Why do Democrats want to break the Social Contract?

  • ATTN NEW USERS: I strongly suggest using a real, alter-ego email address from a reputable provider and using a Password Manager to securely keep tack of it. If you forget your email and password I cannot restore your account. These are good practices in general so stop being lazy.

eternal dog mongler

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Does that signify a wider trend though, or was it just the perfect storm of Trump pandering to a demographic Hillary thought she had locked up and didn't bother campaigning to? By which I mean, did either party actually learn anything from the last election cycle? (Press X to doubt)

No, nobody learned what went on in 2016.

Clinton fucked up majorly with the working class during her campaign. That retraining the coal miners shit was just such a fucking self-goal. Sanders does somewhat understand what's going on and then he keeps making gaffes.

The GOP tried to triangulate even before 2016 because they understood that they needed Hispanic voters due to demographic changes. This was killed immediately. Now they're set up to die permanently in about 30 years, but in the meantime they might manage to outlaw abortion!
 

Foxxo

He needs a rest.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
It's both. :story:
It's not malice if they don't know that what they're doing will eff everyone.
No, nobody learned what went on in 2016.

Clinton fucked up majorly with the working class during her campaign. That retraining the coal miners shit was just such a fucking self-goal. Sanders does somewhat understand what's going on and then he keeps making gaffes.

The GOP tried to triangulate even before 2016 because they understood that they needed Hispanic voters due to demographic changes. This was killed immediately. Now they're set up to die permanently in about 30 years, but in the meantime they might manage to outlaw abortion!
How unkind to assume that Hispanics have no political agency.
 

Libtard-Wrecking Krogoth

On a mission.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 15, 2019
going the very pessimistic route, with the assumption that (as malice, moldbug, and other reactionaries would say it) "conservatism is progressivism with a speed limit" or "is merely sand in the gears of progressivism," etc. is there any doubt about that statement with people like ben shapiro and candace owens spearheading the so-called modern "conservative" movement? "conservatives" today are mainstream democrats circa 2008. teddy spaghetti is absolutely right when he points out that conservatives have conserved absolutely nothing (this doesn't make him less of a sperg, however).
The contract exists solely between the Government and the Citizens. Not the people of other countries.
if nobody actually behaves that way, then it might as well not exist. who in this country actually believes that now or behaves like that? moreover, enlightenment ideals (as the social contract most definitely is one) have often turned out to be hurdles for power plays, or self-defeating altogether -- prima facie the french revolution, one of the biggest historical gaffes of the enlightenment conceivable; on the other hand the self-contradiction of free speech pointed out by godel applying for citizenship, and indeed being played out right now with people in the west increasingly cracking down on wrongspeak. i'm not asking for logical purity (as many of the neo-enlightenment IYIs might beg for, with obvious disastrous results -- i mean, marx wasn't completely logically incoherent, was he? well?), in fact somewhat the opposite: take that ever-shining virtue we call "equality:" the natural ends of equality is (psychological) slavery because people are not equally capable of nearly anything equal in "value" (and value itself is an entire library's worth of writing too, which wouldn't even clarify it) -- but this is what you see when a giant "equals sign" is put between men and women, is it any wonder we see the crazy troonage we see now, that "gender is a social construct," that "no human is illegal"? i keep mentioning tocqueville on here because i keep seeing this motif turn up almost everywhere i look. people contort themselves into such odd shapes just to not be called a bad person and to support this uncriticizable value, to see the humanity in another person even if that person murdered their daughter. but the second the NBA is stacked with healthy young and attractive black men, well, good for them, they earned it, and plus black men are simply more athletic - there's no contradiction here, because contradictions don't exist when someone's not obscuring your social view or causing you to have bad thoughts, etc. what do we really mean by "equality?" "freedom"? "social contract"? isn't it possible that the general populace completely misunderstands what the very concept of a "contract" is? do most of them give a shit? and why bother with it when there's no real punishment for not playing by the rules? the elites and poor don't pay taxes. why do you? are you a sucker?
Both they and the Republicans have always had a very different idea what the social contract between the Government and the American People.
where is the proof of this? with reagan and bush both wanting to let foreign workers come in the 80s because americans were too lazy then, or democrats fearmongering about children in cages and a lack of taco stands now? remember, obama was called "the deporter in chief" more than once; did he care more than trump or bernie? what about H1Bs and H2Bs, going all the way back to the 1960s, one of the great strokes of genius for the democrats? and right now, i mean, did you really think trump was being literal about a Big Beautiful Wall (BBW)? even scott adams, that absolutely exceptional master of persuasion, one of trump's most vocal supporters, has had to pivot around this never actually coming to fruition, saying everything from "it won't be a wall, some parts will be a fence" to "lol did you really think he was being literal?" in fact, trump has been the single greatest salesman for illegal immigration ever; he's really put those persuasion skills to use by making coming here ever more valuable and controversial -- how many politicans on either side has loudly elucidated this very fact? so then good for trump, the greatest salesman to indeed ever live, without anyone talking about it either. i do have to hand trump the fact that he hasn't gotten us into an external war; we'll leave that to the democrats next time around to distract us from how bad things will get here, no doubt. but you were talking about the american people. who? you mean those guys who held up their end of the contract by dying in the middle east for no actual reason than to destabilize the opposition to saudi and israeli collective power? never heard of them. they're probably lazy, want to be paid too highly, and probably vote the wrong way. even more horrifying, they probably can't make tacos or pho properly. i shiver at the thought. by the way, i have tickets for hamilton, wanna come see it with me tonight?
Yet lately the Democratic party has chosen to break this social contract. They are now obsessed with the plight of Non-Americans, to the point that they demand the American sacrifice on their behalf to their own long term detriment. This is a very new development. Even Obama never went so far as to argue that we should have open borders for everyone.
[...]
Which again is something Republicans do, but Democrats seem increasingly determined to not do. Especially when we take into account the shrieking about impeaching trump and punching Republican congressmen.
[...]
My brain is melting trying to figure out why they are doing this and why they think its a winning long term strategy.
i'm going to let a video do the talking for me here, the distributist did a livestream the other night which in 3 minutes said just about everything anyone could say about what the left is doing, why they're doing it (whether consciously or not, that's another discussion, i would argue it's more of a long-term evolutionary tactic/response as opposed to well-planned-out and all that -- winning is all that matters, really)
from the 2:09:29 mark to the 2:12:14 mark pretty much sums up everything i could comment on at all (the stuff he says after not so much; i'm not endorsing his entire commentary in the video at all). the only thing i would add is when ian (innuendo studios, the guy in the video) says "fix that, and we can make the world better without their permission" says more than anything i could possibly ever say, everything that's really wrong with the progressive project in a single sentence, that a "good" sentiment trumps every single thing else imaginable, that history holds no precedent whatsoever, that they are above evidence, that a gun pointed at your head (when has this not been the case, by the way?) is worth it because they are the possessors of the moral high ground, and that they are simply beyond criticism whatsoever because of their morality, because they are ordained by baal-only-knows what evil force. what a disgusting joke that is.

and none of this is by any means any exoneration of republicans. the entirety of the cathedric establishment (academia, highfalutin newspapers, jon stewart/bill maher, etc) have been shitting on them - sometimes rightly so - for decades.

this spergout is more just to raise objections than to provide serious answers, fyi. i smell bad ideas everywhere and must sperg; "a fart by any other name," as shakespeare wrote....
 
Last edited:

Foxxo

He needs a rest.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
going the very pessimistic route, with the assumption that (as malice, moldbug, and other reactionaries would say it) "conservatism is progressivism with a speed limit" or "is merely sand in the gears of progressivism," etc. is there any doubt about that statement with people like ben shapiro and candace owens spearheading the so-called modern "conservative" movement? "conservatives" today are mainstream democrats circa 2008. teddy spaghetti is absolutely right when he points out that conservatives have conserved absolutely nothing (this doesn't make him less of a sperg, however).
if nobody actually behaves that way, then it might as well not exist. who in this country actually believes that now or behaves like that? moreover, enlightenment ideals (as the social contract most definitely is one) have often turned out to be hurdles for power plays, or self-defeating altogether -- prima facie the french revolution, one of the biggest historical gaffes of the enlightenment conceivable; on the other hand the self-contradiction of free speech pointed out by godel applying for citizenship. i'm not asking for logical purity (as many of the neo-enlightenment IYIs might beg for, with obvious disastrous results -- i mean, marx wasn't completely logically incoherent, was he? well?), in fact somewhat the opposite: take that ever-shining virtue we call "equality:" the natural ends of equality is slavery because people are not equally capable of nearly anything equal in "value" (and value itself is an entire library's worth of writing too, which wouldn't even clarify it) -- but this is what you see when a giant "equals sign" is put between men and women, is it any wonder we see the crazy troonage we see now, that "gender is a social construct," that "no human is illegal"? i keep mentioning tocqueville on here because i keep seeing this motif turn up almost everywhere i look. people contort themselves into such odd shapes just to not be called a bad person and to support this uncriticizable value, to see the humanity in another person even if that person murdered their daughter. but the second the NBA is stacked with healthy young and attractive black men, well, good for them, they earned it, and plus black men are simply more athletic - there's no contradiction here, because contradictions don't exist when someone's not obscuring your social view or causing you to have bad thoughts, etc. what do we really mean by "equality?" "freedom"? "social contract"? isn't it possible that the general populace completely misunderstands what the very concept of a "contract" is? do most of them give a shit? and why bother with it when there's no real punishment for not playing by the rules? the elites and poor don't pay taxes. why do you? are you a sucker?

where is the proof of this? with reagan and bush both wanting to let foreign workers come in the 80s because americans were too lazy then, or democrats fearmongering about children in cages and a lack of taco stands now? remember, obama was called "the deporter in chief" more than once; did he care more than trump or bernie? what about H1Bs and H2Bs, going all the way back to the 1960s, one of the great strokes of genius for the democrats? and right now, i mean, did you really think trump was being literal about a Big Beautiful Wall (BBW)? even scott adams, that absolutely exceptional master of persuasion, one of trump's most vocal supporters, has had to pivot around this never actually coming to fruition, saying everything from "it won't be a wall, some parts will be a fence" to "lol did you really think he was being literal?" in fact, trump has been the single greatest salesman for illegal immigration ever; he's really put those persuasion skills to use by making coming here ever more valuable and controversial -- how many politicans on either side has loudly elucidated this very fact? so then good for trump, the greatest salesman to indeed ever live, without anyone talking about it either. i do have to hand trump the fact that he hasn't gotten us into an external war; we'll leave that to the democrats next time around to distract us from how bad things will get here, no doubt. but you were talking about the american people. who? you mean those guys who held up their end of the contract by dying in the middle east for no actual reason than to destabilize the opposition to saudi and israeli collective power? never heard of them. they're probably lazy, want to be paid too highly, and probably vote the wrong way. even more horrifying, they probably can't make tacos or pho properly. i shiver at the thought. by the way, i have tickets for hamilton, wanna come see it with me tonight?

i'm going to let a video do the talking for me here, the distributist did a livestream the other night which in 3 minutes said just about everything anyone could say about what the left is doing, why they're doing it (whether consciously or not, that's another discussion, i would argue it's more of a long-term evolutionary tactic/response as opposed to well-planned-out and all that -- winning is all that matters, really)
from the 2:09:29 mark to the 2:12:14 mark pretty much sums up everything i could comment on at all (the stuff he says after not so much; i'm not endorsing his entire commentary in the video at all). the only thing i would add is when ian (innuendo studios, the guy in the video) says "fix that, and we can make the world better without their permission" says more than anything i could possibly ever say, everything that's really wrong with the progressive project in a single sentence, that a "good" sentiment trumps every single thing else imaginable, that history holds no precedent whatsoever, that they are above evidence, that a gun pointed at your head (when has this not been the case, by the way?) is worth it because they are the possessors of the moral high ground, and that they are simply beyond criticism whatsoever because of their morality, because they are ordained by baal-only-knows what evil force. what a disgusting joke that is.

and none of this is by any means any exoneration of republicans. the entirety of the cathedric establishment (academia, highfalutin newspapers, jon stewart/bill maher, etc) have been shitting on them - sometimes rightly so - for decades.

this spergout is more just to raise objections than to provide serious answers, fyi. i smell bad ideas everywhere and must sperg; "a fart by any other name," as shakespeare wrote....
I think Black Pigeon Speaks summed it up best: The West has always been "inherently liberal/progressive", at least since the 1850's, but now that liberal trait has become mal-adaptive because we've gone too far. We either have to let it run its course and end up like Brazil or the Second World (take your pick), or try to pump the handbrake with conservatism. It's not in our nature as a culture to veer right, however.
 

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
This reads like one of those crappy chain emails I used to get when I Signed up and posted on Conservative American page in the 00's is this copypasta'd from them?

To answer your query
-The social contract is a general term for the idea law and order are idea's agreed upon rather than some litteral list of obligations.
-The social contract doesnt automatically equate with your specific desires or even your specific interests.
-The idea that Republicans represent common interest vs the Democrats who don't is retarded.
-Bad faith electoral strategy has fuck all with the social contract.
-the entire premise of the social contract is flawed anyway because you can't opt out and never conciously sign up for it.
 
Last edited:

Iwasamwillbe

Sacred Sun of Cleansing
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Because they are in the thrall of leftist hacks and ideologues.
 

Fek

What could possibly go wrong?
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 7, 2019
They want to break the social contract because it $eems advantageou$ for them to do so in the here and now. It'll bite em in the ass super hard because the people at the helm of this new hot garbage sjw/oppression olympics shit are so horribly out of touch (and their followers are so utterly deluded) that they'll implode all on their own.

I think it'd help if Soros would fucking croak already, but probably not as much as I'd hope. That guy is a fucking genius with a god complex and the means to act on his deluded perception of reality..scary shit.

The rest of us, both right and what remains of a sane(?) left, will have to pay for it over the next couple generations while dragging their stupid sad simpering asses along for their own good. Or not, who knows.

I really don't think that this breach of social contract will last as the years continue. I think it's a testing of the waters, and sooner or later the powers that be will realize the water is muriatic acid.

The GOP tried to triangulate even before 2016 because they understood that they needed Hispanic voters due to demographic changes. This was killed immediately.

Pardon the lack of data readily available for your perusal, but aren't later generations of Hispanic voters ending up more right-leaning politically? I'll see if I can find the study someone was referencing in a different thread the other day..caught my eye. Edit: No dice. Enjoy the baseless assertion, I guess.
 
Last edited:

eternal dog mongler

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Pardon the lack of data readily available for your perusal, but aren't later generations of Hispanic voters ending up more right-leaning politically? I'll see if I can find the study someone was referencing in a different thread the other day..caught my eye. Edit: No dice. Enjoy baseless the assertion, I guess.

Hispanics are very conservative overall. 40+ was the inflection point where they started voting for Trump but at less rates than whites. Younger Hispanics are very fucking mad about the GOP.

I guess you can just continue crying into your basement tendies though.
 

Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake

It's screamin' good.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 26, 2019
"Why do democrats want to breach the social contract"?

In simple terms, they don't want to violate a social contract per se, they want to re-write it such as it would pander to those who would OPENLY tolerate a larger scope of governmental power and responsibility. What they want is to breach the balance of power between sovereign and citizen. And they have learned that they can, because the modern electorate will gladly eschew personal responsibility and civic duty for comfort and "economic success." The Republicans have merely learned that should you keep your power grabs above what the average American will consider or comprehend, they will countenance it. The common theme that shows this is that neither party has done shit about the unconstitutional and egregious post-9/11 "security measures." Under which, the president can use a plethora of military hardware and personnel basically as a personal hit squad with minimal oversight, while the spooks at Langley can deal drugs, hide assassinations and generally wreak havoc under an apathetic and largely complicit "congressional oversight committee." And insofar as they keep the Average US citizen happy as a clam, anything is fair game. Nor have they once countenanced any actual discussion about fixing the political infrastructure that allows such abuses of power. Why would they? It's much easier to lump any actual change to the status quo under a burgeoning agglomeration of discomfort that would arise from their downfall. thus they each get their shot at enacting their various agendas which they hide under the guise of ultimately meaningless "social issues."

TL;DR "Give me convenience or give me death" is quickly leading to the death of civil rights, and as long as you are a happy consumer who votes correctly and makes no trouble, you too can be complicit for a marginal level of prosperity. The game is up and won't be fixed without a whole lot of pain.
 

SomethingWittyandBadass

Daddy's too busy fucking a whore to care Timmy.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
This is something that has puzzled me for some time, especially since i have largely backed the Democratic party up until recently. Because recently they have begun to break the social contract. Explaining what I mean; the Social Contract is the series of written and unwritten rules that exist between the sovereign and the subjects. Or in the case of the United States, the Federal and State Governments and the citizens. The primary rules of such agreement is that the individual citizens surrender some of their property and freedoms in exchange for the Governments protection of the rest of their property, body, and natural rights. The contract exists solely between the Government and the Citizens. Not the people of other countries.

Both they and the Republicans have always had a very different idea what the social contract between the Government and the American People. It is simplistic to say the Republicans want to take less property and give more freedom vs the Democrats wants to take more property and less freedoms. Depending on the issue one or the other could be more extreme in the give and take. But the overall unifying point was that it was an interaction between them and the American people. The ENTIRE American people. Not the people of other countries, and certainly not a select portion of the country to the detriment of the other. Yet lately the Democratic party has chosen to break this social contract. They are now obsessed with the plight of Non-Americans, to the point that they demand the American sacrifice on their behalf to their own long term detriment. This is a very new development. Even Obama never went so far as to argue that we should have open borders for everyone. Quite the opposite in fact. This is a flagrant breach, as it not just ignores what the American people may want, but it also jeapordizes their security. Something any government must offer in order to have legitimacy with the governed.

But that is just a side show to what I feel is an even worse violation. Namely the writing off of almost 2/3rds of the country in favor of an inner city urban core and expat globalist elite that likes to vote in by absentee ballot. The Republicans like to bitch about urban voters, but they don't write them off and will usually show up to campaign even in places they are generally guaranteed to lose. The Democrats by comparison refuse to show up in many rural elections, and if they do its usually to preach some alien morality to the unwashed heathens that don't live in LA, San Francisco or New York. They don't come across as a political party that wants to govern these vast stretches of the country. Rather they seem to want to conquer them by imposition, and front load in the cities in the hopes they can pretend those evil right wingers don't exist at all. This also breaks the social contract as no matter the outcome of an election, the winner becomes the sovereign and must govern at the consent of the governed. Even if that consent extends as much to simply passively accepting the outcome of the election in the hopes of getting their guy in next time.

Which again is something Republicans do, but Democrats seem increasingly determined to not do. Especially when we take into account the shrieking about impeaching trump and punching Republican congressmen. My brain is melting trying to figure out why they are doing this and why they think its a winning long term strategy. Even if it does work out for them at the ballot box for some inexplicable reason, their elections will eventually have no legitimacy and that is recipe for a major disaster.



1. Almost all democrats are friendly people who don't want to be racist but they are actually very racist by patronizing in a big way in fact.

This is seen numerous of times that people don't care about the statistics that people of color's problems have nothing to do with the fact of their own problems. As much democrats love to pretend like they know it how it feels for Jamal to be profiled by Officer Robert. They really don't in fact.

2. No one wants to admit that they are wrong.

Since in 2012-2013, the rise of the sjws and the good ol American liberal who thinks that white people are evil is literally on a steady climb that they even infested towards basic mediums of social media. The problem is with this attitude of acceptances of no bars towards people of color and anyone who has a mental disorder is that everyone is now suffering. The City of Los Angeles is now in a health epedimic now with a large rat infestation due to constant homeless burrows and feces being left everywhere and it could trigger another bubonic plague. Companies have also started to be more homeless friendly towards people who offer needle dispensers when they need throw their used needles away. Which means the homeless population have known to be completely destroying certain bathrooms towards the own general public. The point is: Everyone tried to be a socially woked person but it reality, it's now their downfall. Everyone is getting diseases, sickness, and even the homeless are also suffering as well.

3. Democrats are pretty fucking young and stupid teens.

I have literally seen nothing more but teeangers who have no idea how politics work, how the system works, and that just shouting with signs and rocks is not gonna change a political system which has been in place for almost 300 years.
 

The best and greatest

Staring into your soul
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
This is something that has puzzled me for some time, especially since i have largely backed the Democratic party up until recently. Because recently they have begun to break the social contract. Explaining what I mean; the Social Contract is the series of written and unwritten rules that exist between the sovereign and the subjects. Or in the case of the United States, the Federal and State Governments and the citizens. The primary rules of such agreement is that the individual citizens surrender some of their property and freedoms in exchange for the Governments protection of the rest of their property, body, and natural rights. The contract exists solely between the Government and the Citizens. Not the people of other countries.

Both they and the Republicans have always had a very different idea what the social contract between the Government and the American People. It is simplistic to say the Republicans want to take less property and give more freedom vs the Democrats wants to take more property and less freedoms. Depending on the issue one or the other could be more extreme in the give and take. But the overall unifying point was that it was an interaction between them and the American people. The ENTIRE American people. Not the people of other countries, and certainly not a select portion of the country to the detriment of the other. Yet lately the Democratic party has chosen to break this social contract. They are now obsessed with the plight of Non-Americans, to the point that they demand the American sacrifice on their behalf to their own long term detriment. This is a very new development. Even Obama never went so far as to argue that we should have open borders for everyone. Quite the opposite in fact. This is a flagrant breach, as it not just ignores what the American people may want, but it also jeapordizes their security. Something any government must offer in order to have legitimacy with the governed.

But that is just a side show to what I feel is an even worse violation. Namely the writing off of almost 2/3rds of the country in favor of an inner city urban core and expat globalist elite that likes to vote in by absentee ballot. The Republicans like to bitch about urban voters, but they don't write them off and will usually show up to campaign even in places they are generally guaranteed to lose. The Democrats by comparison refuse to show up in many rural elections, and if they do its usually to preach some alien morality to the unwashed heathens that don't live in LA, San Francisco or New York. They don't come across as a political party that wants to govern these vast stretches of the country. Rather they seem to want to conquer them by imposition, and front load in the cities in the hopes they can pretend those evil right wingers don't exist at all. This also breaks the social contract as no matter the outcome of an election, the winner becomes the sovereign and must govern at the consent of the governed. Even if that consent extends as much to simply passively accepting the outcome of the election in the hopes of getting their guy in next time.

Which again is something Republicans do, but Democrats seem increasingly determined to not do. Especially when we take into account the shrieking about impeaching trump and punching Republican congressmen. My brain is melting trying to figure out why they are doing this and why they think its a winning long term strategy. Even if it does work out for them at the ballot box for some inexplicable reason, their elections will eventually have no legitimacy and that is recipe for a major disaster.
To be fair its not just democrats who want to "break the social contract." "Taxes are theft" is about as anti-social-contract as you can get. Also to be fair, "The social contract" is a filthy European authoritarian idea. That private citizens are obligated to owe anything to the state outside of their taxes is pretty "Myehhhhh" to most Americans. Consider that after the founding of our nation we basically had to force ourselves to pay taxes to ourselves out of pragmatic need.

Further, I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship the US citizen has to the US gov. in the US the citizen and the state ideologically are one and the same since the state is made up of, by, and for the citizen. This idea that the citizen owes something to the state like its a distinct entity that exists to propagate itself even against the wishes of the constituency is pretty antithetical to the American view of government and its role in our lives.
 
Last edited:

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Both they and the Republicans have always had a very different idea what the social contract between the Government and the American People. It is simplistic to say the Republicans want to take less property and give more freedom vs the Democrats wants to take more property and less freedoms. Depending on the issue one or the other could be more extreme in the give and take. But the overall unifying point was that it was an interaction between them and the American people. The ENTIRE American people. Not the people of other countries, and certainly not a select portion of the country to the detriment of the other.

The Democrats were founded by the southern aristocracy and grew into the party of the urban immigrant population of the north. The Dems were less populist and more about cliques.

The Republicans were founded as a popular response to slavery and the collapse of the business oriented whig party. Their business roots require them to be pro-business as a whole and their populist origins mean they have institutions that allow their party to represent the people.


Yet lately the Democratic party has chosen to break this social contract. They are now obsessed with the plight of Non-Americans, to the point that they demand the American sacrifice on their behalf to their own long term detriment. This is a very new development. Even Obama never went so far as to argue that we should have open borders for everyone. Quite the opposite in fact. This is a flagrant breach, as it not just ignores what the American people may want, but it also jeapordizes their security. Something any government must offer in order to have legitimacy with the governed.

Both parties have neocons and progressives with an international focus or interest in military/humanitarianism. Most everyday Americans oppose this stuff but it is the Republican party with their democratic/populist institutions is able to represent the will of the people. The Dems are run by a clique of elites (The Repubs are as well but they gotta get a stamp of approval) so they can do what they want. They also benefit from guaranteed voters via ethnic minorities in massive cities. The Repubs have guaranteed voters but they have fewer of them and they're concentrated with southern racists and evangelicals.

But that is just a side show to what I feel is an even worse violation. Namely the writing off of almost 2/3rds of the country in favor of an inner city urban core and expat globalist elite that likes to vote in by absentee ballot. The Republicans like to bitch about urban voters, but they don't write them off and will usually show up to campaign even in places they are generally guaranteed to lose. The Democrats by comparison refuse to show up in many rural elections, and if they do its usually to preach some alien morality to the unwashed heathens that don't live in LA, San Francisco or New York. They don't come across as a political party that wants to govern these vast stretches of the country. Rather they seem to want to conquer them by imposition, and front load in the cities in the hopes they can pretend those evil right wingers don't exist at all. This also breaks the social contract as no matter the outcome of an election, the winner becomes the sovereign and must govern at the consent of the governed. Even if that consent extends as much to simply passively accepting the outcome of the election in the hopes of getting their guy in next time.

Their base has always been cities. The 19th century Republicans had a faction from a party called the "American Party" who were viciously anti-catholic and anti-immigrant. They were working class people and progressives that wanted to stop the devaluation of their labor. The southern Dems hated Catholics but needed these urban immigrants to actually win elections. However, they realized they all hated eachother and balkanized in the 1860s - oops. After the Civil War the party was the solid south and the Repubs just did whatever they wanted and became super corrupt.

Those immigrants now viewed themselves as white fellow Americans who were racists and had working class interests. The Dems became the working class urban party but it was run by a clique of southern elites.


Which again is something Republicans do, but Democrats seem increasingly determined to not do. Especially when we take into account the shrieking about impeaching trump and punching Republican congressmen. My brain is melting trying to figure out why they are doing this and why they think its a winning long term strategy. Even if it does work out for them at the ballot box for some inexplicable reason, their elections will eventually have no legitimacy and that is recipe for a major disaster.

This isn't new - its simply gotten worse due to social media and the decline of the news networks who now feel the need to sensationalize and push madness.


Never attribute to malice what can be more-easily attributed to incompetence.

No - people are always out to screw people over to serve their own interests. Doesn't matter if they're an elder statesmen, random entitled parent or family member.

Attributing malice to people logical. People screw eachother over more than they make mistakes.
 
P

PN 801

Guest
kiwifarms.net
The Democrats were founded by the southern aristocracy and grew into the party of the urban immigrant population of the north. The Dems were less populist and more about cliques.

The Republicans were founded as a popular response to slavery and the collapse of the business oriented whig party. Their business roots require them to be pro-business as a whole and their populist origins mean they have institutions that allow their party to represent the people.




Both parties have neocons and progressives with an international focus or interest in military/humanitarianism. Most everyday Americans oppose this stuff but it is the Republican party with their democratic/populist institutions is able to represent the will of the people. The Dems are run by a clique of elites (The Repubs are as well but they gotta get a stamp of approval) so they can do what they want. They also benefit from guaranteed voters via ethnic minorities in massive cities. The Repubs have guaranteed voters but they have fewer of them and they're concentrated with southern racists and evangelicals.



Their base has always been cities. The 19th century Republicans had a faction from a party called the "American Party" who were viciously anti-catholic and anti-immigrant. They were working class people and progressives that wanted to stop the devaluation of their labor. The southern Dems hated Catholics but needed these urban immigrants to actually win elections. However, they realized they all hated eachother and balkanized in the 1860s - oops. After the Civil War the party was the solid south and the Repubs just did whatever they wanted and became super corrupt.

Those immigrants now viewed themselves as white fellow Americans who were racists and had working class interests. The Dems became the working class urban party but it was run by a clique of southern elites.




This isn't new - its simply gotten worse due to social media and the decline of the news networks who now feel the need to sensationalize and push madness.




No - people are always out to screw people over to serve their own interests. Doesn't matter if they're an elder statesmen, random entitled parent or family member.

Attributing malice to people logical. People screw eachother over more than they make mistakes.
Enlightening post.