Careful! They are coming for your freedom and next your life!

His being a rogue IMO is indicated by the fact that he tried as best a he could to

Your second paragraph supports what you accuse the left of doing. Dividing up people, which in Para 2, you support as the only reality for the "social animal".
So I can only assume you support what you describe as "the left".

Interesting now I think of it...a "social animal" does not divide itself into small unit. The collectively work together...ants, bees, beavers...

The last part I highlighted speaks to a full contradiction. You support the small units...family and community, and tell me that is a sign of "everyone being responsible".
That isn't "everyone". That is a small unit located somewhere inside a group of other small units.
ISTM you are conflicted in what constitutes "everyone".

 

Cn you offer an example of how the left increases personal isolation from family and community?
I can't think of any way a government can force you to locate somewhere you don't want to go.

 

I don't understand that either, given that the left is more into social support than the right. One of the things th right think doesn't deserve support because every person should stand on their own two feet.

 

Please don't deviate from the point.
You said the minorities should speak, be represented.
One way is to unite into trade unions...something traditionally unsupported by large corporations/capitalist institutions.

 

an employer, on the other hand can give you an ultimatum -"transfer or lose your job and health insurance."

families are broken up by big business. nor "leftist elites in government" or whoever this guy's boogie man is.

 

They always have been under all shades of political ideology. It is often a way to gain advancement in career and many employees look to relocate.

 

The democrats are already working on taking the state out of the federal election process and are also working to dismantle the electoral college. If successful they will be the ones in control of the election process that will hardly be fair. If the left has their way we will have a total democracy which is totally against what our founders wanted.

 

That's ok.

 

What nonsense. There are MANY democracies in the world that don't have an electoral college.

You keep posting about things you have not researched. Please read my sig! Research can be as easy as doing a google search BEFORE posting.

You should try it some time...

 

We are not a democracy. The electoral college is part of our constitutional republic.

we have never elected a president based on popular vote and we should not. Popular vote leads to oppression and bankruptcy. I believe Aristotle has 100% democracies pegged and his writings should be heeded. Our founders believed this as well. They were very educated and chose not to have a 100% democracy for a reason. It’s in many of the debates they had as well. Democracies are not anything I would support over our constitutional republic.

don’t go crying like a lib that I don’t like democracy. I know we democratically vote, but we are still a country that allows for a minority opinion. A pure democracy that wipes away the electoral college will only give big cities a say. Small town folk will mean nothing and be left to the mercy of city people who know nothing about their way of life.

 

He's not talking about other democracies...he's talking about what the dems are trying to do to America's electoral college in which they want to eliminate it, and by doing that there would never be another Republican president. Its all about power over the citizens by the power hungry leftists, and always has been.

 

TBH the electoral college is a relic of hundreds of years ago and does not necessarily have to reflect one to one voting intentions

 

That’s the intent and I’m which is why we are not a democracy. Our state representatives are elected more so democratically than the president is. I am in support of this system and if anything it is more relevant today than it was at our founding. Our constitution was never designed to allow the federal government to have as much say as they do today. To have one main governing body over all states that are completely different from each other is absurd. They knew this and that’s why states were left to govern themselves. The federal influence has only grown over the years to a level I don’t believe it was designed for.

However, this election process known as the electoral college allows a voice to those who would otherwise be looked at as non essential votes. It allows for states with smaller populations to have a say in their ways of life. I totally agree with the electoral college.

 

I get that but my point was that in history there are examples of the EC NOT reflecting their population's wishes.

 

And you'll be happy to know that the Electoral College can be permanently removed by using the methodology described in the 'parent' relic document... the Constitution of the United States.

Fortunately, in France, you need not concern yourself with these "Problèmes Américains"... n'est-ce pas...?

 

1) The reality for the working and middle classes in 2022. It's starkly different to the reality they enjoyed in 1999.

2) The Progressive Left has coached acolytes to reject private property for individuals. The entire premise of an 'us and them' between land owners and land renters, is a product of this campaign. At the same time we've been taught to despise the impositions on our lifestyles, which go with comman man efforts to acquire property. I know you're not dumb enough to think that process is in the interests of the people, so you'll easily figure out whose interests it's actually in (the corporate landlord obviously .. those who've been buying up thousands of residential properties all over the First World with that end in sight - eternal landlords to an ever increasing number of life-renters).

3) By dismantling the power structures of the common man, as discussed. They do this in order to make us less independent, and thus more enslaved to full time consumerism - from rents, to water, to food, to everything we ever do. Why would a politic invested in empowerment of the common man, want the common man enslaved for life - spending every cent he ever makes just to stay alive? Because that's exactly what you get when you've destroyed his interest in the things which provide him with independence and power - property, family, community.

4) When you teach the people to think they don't NEED property/family/community to survive, you are necessarily teaching them that they can fly solo - every many for himself. I'm surprised you needed to ask this, if I'm honest.

5) I'm saying it's the Progressive Left. Those in service - unwittingly or otherwise - to the elites who want a massive permanent underclass, to keep consumption at the levels they need. The traditional left still wants people power, and the Right has always supported and fostered the power structures of the common man (property, family, community).

 

See my response above. When you're taught (by a Welfare State) that you no longer need to rely on family/community for your survival, eventually your society will start to abandon those structures. Either outright, or by the thousand cuts of 'it's too hard, and we don't get along anyway'. However it's done .. once that rot sets in, people will keep finding ways to avoid the obligations of sustaining a mutually interdependent family and community. And all of that is by design. Deliberate.

When you can be cut adrift from your power centres (property, family, community), you are wholly vulnerable and dependent. It takes almost no brain power at all to figure out who benefits from that.

 

It's what you call 'social support' which is the weapon of mass destruction.

Astonishing that that isn't obvious. I've no doubt you're able to identify those awful parents who wilfully indulge kids, thus creating people unable to function in the real world - so how you're not able to make the connection here is the question. Ideological blindness?

 

I said what? Where did I mention minorities?

 

I find it impossible to completely dismiss this:

 

Odd.
In my experience when families need help they cluster around each other more and share as necessary. They BECOME a mutually dependent family.

 

Indeed...we have our own issues.
Anyway I was under the impression that the Constitution defines how the POTUS is elected and includes the EC.
I have to admit high school is a long time ago...I might misremember.

 

Nice photo shop picture of our greatest president in that picture there. Trump was the one who told people to go there peacefully and patriotically. So a few hundred unarmed idiots show up and got caught trespassing and destroying a little bit of property--all while Trump urged pelosi to send in some 2000 or so national guards. Did pelosi honor her position as leader of the House to efficiently protect those grounds? A simple yes or no will do for now.

 

You are quite right, Pixie, our Constitution does surely provide the 'baseline' election process.

Truthfully, there are a number of features of the 'parliamentary' form of government that I would prefer, mostly because it encourages collaboration between different political and economic interests, and because it is MUCH easier -- and faster -- to get rid of a corrupt, inept administration....

 

Do you have any evidence it's the progressive left?

Which campaign? can you point to some materials?

I'm a landlord. what would make me a corporate one?

Hold on, you've just talked about property. How does family and community come in?

I'm still information gathering what your theory is about.

It's true that the progressive left are more accepting and supporting of non-nuclear family situations. But did they foster it or are they responding? Any evidence it's about consumerism?

Any here are the elites again. The real masters behind the game. Any examples of who they might be? And how do they corrupt the progressive lefty politicians to do their bidding. Also, I'm asking again if the elites are operating in communicative unison or are separate agent?

So, just as a real life example (you know... what I've been asking you to clarify): We have a Right Wing Federal government in power. I can't recall them doing much to address escalating property prices in Australian cities, yet out progressive, left wing state government has: https://www.vic.gov.au/our-plan-help-first-home-buyers