You wonder why people hate the ********s

[Jsmooth9876]

Anyone else old enough (as in a few days) to remember when the Dems called the filibuster a racist tool the **********s like to use?



LOL wtf with these people

[GrandpaBernard]

Dems are ultimate race trolls

best way to help everyone including **********

help them get paid

[travestyny]

I think I can put all this political bullshlt in the US in very simple terms, though I'd have to be a bit long winded. I could be wrong, but this is how it appears to me.


The ********s attempt to pander to all of the **********. They think their party can prosper by trying to pander to as many (non-majority) groups as possible. Honestly, it's not a bad strategy. They also have a chance to pick up ***** of all races. Make a play at the poor of all races, though I don't think they much succeed when it comes to poor Whites because, to be honest, history has shown that poor whites generally speaking have the mindset of being better than the other and thus think of themselves more as being aligned with the wealthy whites. Again, in general. Still, the dems have a chance of picking up some of the poor white. Dems obviously do well with what some of you would label the woke white, so I'll just use that term for simplicity.


The **********s attempt to pander to the majority. It is a healthy majority, along with all of the people who have the mindset of considering themselves to have some affinity with the majority. Obviously this hasn't proven to be such a terrible strategy (think Lee Atwater's "n-word n-word" admission in case you don't realize the strategy). The only problem is that the demographics of America is beginning to shift when you take all of the non-majority and combine them, and there seems to be a willingness of the non-majority to ban together. This makes sense when one party has the "decency" to lie to the non-majority, as opposed to acting to harm the non-majority (again, think Lee Atwater). What the **********s have on their side is that it seems to be human nature that someone will always want to step up and occupy the role of the majority.

However, I believe that plays itself out as the ********s simply assuming the role of the majority . I can't really wrap my head around any other conclusion than that.

At this point, I asked myself: Is America becoming more ********ic, as in party affiliation? Last I heard, it was still mostly **********, which I think makes sense. ********s have to get their people to vote (while making promise they don't intend to keep, or can't keep, which doesn't energize the voter base, but **********s attempting to harm this same voter base mitigates this effect) and they have to wait for their new voters to be of age to vote (while I would guess Repubs die off at a higher rate than they become of age -- which I was satisfied was probably confirmed here: ). They also have to keep their voters out of prison so they can vote (repubs would want to keep more of them in prison for obvious reasons -- keep them from voting while making money off of them), etc. Anyway, I did a quick search and found an article that I thought could answer my question regarding if America is becoming more ********ic. The one that popped up first seemed to have a heading that was on target, so I took that one.

America’s electoral future: The coming generational transformation




I skimmed through it not caring how they ran their metrics to come to an answer. I just wanted to get to the point. I did pick up a bit while skimming through and the metrics used seemed to be thoughtful toward its purpose. In fairness, I could continue to search for a study that contradicts this one, but it's a race and if this is the one that gets information to me first, so be it for now. If I want to to waste my time looking into this further, I'd likely try to seek out a counter. I realize one criticism could be that I only took the first source that came to me and it could be biased, but consider this: if it's true that the ********s also control the MSM, as is often stated, isn't that also evidence that I'm on the right track? In other words, if Dems have taken over he media, they are likely winning the war.


So the result of the article confirmed what I thought. It stated:

There are two key findings from these scenarios.

First, the underlying demographic changes our country is likely to experience over the next several elections generally favor the ********ic party. The projected growth of groups by race, age, education, gender and state tends to be more robust among ********ic-leaning groups, creating a consistent and growing headwind for the ********** party. This will require the GOP to improve their performance among key demographic groups, election after election, just to keep their vote share competitive as illustrated by our first, age-based simulation that includes no generational effects. That simulation finds Michigan and Pennsylvania moving ********ic in 2020, with later elections in the 2020s adding Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina to the ********ic column.

I know what you're thinking if you read that. When was the article written, right? I'll save you the time. Monday, October 19, 2020.

The ********ic party probably will at some point begin to splinter off and who knows what politics will look like wayyyy down the line (progressives vs. more traditional Dems first up, I guess), but I think **********s are doomed to be outlived and well..."out majoritied" if I can coin a new phrase. Not a biased assessment. Just an honest assessment. If anyone feels differently, I'd love to hear your reasoning and I will keep an open mind to be convinced. But from what I know of the posters here, it will be hard to make that argument when anyone who likely would attempt to make that argument is also likely to be one of the posters who has been complaining about *** and wokeness "taking over America."

[travestyny]

Dems are ultimate race trolls

best way to help everyone including **********

help them get paid

I began writing my response before you. We are on the same page with the Dems' "help **********" strategy.


Not a bad strategy. I think arguments can also be made that it is the "right" strategy.

[Sweet Pea 5O]

So trav, how far down the rabbit hole have you gone, lol.

[GrandpaBernard]

I think I can put all this political bullshlt in the US in very simple terms, though I'd have to be a bit long winded. I could be wrong, but this is how it appears to me.


The ********s attempt to pander to all of the **********. They think their party can prosper by trying to pander to as many (non-majority) groups as possible. Honestly, it's not a bad strategy. They also have a chance to pick up ***** of all races. Make a play at the poor of all races, though I don't think they much succeed when it comes to poor Whites because, to be honest, history has shown that poor whites generally speaking have the mindset of being better than the other and thus think of themselves more as being aligned with the wealthy whites. Again, in general. Still, the dems have a chance of picking up some of the poor white. Dems obviously do well with what some of you would label the woke white, so I'll just use that term for simplicity.


The **********s attempt to pander to the majority. It is a healthy majority, along with all of the people who have the mindset of considering themselves to have some affinity with the majority. Obviously this hasn't proven to be such a terrible strategy (think Lee Atwater's "n-word n-word" admission in case you don't realize the strategy). The only problem is that the demographics of America is beginning to shift when you take all of the non-majority and combine them, and there seems to be a willingness of the non-majority to ban together. This makes sense when one party has the "decency" to lie to the non-majority, as opposed to acting to harm the non-majority (again, think Lee Atwater). What the **********s have on their side is that it seems to be human nature that someone will always want to step up and occupy the role of the majority.

However, I believe that plays itself out as the ********s simply assuming the role of the majority . I can't really wrap my head around any other conclusion than that.

At this point, I asked myself: Is America becoming more ********ic, as in party affiliation? Last I heard, it was still mostly **********, which I think makes sense. ********s have to get their people to vote (while making promise they don't intend to keep, or can't keep, which doesn't energize the voter base, but **********s attempting to harm this same voter base mitigates this effect) and they have to wait for their new voters to be of age to vote (while I would guess Repubs die off at a higher rate than they become of age -- which I was satisfied was probably confirmed here: ). They also have to keep their voters out of prison so they can vote (repubs would want to keep more of them in prison for obvious reasons -- keep them from voting while making money off of them), etc. Anyway, I did a quick search and found an article that I thought could answer my question regarding if America is becoming more ********ic. The one that popped up first seemed to have a heading that was on target, so I took that one.

America’s electoral future: The coming generational transformation




I skimmed through it not caring how they ran their metrics to come to an answer. I just wanted to get to the point. I did pick up a bit while skimming through and the metrics used seemed to be thoughtful toward its purpose. In fairness, I could continue to search for a study that contradicts this one, but it's a race and if this is the one that gets information to me first, so be it for now. If I want to to waste my time looking into this further, I'd likely try to seek out a counter. I realize one criticism could be that I only took the first source that came to me and it could be biased, but consider this: if it's true that the ********s also control the MSM, as is often stated, isn't that also evidence that I'm on the right track? In other words, if Dems have taken over he media, they are likely winning the war.


So the result of the article confirmed what I thought. It stated:



I know what you're thinking if you read that. When was the article written, right? I'll save you the time. Monday, October 19, 2020.

The ********ic party probably will at some point begin to splinter off and who knows what politics will look like wayyyy down the line (progressives vs. more traditional Dems first up, I guess), but I think **********s are doomed to be outlived and well..."out majoritied" if I can coin a new phrase. Not a biased assessment. Just an honest assessment. If anyone feels differently, I'd love to hear your reasoning and I will keep an open mind to be convinced. But from what I know of the posters here, it will be hard to make that argument when anyone who likely would attempt to make that argument is also likely to be one of the posters who has been complaining about *** and wokeness "taking over America."

You know why I been turned off from the left and Libs from day 1

those beliefs hurt people by promoting and encouraging self-victimization

conservative mindset: work hard [and smart] and you will better your life

there isn’t anything stopping any minority from regularly working out and trying to make money online

any minority who sticks to both will have a better life than a white who became fat and only did a 9 to 5

[Shadoww702]

Dems now want to track and transaction over $700

Only good dem is 6 feet deep in the ground.

[TernceBudCharlo]

I think I can put all this political bullshlt in the US in very simple terms, though I'd have to be a bit long winded. I could be wrong, but this is how it appears to me.


The ********s attempt to pander to all of the **********. They think their party can prosper by trying to pander to as many (non-majority) groups as possible. Honestly, it's not a bad strategy. They also have a chance to pick up ***** of all races. Make a play at the poor of all races, though I don't think they much succeed when it comes to poor Whites because, to be honest, history has shown that poor whites generally speaking have the mindset of being better than the other and thus think of themselves more as being aligned with the wealthy whites. Again, in general. Still, the dems have a chance of picking up some of the poor white. Dems obviously do well with what some of you would label the woke white, so I'll just use that term for simplicity.


The **********s attempt to pander to the majority. It is a healthy majority, along with all of the people who have the mindset of considering themselves to have some affinity with the majority. Obviously this hasn't proven to be such a terrible strategy (think Lee Atwater's "n-word n-word" admission in case you don't realize the strategy). The only problem is that the demographics of America is beginning to shift when you take all of the non-majority and combine them, and there seems to be a willingness of the non-majority to ban together. This makes sense when one party has the "decency" to lie to the non-majority, as opposed to acting to harm the non-majority (again, think Lee Atwater). What the **********s have on their side is that it seems to be human nature that someone will always want to step up and occupy the role of the majority.

However, I believe that plays itself out as the ********s simply assuming the role of the majority . I can't really wrap my head around any other conclusion than that.

At this point, I asked myself: Is America becoming more ********ic, as in party affiliation? Last I heard, it was still mostly **********, which I think makes sense. ********s have to get their people to vote (while making promise they don't intend to keep, or can't keep, which doesn't energize the voter base, but **********s attempting to harm this same voter base mitigates this effect) and they have to wait for their new voters to be of age to vote (while I would guess Repubs die off at a higher rate than they become of age -- which I was satisfied was probably confirmed here: ). They also have to keep their voters out of prison so they can vote (repubs would want to keep more of them in prison for obvious reasons -- keep them from voting while making money off of them), etc. Anyway, I did a quick search and found an article that I thought could answer my question regarding if America is becoming more ********ic. The one that popped up first seemed to have a heading that was on target, so I took that one.

America’s electoral future: The coming generational transformation




I skimmed through it not caring how they ran their metrics to come to an answer. I just wanted to get to the point. I did pick up a bit while skimming through and the metrics used seemed to be thoughtful toward its purpose. In fairness, I could continue to search for a study that contradicts this one, but it's a race and if this is the one that gets information to me first, so be it for now. If I want to to waste my time looking into this further, I'd likely try to seek out a counter. I realize one criticism could be that I only took the first source that came to me and it could be biased, but consider this: if it's true that the ********s also control the MSM, as is often stated, isn't that also evidence that I'm on the right track? In other words, if Dems have taken over he media, they are likely winning the war.


So the result of the article confirmed what I thought. It stated:



I know what you're thinking if you read that. When was the article written, right? I'll save you the time. Monday, October 19, 2020.

The ********ic party probably will at some point begin to splinter off and who knows what politics will look like wayyyy down the line (progressives vs. more traditional Dems first up, I guess), but I think **********s are doomed to be outlived and well..."out majoritied" if I can coin a new phrase. Not a biased assessment. Just an honest assessment. If anyone feels differently, I'd love to hear your reasoning and I will keep an open mind to be convinced. But from what I know of the posters here, it will be hard to make that argument when anyone who likely would attempt to make that argument is also likely to be one of the posters who has been complaining about *** and wokeness "taking over America."

In other words, they all full of ****

[travestyny]

You know why I been turned off from the left and Libs from day 1

those beliefs hurt people by promoting and encouraging self-victimization

conservative mindset: work hard [and smart] and you will better your life

there isn’t anything stopping any minority from regularly working out and trying to make money online

any minority who sticks to both will have a better life than a white who became fat and only did a 9 to 5

I don't think it's only a conservative mindset to work hard and better yourself. Most people believe that. Whether it's part of the Dems strategy to tell people they shouldn't have to work hard, it would be interesting to see it argued and actually broken down. On the other side would be things like this:

5 things you should know about the ********** welfare state

But if it is like you said, I think that it's a valid reason to dislike dems. I certainly don't think it's cool to tell people they don't have to work hard to achieve things or teaching people victimhood (and we should keep in mind there is a difference between legitimate grievances and victimhood which manifests in people of all races), but again, I think what draws ********** to Dems mostly is the tactics used by **********s.

[travestyny]

In other words, they all full of ****

Both parties are full of shlt.