The first time I really noticed Hillary was when she was First "Lady".  You can tell she was uncomfortable with the role.  When interviewed by a reporter in the WH, I believe about her universal healthcare initiative (which failed miserably) she responded, "What do you think I'm going to do, stay at home and bake cookies?". Clearly a slap in the face to the American woman who made the decision to stay home and raise kids, etc.

The first time I really noticed Michelle Obama was when she made the comment, "The first time I've been proud of my country was when they elected my Husband President".  Clearly, a disparaging remark to the country which meant she really hated America up until that point.

Both these "women" are horror shows, and propped up by the MEDIA as some kind of groundbreaking heroes.  That alone should tell you how liberal/progressive 95%+ of our MEDIA has become.

I, as a woman who was both a successful engineer in the man’s world and a stay at home mom baking cookies (in sequence), was deeply offended at that comment of hers. She doesn’t speak for me and the feminists don’t speak for me.

I never said that Twitter was not a great way to go direct to your customers.  I said the president is coarse and is a bully and that costs him support no matter how he delivered his message.

I said that the president is a twitter bully and that has cost him support and success.  But that happens outside of twitter too.  If he had never said "yes, I hope Russia is helping me win", then Robert Mueller would have spent the last two years playing with his grandchildren.  If he had never denigrated Mexicans (sometimes on twitter), then we would have stronger immigration policy and DACA would be dead.  But his policies have been moderated in part because his tweets and words have been taken as proof that he is racist.  If he had never talk about how horrible Muslims were, then there would have never been a court case over whether or not we needed to block terrorists coming into the country.  Finally, if he had been less bombastic on twitter, then he would have had the backing of Congress to build the wall.

There are Republicans don't support him because they don't like him.  I'm not just talking about Murkowski and the like, there are mainstream Republicans who can't support his policies because they don't want to support the public image he projects.

Pretty much everything he has wanted to do, he stuck his foot in his mouth and messed it up.

No, that isn't just the liberal media.

Wow. Just like Steingar, upside down world. Where do you get this stuff? CNN?

The president would be more effective if he wasn’t also a nasty twitter troll.

More effective? I can’t complain about his current level of effectiveness which is greater than the last three presidents combined.

Honest question: why do folks here call the current Democratic Party "communist"?

Communism to me implies that most property, industry, agriculture, etc. are state-owned. The political system is single-party, and those who don't belong to the party are subject to persecution. Intellectuals are forced to conform to what is dictated by government, or otherwise driven into exile or "purged". Basically an iron-fisted totalitarian State. Such as the old USSR was and that we find today in places like China and North Korea.

I don't see even the current far left Dems pushing toward that at all. Someone said they want to turn the US into Norway. I think that's pretty accurate. It's European-style "democratic socialism". I agree that it would be a disaster for this country, but it isn't based on Marxism as far as I'm aware, and it's a long way from Soviet or Chinese style Communism. Scandinavian countries still have multiple political parties and capitalism thrives, albeit under a heavy regulatory burden.

Is all this just hyperbole, or am I missing something?

My response to Lucifer was really to you. Here is the gist of what you are saying:

“Classic Marxism was based on humanistic social science and economics, industrialism, and state ownership of the means of production, which few leftists today take seriously. Even China today is a mixture of capitalism and communism. What the Left propagates today is not state ownership of companies, but rather the strict regulation of them instead. This, however, has not made the business community any better. It has, in fact, resulted in an unholy corporatist alliance, if not fascist wedding, between big business and big government in both Europe and North America.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/from_marxismcommunism_to_postmodern_liberal_fascism.html

Please go read the whole thing, it pulls all this together.

I think this is what you’re saying, the left and the Democrat Party are stopping short of openly promoting complete nationalization of all industries, that which you define as “communism”. What this article is saying is their goal is complete power and control over them - which is essentially the same thing.

 

In olden times religion was the primary source of charity, and government kept its hands out of it.  But it should be remembered that in previous times Church and State were intrinsically intertwined, and both were more or less compulsory.  Church had far greater sway on one's day to day life, and had the resources to serve as a societal safety net.

I doubt strongly that houses of worship in modern America have either the resources or breadth to exclusively serve that role.

That's a valid point.  The United States was a unique experiment with capitalism and no authoritative overlord, either church or government. The result was incredible wealth and progress.  There was still a gap between those with the most and those with the least, but those with the least still benefited greatly over those with the least in any previous form of state. (Not counting slaves.)

Human nature being what it is, there are always problems with any group organization, including states and nations. All organizations consist of those with more power and wealth, and those with less.  In free market capitalism, there is more free movement of individuals up and down this hierarchy.

Today, you are correct in that people are not invested in religion nearly as much as before. Maybe in the past when church was powerful, it was as compulsory as government is today. Even now within specific religions there can be social pressure to tithe.

So you are answering my question, why the Jews seem to believe in leftism (socialism, ie: government provided services) - do they have a history of their own government being one and the same with their religion? Moses and the tribe leadership, let's say?  Today they seem to have transferred the responsibility once held by their own tribal leadership, to whatever secular government they find themselves under, to be responsible for taking care of the disenfranchised?

Or maybe let me ask you this: The Democrats a generation ago, were not communists. They were not far left progressives. I can understand Jews being Democrats then, just like Catholics were. In a similar way, Catholics believe in taking care of the poor, and communal responsibility. They could support some government programs as a safety net. But in the past few decades the Democrat party has been taken over by Marxists - those who don't believe in Capitalism at all, but total government control of all resources.

I think I'm getting to the core of my confusion here. If you believe in free market capitalism basically, that it led to the wealth and progress of the U.S., but you just think government should take responsibility for providing programs for the disenfranchised, that is one thing. But if you follow what is suggested by the far left part of the Democrat party today, which is promoting a wholesale takeover of huge parts of the economy such as healthcare, energy production, and all of higher education, that's not a traditional Democrat. That's a communist. The only thing left is food production and I'm waiting any minute for AOC or the like to suggest that too if they haven't already.

And that is what I have trouble understanding why a Jew or a Catholic, or anyone really, could support.  So if you're a Democrat just because of legacy and the false idea the other side is "evil" that's one thing. But if you're a Democrat because you truly think Lenin and Stalin did better for their people than Jefferson and Adams, that baffles me.

Is that you Rush?

Oh hell no, I'm much sexier than that.

You gotta love all of the Hollyweird progressives that demand gun control, while making movies and cashing in million$ glorifying gun use.

Hypocrites all.

Hollywood depiction of guns is downright evil - ALWAYS finger on the trigger. They know better. It's appalling. I hold them responsible for accidental discharges; if you see a gun you pick it up like you've seen it on TV a million times, unless you've been taught otherwise. Proper gun handling should be taught from kindergarten. Hollywood should be made by law to show finger OFF the trigger at all times until someone actually shoots.

The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the USA. It is in common use and thus should be protected from any prohibitions under Heller. Yet the leftists still push “assault weapons bans.”  Why?

Two reasons. Leftists tend to be urban and people raised in the city don’t get exposure to guns as useful tools. Most of their exposure to guns is in movies and TV shows where only criminals and military or hero protagonists have guns. When you’re raised this way from birth you know no different. Assault weapons? Why, I can see on TV only mid eastern terrorists use those! You can’t possibly be up to any good with one of those! This is the useful idiot and sheeple position.

Second, the real leftists, the ones driving it ideologically, know damn well they’ll eventually need to disarm the citizenry if they’re going to implement socialism. Because socialism (aka leftism aka communism aka Marxism aka post modernism) requires forcibly taking one’s resources, ultimately at the point of a gun, and you can’t have your robbery victim armed. He might collectively revolt.