Democrats Are...

Motivated by greed and envy
Motivated by bringing fascism to America
Lacking knowledge of our Founding Fathers' ideology

 

And I always thought that "The definition of a democrat is a member of the Democratic political party or someone who believes in equality for all people and ruling by the majority"

 

Nah he was using the american slang definition

 

That is diametrically opposed to our constitutional republic.

We're equal under the eyes of the law. King George III"s bifurcated justice system created a caste system. Thomas Jefferson assured a nation of laws, not a nation of men.

We are never to be ruled by a majority. Mob rule never has worked. It destroys countries. In our country, minority rights are to be protected, hence, the First Amendment's freedom of speech.

Democrats want to impose their version of government upon America, which requires the unwashed massed to be assured pieces of what others have earned in exchange for individual liberties.

Socialism is an economic construct. It ALWAYS requires a quasi-fascist (or worse) complementary political construct to work, and it has never worked as promised.

 

Trying to shove their fascist regime down the throats of Americans, for Democrats and maximum individual liberty are mutually exclusive

 

Don't see how Democracy and Fascism mix
noun

1. 
   
   1.
   
   
   an advocate or follower of fascism.
   
   
   synonyms:
   
   authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, Nazi, extreme/far right-winger, rightist, blackshirt,militarist; More
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

adjective

1. 
   
   1.
   
   
   of or relating to fascism.
   "a military coup threw out the old fascist regime"
   
   
   
   
2. 
   
   

or perhaps you feel it is those within the party that hold such views - from across the pond, it seems unlikely

 

Democrats and republicans no longer serve democracy or the republic. Money is their new master because that is what the majority demand.

 

^^^This is an excellent answer^^^

 

Wolf Angel,

The insidious facet of socialism is that the state determines what's fair, who gets it, and who must work to earn what others will get without working.

Socialism requires an omnipotent state that demands strict obedience to its dictates; hence, its fascist facet. Socialism requires surrendering individual liberties to the state in return for what the state doles out.

 

Laguna, your lack of education is showing. The closest we've come to Fascism in U.S. history is the Trump movement. Populism+nativism+bationalis+Statism= Fascism. Roger Eatwell, Fascism (2011); Robert O. Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism (2005); Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism 1914-1945 (1996); Roger Griffen, Fascism (1995); Trump is populist in appealing to the white non-college educated males' sense of being left out of the American dream. He is nativist in his emphasis on building a wall against illegal Mexican immigration, rounding them up, and kicking them out, and in "extreme vetting" of Middle Eastern immigrants. He is nationalist in the call to "Make America Great Again. He scapegoats Mexicans and Muslims. And he put himself forward as the only hope for getting our country out of its alleged failed condition. The only thing missing is Statism, which Trump has only hinted at. We may see that happen after January. Already Trump is talking about doing things to "terrorists" which are unconstitutional, and is confident the military won't say No to him. The beginnings of a police state are implicit in policies of rounding up and deporting millions of undocumented aliens, "extreme vetting" of immigrants from threatening countries, and surveillance of mosques. You can't do those things without massive police involvement, and the predictable resistance will only escalate that. Just give him time!

 

Okiefreak,

My lack of education? Are you serious? Or are you desperate? Every single totalitarian governmental construct has arisen from the left, for they are antithetical to conservatism. Conservatives believe in maximum individual freedom and minimal governmental intrusion.

Trump has the most conservative platform of any presidential candidate; hence, he is diametrically opposed to overbearing government.

Obamacare is a classic example of fascism arising from socialism.

You guys own fascism. You're all over fascism but are just too damned stupid to know it...or you have an ulterior motive. You are dangerous to Americans' liberties. You exemplify the reason our Founding Fathers sought to limit suffrage. Some people are just too stupid to vote, which is why we were stuck with an inept community organizer who has refused to prove his lace of birth and release his college transcripts. He is also causal of Harvard Law School's eliminating Affirmative Action as a consideration for editor for its law review.

Okie, here it is for you. Don't forget it: all totalitarian regimes arise from the left, for they are antithetical to conservative ideology. Trump has the most conservative platform in history of the USA. Hence, Trump is opposite of totalitarian. Obamacare is totalitarian. Obama's executive orders exemplify totalitarianism.

 

Okie,

You wrote of my lack of education. What do you know of my education?

~90+% of those whom I know who have earned at least a baccalaureate degree voted for Donald J. Trump.

Lesser educated who are easy to manipulate with propaganda voted for Hillary because they believe in the fable of something for nothing.

 

And your sources are...? And your evidence is...? Whatever the merits or demerits of Obamacare, your statement that "Obamacare is a classic example of fascism arising from socialism" is simply absurd--an example of using the term fascism as a cuss word to be pinned on anything you don't like. Your statement that "Conservatives believe in maximum individual freedom and minimal governmental intrusion" is also inaccurate. Conservatives may like individual freedom from economic regulation and freedom from interference with their ability to discriminate against others and pollute the environment, but they have been the strongest supporters of government regulation of morals--sex, drugs, rock n'roll. . You claim that "Trump has the most conservative platform of any presidential candidate". In history? In the 2016 election? Arguably Ted Cruz had a more conservative platform in the primaries. Trump's ideological leanings have always been murky. He'd say anything to get elected, so we'll see how "conservative" he is. Like a good Fascist Furher or con man, his platform was essentially "Trust me. I vill make Amerika great again!"

 

But your own limitations are obvious from your posts. For example, the bogus statistics that you just mentioned. I won't ask the obvious question, but assuming that 90% of your friends or acquaintances--a population of unknown magnitude--voted for Trump, the fact that you mention their education but not your own is revealing. And the fact that you think the educational level of the people you hang with means anything also shows you have problems with basic logic.

 

Okie,

How in God's name can you proclaim to know that my stat of 90+% of PEOPLE I KNOW WHO HAVE EARNED BACCALAUREATE DEGREES is a bogus stat? Do you know the people I know? Do you have any clue of with whom I hang? You have zero clue. So you just make shit up, which is a typical liberal propaganda tactic.

The only friend I have who's a committed liberal voted for Hillary. He's the only college and professionally educated dude I know who's voted for her. The rest voted for Donald J. Trump. I never talk politics with my liberal friend.

The meaning (your noun) is that your homies in liberal media have been slinging propaganda that Trump attracted the less educated.

Okie, you're going to have to learn to discern propaganda from fact lest you vote yourself (and the remaining liberty-loving Americans) right into a totalitarian state.

 

You've postured yourself into the inane and are left with the absurd as rationale.

I could provide proof from God, but you're so deeply postured in the inane, that not even His word could sway you.

I'm good with your believing what you have to believe in order to justify the inane.

What's that again? We live in a democracy you wrote? Yeah, right! And you want me to believe that you're amenable to facts?

 

Its bogus in the sense that the people you know are, for the rest of us, an indeterminate population and using them as a referent for us is meaningless. The sample is nonrandom and too small for meaningful generalization. Everything you write is propaganda.

 

I've explained to you that no country on earth or in human history is a pure democracy but that the term can be used in a relative sense. Relatively speaking, the United States today is more democratic than most countries in the world and much more democratic than it was in the eighteenth century. You're hung up on the John Bircher distinction between democracy versus republic--another example of ideology triumphing over substance. Can you define the terms "democracy" and "republic"? Can you use them in a sentence?

 

lol

 

They are always right.