An easy question for the left

a reply to: quintessentone



Ok sure , true .

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: quintessentone



Ok sure , true .

How about predicting what will be in your box of chocolates from looking at analyses which looks at which party is best for the economy?

Many analyses look at which party is best for the economy. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democratic presidents since World War II have performed much better than Republicans. On average, Democratic presidents grew the economy by 4.4% each year versus 2.5% for Republicans.4

A study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the economy performs better when the president is a Democrat. They report that “by many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large.” Between Truman and Obama, growth was 1.8% higher under Democrats than Republicans.5
Princeton University. "Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration," Page 2.


A Hudson Institute study found that the six years with the best growth were evenly split between Republican and Democrat presidents.6

Most of these evaluations measure growth during the president’s term in office. But no president has control over the growth added during his first year. The budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous president, so it's helpful to compare the gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of the president’s last budget to the end of their predecessor’s last budget.

For Obama, that would be the fiscal year from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2018. That’s FY 2010 through FY 2017. During that time, annual GDP increased from $15.6 trillion to $17.7 trillion, or 14%.7 That’s 1.7% per year.

Another way to look at this debate is to consider what the presidents had to deal with during their terms. That’s one reason the Democrats did slightly better. Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton didn’t have recessions. The only Republican president who could say that was Trump until 2020. All other presidents had to contend with some of the worst recessions in U.S. history.

www.thebalancemoney.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

That`s good angle to it , it`s just hard to me see it clearly , as i am In Europe and so US economy is something i dont much understand . But yeah for US people it`s one good analyse/ point .

My general understanding of economy is below avarage

I don't see him as a threat to democracy in the US but he did favour dictators and the Taliban over democracies and allies in his last term.

That US voters only have a choice between Trump and Biden is a good sign things aren't fit for purpose though; hopefully it could make inroads for third or fourth parties now the main two have stopped trying to have any policies and only stand on 'I'm not the other guy'' tickets. Has the US ever had a left wing as Reps and Dems are right wing authoritarians.

a reply to: ElitePlebeian2

OP couldve easily taken the word the left out of his question and it wouldnt change anything.

I completely disagree, that distinction has everything to do with the thread. Notice again the title of the thread,''An Easy Question for the Left''

That distinction continues and is emphasized in the opening paragraph. Here is that distinction

it's imperative that those of us who don't get this, understand what you mean. Those of us on the right MUST grasp the "why" part of the threat to democracy.

Here our OP specifically establishes two political camps, the left and the right. He identifies with the group on the right and their need to know the coherent thoughts from those on the left. OP was not asking for thoughts from his own group but rather the thoughts from the left.

Yet, other than the first reply the entire first page was filled with denunciation from those who identify with the pro-Trump right. While down the page one member defined the word ''left'' as a word of ''subjective'' definition, the third reply offered a much broader definition, a definition well beyond the classical understanding. Here is that definition.

Any moron that believes it.

Settling on this definition, as the large number of stars it garnered suggests, would place anyone who perceives Trump as a threat or in a negative light to be a moron. No one wants to be considered a moron so no honest and coherent reply would be worth the posting.So the question of who our OP defines as ''the left'' is completely pertinent to the thread.

a reply to: network dude

I will explain this only once.

To understand what the Leftists (Cultural Marxists) mean by DT being a threat to democracy, you first have to understand their definition of Democracy.

Their definition of Democracy is a One Party State maintained in power by "elections" they control. By this definition therefore California is the penultimate example of a well run Democracy. There's only one operating Political Party and it's maintained in power by way of elections controlled by the Party.

The old USSR and China are a Leftists "Dream" democracies, One Party State, with their central government controlled economies

Other "Dream" Democracies include but are not limited to: Canada, Australia, Singapore, Iran, etc.

The US is not far from the leftists Dream. The federal government, all it's Regulatory and Administrative agencies are Party controlled.

I woud guess that regardless of who wins POTUS, the Democrats will cement their hold on the US Federal Government after the 2026 mid-term elections. That will complete the Leftist Dems One Party Rule project.

Threats to the Leftist form of Democracy include, but are not limited to, the "Christian" Churches, and "Christian" Schools, and of course, small businesses and family owned farms and ranches. Thus we see the concerted effort in California to eradicate small businesses and family owned farms and ranches.

There you have it, hope it helped.

a reply to: bastion

It's left, Jim, but not as we know it?

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

well Terry, I don't know if you watch any news sources or not, but the left wing media (I hope I don't have to explain that one) had been using the tag line "Trump is a threat to democracy" for a while now. Joe Biden says it, and all the folks who lick his toes, are saying it. With so many people puking up the same words, I thought it would be important to grasp what they meant.

I asked an honest question, and in 11 pages, I believe I got 5 people to offer their opinion on the answer. The question wasn't asked for those on the right, as they aren't saying "Trump is a threat to democracy". The entire idea was very basic, and I think the issue arose with the DERP level 9 posting we saw.

I can't control what others say, not do I want to. I DO want to understand WHY people think like they do. That is so very much more important that WHAT they say.

originally posted by: bastion
I don't see him as a threat to democracy in the US but he did favour dictators and the Taliban over democracies and allies in his last term.

That US voters only have a choice between Trump and Biden is a good sign things aren't fit for purpose though; hopefully it could make inroads for third or fourth parties now the main two have stopped trying to have any policies and only stand on 'I'm not the other guy'' tickets. Has the US ever had a left wing as Reps and Dems are right wing authoritarians.

thanks for the post.
as it stands now, we have two choices. If another viable choice exists that could get enough of the vote to matter, someone needs to point it out soon. If not, we will have to deal with the choices we have in front of us. Me personally, I'm just fine with all this as Trump didn't frighten me in his first 4 years. Lots of things I wish he's have done different, but overall, results were positive for me. So I will contrast the two administrations, look at the results of policy, look at the personal income and cost of living I had then, and have now, and make an informed decision. Being gaslit about how Trump will eat all his opponents, or kill everyone who disagrees with him wont work on those who I speak to on the regular.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: network dude

People with TDS have no compass except one that guides them through irrational hatred.

I heard they used a dartboard for the really tough decisions on how to generate outrage going forward into the next Trump era.

This thread gave us the answer to your question.

The phenomenon known as TDS needs to be studied and understood because as a tool it seems ridiculous on the surface and yet to deny it as a force of nature in an age of enlightened cynicism seems like a missed opportunity for reducing the chance of repeated behavior.

I have no doubt that the onslaught against American culture and values by every machination of TPTB is manufactured controversy in order to distract the masses from the fact that the country they thought they knew has been high jacked and that not only is the enemy inside the gates, but they are also running this #show farce we've come to know as the US of A.

At least, that is if I understood what you meant by 'the left' which would of course include quite a couple of RINOS as well.

I find it funny that some on here can't accept that there are valid reasons why some on the left don't like Trump. I, along with others, have illustrated the points. But rather than accepting them for what they are (you don't have agree with them, but you should acknowledge them given that we're just answering a question that was asked) you start screaming about TDS.

You are literally invalidating all of our stances by throwing out a stupid term. Whether or not you agree, there are valid reasons why people in general may not like Trump or Biden. Calling names vs. trying to understand show ZERO critical thinking skills.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: VoiceofReality

Because he didn't have a choice. The military would have gone in and removed him....lol

In my humble opinion, my point still stands because to this day he has never conceded and used the words "I lost the 2020 free and fair election."

If he did that it would go a long way in repairing his reputation with some on the left. Others will continue to hold a grudge.

I'll throw a hypothetical at you. If if's found that Trump was cheated out of the election by ballot harvesting, what happens then? Do all of you apologize?

If it can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt (I like to use the same standards that the courts use) that there was massive fraud on a scale large enough to actually have changed the outcome, I'll be the first one to come here and apologize. Obviously I cannot drag all Trump hating lefties here, but yes, if the facts were to ever show that that actually happened, you'll see me here, and I will whole-heartedly apologize. You have my word.

a reply to: VoiceofReality

not to wander too far into they hypothetical weeds, but wouldn't that eliminate most of the things the left hates him for? I only ask you, as you seem to be level headed and honest.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: VoiceofReality

originally posted by: network dude
He believed then, and likely believes now that he was #ed out of the last election. I also think that. In fact, I don't just think it, I know it. And the facts are on my side.

The DNC, the IC, and the "deep state" actively suppressed the true reporting of the laptop before the election using the "it's all Russia's fault" tagline they must use due to not having any imagination or intelligence. Enough voters have stated that had they known about this, they wouldn't have voted for Biden, and Trump would have won. All that happened, without one ballot being hijacked. (I still believe that happened, but can't prove it)

But the facts are not on your side. In fact there are zero successful court cases due to lack of evidence. There has been zero credible evidence brought forward saying there was wide spread fraud to the level where it would have changed the outcome (no one would argue that there were small, insignificant issues).

If you have evidence please send the link to the rest of us. Credible evidence only please.

As for that whole the Russia gate thing, I can tell you it had zero impact on who I voted for. I can also speak confidentially that none of the friends I discuss politics with would have changed their vote either. We voted for Biden because we liked his policies better than we like Trump's policies. It's that simple for some of us. Obviously I can't speak for everyone.

As for right now, I think the country needs a change. I would happily vote for the Republicans over Biden, if they ran ANYONE other than Trump. He's rubbed me the wrong way for long enough, that he will never get my vote. If they ran Haley she'd get my vote in an instant. Most moderates I know feel the same way. We don't want Biden again, but he's still a better option than Trump. Again just my humble opinion, and those that I know IRL.

Yes, a laptop connected to Hunter Biden exists. The FBI seized it from a computer repair shop in Delaware.

l ink to source
so we know for a fact that Hunter's laptop exists and it belonged to Hunter. Fact, undisputed fact.

www.dailynews.com...

In the fall of 2020, just months before the presidential election, the Federal Bureau of Investigation lied to the news media and social media platforms in order to trick them into suppressing truthful information about one of the candidates.

Again, undisputed fact. The FBI, the DNC, and the rest of the IC suppressed the story so Biden could win the election.

nypost.com...

Nearly four of five Americans who’ve been following the Hunter Biden laptop scandal believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a new poll.

A similar percentage also said they’re convinced that information on the computer is real, with just 11% saying they thought it was “created by Russia,” according to the survey conducted by the New Jersey-based Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics.

And an even higher number — 81% — said US Attorney General Merrick Garland should appoint a special counsel to investigate matters related to the first son’s infamous laptop, the existence of which was exclusively revealed by The Post in October 2020.

the last part is based on polling, because there is no other way to get the data, other than have another election.

But it's right there, facts exist showing that the laptop story was intentionally hidden from voters and it was real and should have been allowed to be viewed and known. Spin it however you like, you sure as hell don't need my permission for that, but at the very least, you have facts, and links, and the truth.

Sure, but again we're talking about widespread voter fraud that caused Trump to lose, not Hunter's laptop. I do not believe that even if the story had been promoted at the time of the findings it would have changed enough voters minds to have given us different results. I cannot say that conclusively, but you're making a dangerous assumption it would have as well.

I will just throw out here that I appreciate your posts and the fact that you treating the "other side" with respect. You are one of the few here who has not done that and I think it's worth stating my appreciation for that.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: VoiceofReality

not to wander too far into they hypothetical weeds, but wouldn't that eliminate most of the things the left hates him for? I only ask you, as you seem to be level headed and honest.

I don't believe so, no. If I cut and paste my original reasons from my original post, none of these 3 things would be changed if the laptop story would have come out earlier:

- Trump already refused to honor the free and fair election he lost. The peaceful transfer of power is a tenant of democracy. When someone who clearly lost, refuses to concede, it stains democracy. If he had concerns, which he did, the proper route was to go through the courts. They courts threw all 62 court cases out. He lost and refused to concede.
- He was involved in the setup and execuatio of a fake elector's plot, which again seeks to go around the democratic election process.
- He made a very threatening phone call to try and get the Georgia results overturned. Again, interfering in a democratic process.

I don't believe for an instant if the laptop story had come out, he would have conceded any quicker. I don't believe it would have changed his mind to try and put a fake elector's plot in place. And I don't believe it would have changed the Georgia phone call at all.

You could make the argument that if it had been released sooner it may have changed some voter's decisions. Not me or my wife, but you could argue that some may have been swayed. It is dangerous however to assume that enough people would have changed their minds to put Trump rightfully in office because of the laptop story.

a reply to: VoiceofReality

the issue with the ballot harvesting and my theory on that is not what I was speaking on with that post. the ballot thing cannot be proven currently, and unless and until it's investigated it won't be. But the part the FBI and the IC and the DNC had in the fiasco I spoke of, was wrong in every way I know, and as I showed, enough people who were asked said that they would have voted differently had they known, makes the idea that the election was indeed stolen from Trump a valid thought. Just not for the advertised reasons.

And thanks for the kind words. I'm an ass and enjoy being so a bit too much at times, but when I encounter people who are respectful, I do my best to reciprocate. I'm not very good at it, but it is part of my thought process.

a reply to: VoiceofReality

sorry if I wasn't clear. No, the question wasn't if the laptop story came out, it was if enough voter fraud was found to have existed to overturn the election in 2020, wouldn't that vindicate Trump in all the things you take issue with? (again, it's hypothetical, and not likely at this stage, but I don't always have the chance to ask someone on the other side a real question I hope to get a real answer to)

If fraud was found, Trump's anger, refusal to accept the results, and actions to do everything in his power to legally be president would seem as if they were his duty, and not some vast crime wave. At least that is how I see it, and I'm biased.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: network dude

As you can see by some of the replies, there's going to be a lot of dodging and ducking and playing semantics.

Good luck brother. I've been asking that question for years and never got a straight answer.

There is no straight answer as I can't even keep a straight face with OPs opening post.

Does a straight answer matter? Maybe the important part is whether or not Trump is a threat to Democracy.

If you feel he is, should it matter where you fall on the political spectrum?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: VoiceofReality

sorry if I wasn't clear. No, the question wasn't if the laptop story came out, it was if enough voter fraud was found to have existed to overturn the election in 2020, wouldn't that vindicate Trump in all the things you take issue with? (again, it's hypothetical, and not likely at this stage, but I don't always have the chance to ask someone on the other side a real question I hope to get a real answer to)

If fraud was found, Trump's anger, refusal to accept the results, and actions to do everything in his power to legally be president would seem as if they were his duty, and not some vast crime wave. At least that is how I see it, and I'm biased.

And your last statement is at the heart of this whole debate. Yes if enough evidence of wide spread fraud was found that would have results in Trump winning, sure. But at this point, there hasn't been enough evidence to show that. If someone possesses that evidence they should come forward with it. All I've seen to date is rumours, and allegations of fraud.

But yes, if it could be proven then Trump would have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

a reply to: VoiceofReality

Yes if enough evidence of wide spread fraud was found that would have results in Trump winning, sure.

What makes you believe that this should be the standard?

You mentioned earlier that you would use "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard for proving election fraud.

Why is it different?

It really kinda cracks me up.

You have the Right. Traditionalists, majorly Chrisitan, gun supporters, 3R education (none of that social stuff), etc.

Like "clones". They all think alike.

Then you have everyone else: independents, pacifists, hippies, color-outside-the-line people.

How the Right can call everyone else "sheep" -- really does not compute. Makes zero sense.

What is the Left? Anything someone on the Right doesn't agree with -- in their "clone" world.