Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

DNC plumbing the depths with PP

Democrats, DNC or DCCC have some election ads calling Republicans and conservatives extremists and radicals for being anti-Planned Parenthood.

Imagine, in 2014 it is considered “radical” and extremist for a candidate to oppose an institutional baby-killing agenda. So being pro-life is now radical.

Here is just one of many ads from Dems and the DNC with a common message .

Script:

Nan Hayworth:

“I am proud to be a radical.” — [speech to Sons of Liberty in 2010 ]

Narrator:

Tea Party millionaire Nan Hayworth.  She calls herself a radical.

But what does that mean for you?

Hayworth opposed a woman’s right to choose.

And voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.

And on Social Security, Hayworth wants to risk seniors’ benefits on Wall Street.

So now, when Nan Hayworth says:

Nan Hayworth:

“I am proud to be a radical.”

Narrator

We know exactly what she means.

The DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

We know exactly what Dems mean. It leaves little doubts. A war on babies has been transformed into some Republican “war on women”.

In another ad, a Democat is praised as an “advocate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet the same candidate claims to stand against special interests — “reducing the influence of special interests”.

Being considered radical or extreme for pro-life positions is how far, or low, we’ve come.
War on humanity anyone? What if the 50 million plus cast their votes?
What’s your definition of radical?

RightRing | Bullright

Dems and Dog Whistles

There he goes, again.

There goes Joe with another classic Bidenism – check the library that must be a category now. When the right says something they are all over it. If a Republican said something that way, the Left would say it was a “dog whistle”. That’s what they call any mention of certain conservative topics that excite the base. Though they use the term creatively and get very imaginative about where it applies.

They make that charge all the time whether it is a Republican pol or a Tea Partier. It is their catch all phrase for the Right. The Left would call it a dog whistle, if it were anyone else. Much as I’m tired of the term, it should apply to what and how he said it. They stick it to everyone else where it doesn’t even apply. And now they deny that is what this was.

They constantly claim conservatives are talking to their own in code and rallying certain parts of the base. And they usually connect it somehow to racism, directly or indirectly. They throw around the phrase so loosely they apply it to everything. They can use the term to indicate racism without having to say it.

Now their old “dog whistle” charge is a dog whistle to Libs. Clever isn’t it? They use it as a euphemism to call someone a racist. So here’s Joe blowing their tune loud and clear. Obama and Biden do this all the time. They are champions of the “dog whistle”. We’ll hear it a lot more before election.

Here was Biden’s statement.

You want to see Left get outraged? Just call Biden’s remarks a dog whistle and see what happens.