then I think that is his duty. And in no way do I see that as comparable to the "Politburo."

            As for House Representatives, we are much more closely aligned. There I see decisions as much more an aggregate than a majority/minority, (semantics?), end result, and would also expect, (with possible exceptions), a Representative to vote their constituents voice.

            GA

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Here is a real world example.

              During the Kavanaugh vote, Democrat Senator Joe Manchin voted for Kavanaugh.

              Why did he do this?  He didn't do it on his own.  Manchin is in a very tight race for his Senate seat.  He is from West Virginia, which is a state President Donald Trump won by over 40 points.  It is also a coal state.  President Donald Trump has revived the coal industry.  He is much loved in West Virginia.  If Manchin voted against the Kavanaugh confirmation, he would definitely lose his Senate seat.  By voting for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, he let himself have a chance with the voters of West Virginia.  He did it to save his Senate seat by being influenced by his voters.  He did what he did because he had to represent what the voters in West Virginia wanted to keep his job.  This is how it works in the real world.

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Definitely, politics is a game.  A politician must please his constituents.  He also must know what his constituents & how they think.  If a politician isn't aligned with the wishes & desires of his constituents, h/she won't be a politician for long.

                1. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I completely agree. That is the reality of our system.  They must also balance in the desires of their political donors as well. Now, I could write several paragraphs on lobbyists who come in all colors, shapes, and sizes, but why?   As has been said before, money is the mother's milk of politics.  It is quite a balancing game.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Of course, money rules politics.  To believe otherwise is being unrealistically fantastical into the inanely asinine.  Politicians respect those w/money.   Wealthy people are treated because they can use their money to have politicians help their respective agenda.

    2. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I get where you are coming from. However, the benchmark should always be fairness. Those who deviate should always be called to task in a bipartisan manner. Failure, at any juncture, to do so will always create an escalating scenario which, the longer left unchecked, becomes harder and harder to correct course.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        I still don't understand.  A Congressman or Senator has to answer to their voters and their party and that's it.  It's their voters and party who will decide what is and is not fair.  The Congressmen and Senators work for their voters and nobody else.

        1. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          A government for the people. So, no, they are not there to represent, solely, the majority. By your definition, some will always be disenfranchised. Not an American ideal.

          So, yes, each is elected. To 'represent' the interests of their constituents. Not to advance those interests, to the detriment of other American citizens.

          By your standards everything will always be partisan.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, a government is elected by the people, by the majority of people based on our system.  Disenfranchised? You lose, you're not in the majority, you work hard to elect people to be in the majority. This is the way it's always been.   "By your standards everything will always be partisan." Yep, everything always has been partisan.  That's how it works. The minority party has to negotiate with the majority party to get what they want.  Have you ever been involved in politics? The majority party determines what bills are voted on, what is in the bills that become laws.  The majority party has the power on committees and more.  It goes both ways.  The Republicans had to take it on the chin during the Obama years.  During his first two years in office Obama had Democrat control in the Senate and Congress.
            Yeah, it was partisan.  But, Republicans accepted it because that's how it has always worked.  The majority party sets the agenda. The Republican party wasn't disenfranchised during the first two years of the Obama administration, they lost. Democrats were the majority party and controlled the House and Senate, they set the agenda.  They got everything winners get.  Now, the Republicans are the majority party and they set the agenda. Why is this new to anyone?

            1. Live to Learn profile image78
              Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              Always been partisan? No, it hasn't. In times of crisis, when we have been uniquely reminded that we are one nation with common heritage and belief, we have pulled together in a bipartisan manner.

              Voices such as yours and those clamoring on the far left are not the majority. The majority realizes this government does not serve the people. Neither side currently serves us.

              The left and right are umbrellas too small to represent the wishes of Americans completely. We align with one or the other, primarily because we agree with some of the policies which we might put above our agreement with other policies on the other side.

              Do not confuse a vote for one side over another as blanket agreement or that all policies pushed represent the majority.

              Either way. Our country was not founded on the premise of disenfranchising one group or another. As we have identified groups left out, we have taken steps to remedy the mistake. We were not founded on the belief that might makes right. We fought that belief.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Sounds good. Excellent.  Now a voice from reality.  The majority party sets the agenda no matter what you say.  That's reality. The majority party provides the chairmen for the committees, the committees push for the bills to go before the house and senate to see what becomes law,  That's reality.  Congressmen and Senators try to keep their donors and voters happy so they can keep their job.  That is also reality.  Nothing you say can change this.  You know how to write your opinion, but trust me, you are not dealing with the reality of our system.  Spend some time working for an elected official and you'll see things you didn't believe possible.

                1. Live to Learn profile image78
                  Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                  I am not fool enough to not be aware that is the reality of the system. But, if a broken system is the best you hope for...that's what you get.

                  I am advocating what was hoped for when the system was created.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image96
                    Readmikenowposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                    Now, back to the topic of this thread.  We should fear the left because of their lack of basic understanding of the United States government and how it operates is frightening.  To make things worse, the left has no idea how ignorant they are of the history and function of the government in the United States.  Many times when liberals discuss things with me I'm reminded of the phrase "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about."

                2. Ken Burgess profile image92
                  Ken Burgessposted 17 months agoin reply to this



                  Indeed, all true.

                  Republican politicians, better get on the Trump train, or get ready to be thrown out of Congress.  I believe that reality has dawned on most of them, and its a good thing for the Party, and the country.

                  Despite the best efforts of the media, I see him coming out of the last two years more popular and more trusted than when he went in.

      2. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        Damn Live to Learn, this is feeling like one of those conversations with my wife where I get argued with for agreeing with her. ;-)

        GA

        1. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

          Maybe your wife is like me. Trying to leave yourself wiggle room, while attempting to hem in others (as you are arguing would make sense) is little more than an excuse to repeatedly ignore the basic principle, for reasons of convenience.

          You do it, then they do it, then you will no doubt do it again with a little added in because, how dare they do that?

          A person has to hold steady to principle, at all times, or they can't really argue that they have more than anyone else. And if you can't honestly stand by a principle, how can you expect the opposition to?

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

            It is not for reasons of convenience Live to Learn. Or because of a lack of principles. It is because I think there are times when political maneuvering is acceptable, and because of the reality that politics are a human endeavor, and they will never meet your black and white standard.

            The old Mr. Smith Goes to Washington movie comes to mind. Surely Mr. Smith could be called a politician with principles. Perhaps even to the point of intending to meet your standard. But what was his filibuster, if not a political maneuver? The important question would be whether it could be considered a legitimate one. I think it could.

            GA

            1. Live to Learn profile image78
              Live to Learnposted 17 months agoin reply to this

              I've never seen the movie. And, you are correct. There will be times when the gray area appears to be the only course available to ensure what is right is done. I just think if we all hold to the best we can then those moments will be few, understandable and acceptable.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 17 months agoin reply to this

                Finally ... And once more, I agree with your point.

                GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)