Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the Forum Democrats

BINGO!.....you hit it on the nail!!!

Finally! Thanks for partaking PC.

Obviously my post was not only to elicit a response; but, to debate and hope for an intelligent response. First, I can see from your perspective, how it seems, based on Democrats' drift from classic liberalism, to liberalism to, arguably socialism or, more properly, "socialism lite" that Republicans have drifted to the right. I think it can be very successfully argued that the gap has widened; however, conservatives (especially the Republican party) in this country have drifted steadily leftward, just not at the rate Democrats have.

I always argue that most Democrats are single issue voters and that the largest single issue is abortion. It is interesting that any anti-abortion or pro-life position is painted as "telling a woman what to do with her body". That's like calling a pro-choice individual a pro-abortion individual. Notwithstanding religion and morality, from a conservative perspective, abortion is not in the constitution, period and should be left to the states. I would think Democrats would be all over that position as it is about the most secure means of them/you preserving your (women's) "right to choose". Now, there is no way that abortion will every be outlawed across this country. Heck, it will be a stretch to having a total ban in even the most conservative states now. Abortion is an interesting issue because it is argued "to the masses" through talking heads on TV and politicians in a deceptive manner, thus creating chaos and hate that don't need to exist.

Environmental issues is another interesting one. Conservatives are not for polluting or destroying the environment. If a Republican President were to urge the elimination of the federal EPA while leaving all current environmental regulations in place and leaving such issues to the states, Democrats would go apoplectic and call him "anti-environment". The EPA served a great purpose at its inception. At that time, no such entity existed at any state level. The EPA was necessary. Now, it is a huge waste of taxpayer funds. A similar agency exists in every state now and I submit that said agencies at state levels are more responsive to the environmental needs of those states. Add to that the maintaining of current (constitutional) environmental laws and I would think we could be quite resilient environmentally speaking.

Your argument about Republicans becoming much more opposed to anything regarding the threat of climate change is, in my opinion, misguided. It is how that issue is approached that alienates Republicans and conservatives. Having international agencies and governments tax people, directly or indirectly, under the guise of climate changed is ineffective, disingenuous and even insidious. I submit that if one were to simply take the money expended by all of the most visible virtue signaling politicians and celebrities who travel to meet one another at their preferred climate conferences and instead spend that money on world wide advertising and educational campaigns, we would be ahead of where we are now with very little debate or discrepancies. People would be willing to act in accordance with their own best interests.

I know I don't speak for every conservative on this forum. However, I think what I've articulated is closer to most conservatives' positions than how they/we are portrayed in the media. Because of who controls the narrative, the narrative is always changed. Look at my examples in my first post. Let's just use, by way of an example, a recent Supreme Court issue which will be dealing with "affirmative action". This is how it works. If I say, affirmative action should be abolished, why do you think I feel that way? I feel that way because I think it is detrimental to everybody: society, whites, blacks, institutions, employers, etc. and especially those "groups" it is supposed to help. You can argue that I am wrong on that assertion; but, not that it is why I believe that. Immediately Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joy Reed, Whoopi Goldberg, Morning Joe (the list is endless) successfully label me and those like me as "racist" when it is the furthest thing from the truth.

A thousand years from now, future generations will not look at slavery in the U.S. as evidence of our racism. After all, the people who had all of the power and were the "enslavers", eliminated that institution and allowed those enslaved to integrate into every facet of society. No, they will use the history of affirmative action and programs such as the Great Society to show, more truthfully, the true racist history of our country. And we are still the greatest country in the history of the world, especially with respect to rights and opportunities for any and all minorities or aggrieved groups that exist, without exception.

To all others, I apologize for the very, very long post.

Most conservative are keenly aware of societal issues. They are also very aware of liberals and what makes them tick.... the left has no clue what conservatives are, they simply buy the false narratives fed to them by the MSM. They are intellectually lazy.

So you are Tilting at Windmills then? Nice try. All your Dem politicians want to do for he environment, is tax the beejesus out of the middle class, and get rich off you.

It's indefensible because it's contradictory.

This is absolutely true and probably the biggest problem area in our society. Any disagreement articulated by conservatives for whatever logical and objective reason is immediately labeled as "hate speech". After all, what else could it be. Exposing the masses to differing points of view and the "why" of those differing viewpoints jeopardizes people's positions. If "the media" were at least honest in their reporting, the "hate" and divisiveness that currently exist would all but evaporate. People articulate a thoughtful conservative position and half the country or more are convinced they are hate mongers and anti-whatever. However the most despicable and vile crap can be regurgitated by someone on the left and it is deemed thoughtful, helpful and loving input. It is truly insidious. Just look at the whole Musk/Twitter thing. All he is doing is saying I'm offering an open free speech platform for everybody. Now, because of that, he's the biggest hate monger, racist, etc. on the entire planet. Really!?!?

Ah dammit lol, love the bricktop avatar haha

That's the biggest bunch of horseshit I've ever heard.

I'm pretty damn sure a fetus being chased around in the womb by a knife wielding vacuum is going to feel oppressed.

The liberal ideals are contradictory, that's the main reason they don't work.

I've never met a Democrat that can explain their position let alone try to explain it without getting pissed off, most yell and scream, it's funny as hell.

LMAO!

I wondered who would be the first to notice.

What can he say? He votes for people who want to saw off little kids pee pee parts, all in the name of free chit.

Some people don't even want to have the discussion and say climate change isn't real which makes them sound stupid to anyone who knows anything at all because everyone knows the climate changes naturally and sometimes with the help of outside forces like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. The debate is whether man has been an outside force that is causing climate change to occur faster than it would naturally. The answer is just don't worry about it. Its too late regardless of whether man played a role or not. Its gone too far and there is nothing we can do to slow it down even if we could so who cares if man is responsible or not. Scientists talk about ice caps and glaciers melting. You'll hear people say they don't see the big deal about the oceans rising an inch or whatever and don't really believe it because they can't see it out their window. What no one talks about is that 2 billion or more people on the planet get their water from glaciers. What happens when the water runs out? If you look at satellite photos of the continent of Africa 30 years ago vs today, you will see that the size of the deserts have grown exponentially. The deserts in the western United states are growing. There are 17 states that are considered vulnerable to desertification. I don't know if you are a farmer or are into gardening and planting trees but we divide the country into hardiness zones. You may already be aware of this. When planting, you plant based on your hardiness zone. It maybe different for farmers. I am not a farmer but I plant allot of fruit trees for deer and I only plant fruit trees that can live in my zone. Hardiness zones in the US go from 2 the coldest to 10 the hottest. The reason I mention this is that I live in hardiness zone 7. 25 years ago, it was zone 6 so its happening all over the US not just out west. What happens when billions of people get displaced on the planet? China gets water from glaciers. Do you think they will plea for our help or do you think they will be a bit more forceful? Man will destroy itself long before any natural catastrophe ever has a chance.

The good news is that it won't happen in our lifetime and maybe not our kids or even our grandkids so don't worry, be happy. I find life is better when you try to look on the bright side.

Go back to the chart.

You disgust for abortion comes from your high emphasis on purity/chastity. This is why we see such a high correlation between anti-abortion and anti-vaxers.

Now look at the chart, and see where purity/chastity ranks for the left among the moral channels, DEAD LAST. So, in their view supporting abortion prevents old, evil, white men from repressing women from repressing women and their sexuality.

Here's another thing you probably don't understand. What's every mans greatest fear? If I recall correctly, you have kids and grandkids. Now imagine through the miracle of modern DNA you discovered you'd been cucked and none of them were yours.

Now what's a woman's greatest fear? Being forced to have a kids from a man she doesn't want. Now let's say she thinks she's found Mr. Right. What you don't realize, is that fear doesn't stop at the moment on conception. Over the course of the pregnancy the woman will gain additional information about the guy, and at any point, she may exercise "female prerogative" and change her mind. And of course this principle extends to the random hook up etc. So in the mind of the leftist the harm they are preventing is your repressing women and forcing them to have kids they don't want. It doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or not, at the time of birth the result is the same as her being raped. That's their perspective.

So the old saying is correct, Liberalism is a mental disorder.

That's because you're a meanie who argues like this:

Well, its difficult to say which comes first, liberalism or the associated mental disorders, but the correlations are there. I could make a good case both ways. For the purposes of this conversation let's shelve that point.

Let me try to flip the script on you. You're in a committed relationship with a girl. She goes out and does a train 13 man train, takes it in every hole, full bukkake, posts the video on the internet sending it to all your buddies, and gets pregnant, and the kid comes out looking like the dude you'll see if you open on of Kingston's links.

Now imagine you're forced to raise and care for that kid.

Did that give you a deep primal reaction in your gut?

That's as close as I can come to what a woman feels when she realized she doesn't want the baby from the man who put it in her.

I appreciate the thoughtful quest and demeanor of TheBigSky in dealing with your post, but my reaction is based more on stark reality - not such gentle contemplative style. Engaging typical liberal/progressive avoidance, you thank TheBigSky for "a well thought out question" and then you refuse to answer it. He directly asked what it is that sends your type over the top. You ignore that and dish out mush based on "seems", "feels", etc, and your dissatisfaction because you can't get Republicans to give you what you want. So - no - such dialogue is NOT good - it is worthless with regard to solution or understanding. So, what is it that sends your type over the top.

Democrats will be the globalist slaves after the republicans are gone. Democrats will be no better off with globalist running the show. The populations will be gone and most of the people will be dead. The people left will be in worker camps.

he answered the question....you may not like how he worded it....but he answered it....bob

Where does my disgust for abortion come from? I view abortion as murder, yet have the view that most of the aborted are going to develop into the dredges of society that their mothers' associated with. Having read Levitt, there is a significant inverse correlation with the proliferation of violent and property crimes with access to abortion. Though those being aborted are from populations which I tend to despise as a whole, I still cannot morally support abortion. On the flip side, I am not "anti-vax" and am happy to take safe, effective vaccines with a track record of efficacy, yet I do not have support for any form of mandate from employers or governments. I did not take an mRNA vaccine (or any COVID vaccine for that matter) due to lack of efficacy and no track record. In fact, I almost lost my job over my unwillingness to take a new and untested injection which the pharmaceutical companies demonstrably manipulated data in their phase three clinical trial white papers.

The woman chooses to allow that man she doesn't want the baby from to "put it in her". That baby is undoubtedly HER baby complete with half genetics from HER.

The second situation, the man does not make the conscious decision to do anything; all decision are made without his consent and that baby is not HIS DNA and therefore his instincts are not to nurture it and care for it simply because it based on innate desire to pass on HIS DNA. Very, very different situations. The woman is regretting her own decision-making process while the man is being forced into a situation not by his actions, but those of others.