Understanding what has brought our nation to this point: We all think the Democrats are angry because they lost the e******n, they are causing all the d******eness because of that...

plainlogic

We all think the Democrats are angry because they lost the e******n, they are causing all the d******eness because of that loss; its much much more than that. You have to look outside the box to see where it's fomented from.

A number of things HAS to be looked at. The dots need to be connected, so, lets start there. Trevor Louden seems to have done investigations in to political backgrounds.

Such as: Italian C*******t Party theoretician Antonio Gramsci, whose writings from prison declared that the “working class revolution” is a dead end, arguing instead that c*******m can best be achieved “by infiltrating civil society – political parties, churches, labor unions, universities, the media, community groups, etc., to turn them into revolutionary vehicles.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/c*******ts-in-congress-just-count-em/#o4SFk8HsLIWw446f.99

It seems the problems we're experiencing from the left, fits in nicely with an agenda that the progressives are moving forward with.

Now, Socialists? Let's take a look at who are holding seats in our government, how agendas might get started, like minds stick together, wouldn't you agree? Well, lets start here: Here is the complete list of the Representatives from 111th Congress who are members of the Democrat Socialists of America.

The response should be with thought, with information that can be checked. This should be interesting to the readers and inspires them to do research as much as possible in search of t***h.

Here is the list of Democratic Socialists of America:

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

zenbear23

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

pafret Loc: Northeast

zenbear23 wrote:

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

Kindly define, what is the f*****t philosophy?

S. Maturin

zenbear23 wrote:

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

1) If indeed 'Wall Street continues to dominate', how did that come to be with eight years of Obama & Clinton? Ever wonder about that?

2) As to Trump being the " perfect personalization(sic) of f*****t philosophy.".. I think such a claim absolutely requires some documentation. Or, maybe, you are just parroting some propaganda?

3) Pull up your 'big boy pants' and come forward with some answers instead of those WA claims, ok?

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

pafret wrote:

Kindly define, what is the f*****t philosophy?

Now that depends,
are you going to Google for the definition, or to a Webster-Merriam dictionary?
Funny thing, they seem to have different definitions depending on the source.

S. Maturin

the waker wrote:

Now that depends,
are you going to Google for the definition, or to a Webster-Merriam dictionary?
Funny thing, they seem to have different definitions depending on the source.

No surprise, that.

The professorial left has burrowed beneath true academia for decades and when periodically emerging, they manage to do something with words... even if that something is warped or totally incorrect.

Think 500 shades of grey/gray, wh**ever. That should help.

pafret Loc: Northeast

the waker wrote:

Now that depends,
are you going to Google for the definition, or to a Webster-Merriam dictionary?
Funny thing, they seem to have different definitions depending on the source.

I am going to Zenbear, since he used the term I would like to know what he meant by it.

PeterS

pafret wrote:

Kindly define, what is the f*****t philosophy?

A belief in nationalism, militarism, and right wing authoritarian rule.

pafret Loc: Northeast

PeterS wrote:

A belief in nationalism, militarism, and right wing authoritarian rule.

I am quite well aware of what F*****m is, I want to know what zenbear thinks it is because he made an unsubstantiated accusation using that term. It is always nice to be using the same language in discourse.

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

zenbear23 wrote:

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

Even though Trump has a few Wall street types in admin. , who was the darling of Wall Street taking millions from them and Global interest from the notorious in middle east to George Soros .. It was not Trump . In fact they were betting against him actively .. Take a stab , the same who r****d or stole e******n from Bernie ..

plainlogic

zenbear23 wrote:

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

It seems you've failed to look observably outside the box. Possibly the cookie drops the Democrats/progressives have dropped doesn't register an iota. But that's fine, don't have a problem with people who refuse to look at possibilities or facts as they present themselves.

plainlogic

zenbear23 wrote:

This is an interpretation and labeling of 'humanistic' as socialistic. And I say, "so what?" I'm not buying the conspiracy BS you ascribe to those who share that belief in egalitarianism, compassion and fairness. OTOH, when I look at our current political scenario, I see f*****m in the wings and a growing plutocracy...or even a kleptocracy. Wall street continues to rule and Trump is the perfect personalization of f*****t philosophy.

It appears you're conflating the two ( humanistic / socialistic ) according to your progressiveness f*****m. The "so What" is: The small step agenda of the democrats/progressives to the fruition of the goal they've set; Socialism, then to what! C*******m? they're both an economic and social systems; so, it's only safe to deduce it's Socialism that the progressives are aiming at.

It's only time before their idea becomes a mantra of , try it you'll like it. . The best way to achieve the goals they envision is by indoctrination of their ideology, small unnoticed policies, bills that are long legally written, hard to decipher without the proper interpretation of the legalize.

It's done that way on purpose.. i.e. the Obama Care or ACA was done that way. Pelosi said, " you have to pass it to see what's in it. " It was the 2000 pages of legalize, it was hard to understand what the full ramifications of the bill was. Of course now, we don't have to see what's in it. Just look at it in real time.

You need liberal f*****ts with progressive ideologies; you'll need the Socialists, c*******ts within the system to accomplish the agenda they have set for this nation.

Loki Loc: Georgia

plainlogic wrote:

We all think the Democrats are angry because they ... (show quote)

Well, dip me in doo-doo and roll me in breadcrumbs! They all appear to be Democrats. That is one reason why I cannot fathom the "Hon." that precedes their names.

PeterS

pafret wrote:

I am quite well aware of what F*****m is, I want to know what zenbear thinks it is because he made an unsubstantiated accusation using that term. It is always nice to be using the same language in discourse.

Unsubstantiated? The trap liberals can fall into if they aren't careful is Marxism. The trap conservatives can fall into if they aren't careful is F*****m. The mistake both liberals and conservatives tend to make is to deny that either flaw is part of their ideologies. To substantiate whether one is a Marxist or a F*****t one just has to look at the behavior. Conservatives continually called Obama a Marxist yet when he had the chance to nationalize the auto industry and financial markets--both of which would have been Marxist behavior--he didn't which refutes the argument conservatives were making.

Conversely, liberals are accusing conservatives of being F*****ts so the question is--in Trump are they looking for an authoritarian ruler, are they trying to promote militarism and nationalism? In other words, are conservatives through their behavior, trying to establish F*****t rule. If the answer is yes then the question is substantiated...

Loki Loc: Georgia

PeterS wrote:

Unsubstantiated? The trap liberals can fall into i... (show quote)

In Trump we are not looking for an authoritarian ruler, just a conservative who backs up his mouth. After 16 years of spineless congressional bastards under Bush and Trump, we want someone who isn't a professional politician.