WHY WE LOST!

[Frederick L Neff]

I have heard many out there, from pundits to the average Joe asking "Why We Lost". I have heard this from Democrats of all parts of the spectrum as well as many so called Republicans, so I will effort to answer this question.

I have heard all kinds of explanations, from misreading polling data, to angry white men, and they're all wrong. The question now is where to begin. There are a plethora of places to start so lets begin with the Democratic Party.

First lets dispel a little misconception, it is the Democratic party that supported slavery, while the republicans supported civil rights, the Democratic party supported segregation, it was a Democrat Colonel that started the KKK as a Military wing of the Democratic party in the south, targeting not just any random black individual but aspiring black political figures and the Republicans that supported them,this is Historical fact, not supposition, look it up in any history book. What does this have to do with today? The secret to understanding this question is understanding the Democrat party never abandoned slavery, they merely molded it into a 21 century version based on economics instead of race, you see the economics based slavery is so much less messy than slavery based on race, creed or sex. This is where it gets messy, because many of what we call "establishment" Republicans have followed the lead of their left side counterparts and joined the ranks of what are now called the "elites". These elites are both Democrat and Republicans now that feel their "high education" allows them the privilege of telling others how to live their lives, "We know better better because were educated" is often the explanation. Ironically this could not be farther from the truth, education does not denote intelligence, just ask anyone who live in a college town, they will explain. Is this not the same position as the slave master directing the slave? They take from the fruits of your labor to distribute what they decide is equitable, don't pay what they decide is a fair portion and they hunt you down and take what they feel is  theirs, and they now tell you what you must spend your money on, because they know better. Set aside ownership documentation and this explanation fits the everyday lives of every working american, and none suffer worse than the working poor, who merely sit in wait for the day when then their small gains toward financial independence are taxed away from them. The Democrats pander to minority's, promising them hope, the establishment republicans pander to the independent business owner promising them hope, all the while both figuring how to take as much as they can of what you have to feed their own greed and keep you slaving to provide them with more.

Why did Trump win? College educated or not, hes a brawling street kid, like most of the working poor in America, and those middle Americans are tired of being told to shut up and take it. Will he deliver?Only time will tell.        

[marrand]

M:

Bravo!!

Regarding Obama. I find it best and easiest to understand if I simply conclude that Obama is our punishment by God. HE found a beautiful way to shake us and slap us around, hoping that we regain our senses, the senses HE so wisely gave us to start with. So now we have another chance. Let's not screw up that bad again, because I am convinced that the next Obama will be much, much worse. Let's worry about the future, not his origin, not how and where he was born and raised, and any paperwork associated with this his past. Let's not even worry if another one shows up; just make sure that God won't use him again.

[Hankelvis]

Could have been worse..

A United States congressman has introduced a bill that would repeal the 22nd Amendment, which currently limits the president to serving only two terms as commander-in-chief.

 

Should the bill become a law, it could allow President Barack Obama to run for reelection yet again in 2016.

The bill, H.J. Res. 15, offers “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced the measure on January 4, after it did not make it to a floor vote in January 2011, the Daily Caller reports. Serrano has attempted to repeal the amendment for decades and proposed similar bills in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007.

Rep. Serrano’s initiatives are not dependent on any particular party, since he has tried to get the measure passed under the presidencies of both Democrats and Republicans. But if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote this year, President Obama, a Democrat, might have a chance at a third term in the White House, which would make him the first president to possibly seek a third term since Franklin Roosevelt.

Even though a repeal has not made it far in Congress, there have been several attempts at bringing it to the floor, which have garnered support from past presidents and prominent legislators. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) repeatedly proposed repealing the 22nd Amendment while both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in office, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to repeal it in 1995. In 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced a similar resolution.

https://www.rt.com/usa/president-amendment-bill-repeal-541/

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_Un...

[marrand]

Oh gosh, much worse!! Just try to imagine Obama's third term!!!
But after Obama, such bills to repeal 22nd have a much lower chance of passage. Before, the people in White House were reasonable men, even though some incompetent. So, one couldn't object as much.
But a bill to allow Obama to run again?? I don't think it has any chance any more...ever.

[charles royer]

Serrano introduced or cosponsored the same proposal in 1997 and 1999, when Democrat Bill Clinton was president, and again in 2001 just days before Republican George Bush was sworn in for his first term. He also introduced it in 2003, 2005 and 2007, all before Barack Obama even announced he was running for president.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

A comment.

The notion that the RC Church purposely kept its faithful in the dark is absurd. Latin was the residual language as vernacular tongues had not developed as yet. Virtually all the peasantry were illiterate and books were non existent.

Since the Fall of Rome in 476 till the 13th century the great universities of the High Middle Ages; in Paris, Madrid, Milan, Vienna and so on; nurtured and expanded the wisdom of antiquity; keeping it alive.

These Scholastics, Catholic Priests who were natural philosophers, were the first formal scientists; among them Ockham, Scotus, Bacon and Abelard.

[Rhodes]

Does that include being burned at the stake for possessing a bible translated into their language?

Look it up true fact. I have to assume you did not know about that.

So I guess they did this out of kindness... not even close.

Knowledge is power and the powerful do not like to share.

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

A cardinal principle of Conservatism is that Man is neither a perfectible creature nor is paradise possible on this earth, as the just fall seven times each day. 

Those who violate the Law of God will answer to our Creator on Judgement Day. But the notion that the Church of Rome is a guilty party here in too stupid for words.

The Church nurtured and expanded the wisdom of Greece and Rome, who created Western Civilization; for more than 1000 years. Equally as important, during that time it was the bulwark against militant expansionist Islam and the sword of Europe; be it at Cordoba, Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, Byzantium, Jerusalem; among other decisive encounters. It has absolutely nothing to apologize for. NOTHING!!!!

On a related matter, Russell Kirk, an original Buckleyite at National Review, delivered a lecture at Heritage some 30 years ago.

There he articulated the core of Principled Conservatism, which included the Principle of Prescription, whose essence is that precedent, precept and even prejudice are always to be preferred over the whims of the zeitgeist.

As Burke opined, the Individual may indeed be a fool but the species (Mankind) is wise through experience.

As such, time proven practices established through immemorial usage are superior to modish fads in morals, politics and values. And that is why we dwarves who stand on the massive shoulders of the giants of antiquity owe then an unrepayable debt.

Obviously my earlier comments on this particular point have left some noses out of joint.

Hmm.........How sad!

[Rhodes]

So you did know and said it anyway.

Interesting Burke reference though it is hardly acceptable due to lack of proof which should exist overwhelmingly if true. Man as whole cannot be collectivized except through overwhelming individual traits. Unfortunately the baser traits seem to be the stuff of history. Invalidating the word of God through tradition was not just intended for the ears of the Jews. Jesus was the pattern for questioning tradition.

Some individuals have done marvelous things, some have done monstrous crimes, and the worst are done by those just following orders, all are part of it. Claiming the good and ignoring the evil are a sure path to damnation by their very own catechism. Power corrupts all, there are NO exceptions.

Just one of the tests this veil of tears always presents.

[marrand]

Thomas:
Oh, so true, so true. But…..so limiting. Humans are not only capable, but I believe destined to go beyond the assessment you gave of them. So we stand on the shoulders of the giants of antiquity? And on whose shoulders did they stand when it was they who were the "trivial dwarves"??? Are you proposing that we resign to our current condition of trivial dwarves, and give up on the idea of new giants rising amongst us? Just exist and rest on the laurels of those long gone?

If we believe that humanity did achieve but the achievements are complete, then yes, your statement about the trivial dwarves is worth internalizing. But if we believe that future trivial dwarves will need even more giants to stand on, not only those of antiquity, that there is much more to be learned and understood and explained, then let's promote the idea of new giants and go as far as the good Lord allows us to.

I see that Fred and M already are revving up their engines to travel in the path you have started. I wait for your rebuttals to their posts.
marrand

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Rebuttals?

I have been articulating an assertion/opinion that any and all are free to accept/reject; it speaks for itself.

But I will say this. Given the tone of several posts, it is appears that some are hearing this for the first time.

As for Bernard of Chartres use of his dwarves metaphor; it was intended to send a message to the elites of his time that they were, most emphatically, not the greatest ever.

We would do well to heed that message.

[marrand]

Thomas:
No. Your assertion/opinion as articulated on this site does NOT speak for itself. It needs continuous revision and explanations. Unless, of course, you claim to be one of those giants of antiquity whose formulations are so perfect that no one since then could improve on them.

Free to accept/reject? I reject. Or would you prefer I ignored?

I can't speak for others, but the dwarves metaphor I heard many times in the past, although not formulated by those words. It makes a lot of sense, of course. But only - and here you offered your explanation - when applied as a message to the elites that they aren't the greatest ever. Let me take this idea one step further: I claim there are some giants in the last 4% of the time (as you defined it), but they are not part of the elite class. That is not the place to look for giants. In fact, let me go a step further: todays' and yesterday's elites are conspicuously void of any giants or even great minds.

On the other hand, if you are searching for dummies or the dwarves, as you called them, then those elites are the first place to look.

"We would do well to heed that message"??? You might as well have said "we would do well to breathe". That message is obvious. But then again, many great verities become obvious after due consideration.

[Hankelvis]

Is this Philosophy 101?
Seems like yall are talking about stuff that happened long before the election.
Are there some philosophy blog sites you know of that I can visit so that I can come up to speed with y'alls subjects? Should I stay in my own lane?