Why do white people vote democrat?

Some of the positions in his post I can align with - but in a very different context. Anti-war for example.

That said, the reason those positions, overall, are antithetical to freedom is that they propose and advance positive government.

That is to say an empowered government - which is the opposite in principle of what America was founded upon.

Take for example the Baker and gay wedding cake cases.

The Baker is being forced by the government to engage in commerce with people he doesn't want to do business with. The government has no Constitutional authority to use such force.

You may think the Baker's refusal to cater the gay wedding is wrong, but that doesn't matter - the Baker has his rights and freedoms, as do you and the gay couple who wanted the cake.

The gay couple can go down the road to another Baker who will accommodate them.

The action of government acting outside of its prescribed limits is an affront to the rule of law and a danger to liberty.

While the Baker's actions might meet with disapproval from the people, they can simply choose not to do business with him.

The government overstepping its bounds and using force against a citizen, when that citizen is simply exercising his rights, is a danger to everyone.

 

I agree with that very much, actually. However, in some cases things like civil rights and social justice greatly increase freedom for certain categories of people, such as black people during the civil rights eras who were second class citizens. They were not allowed by law the same freedoms and rights as others.

I totally agree with your example about the baker. No one or no business should be forced to perform an action they do not wish to. But neither should certain activities be denied to people, such as not being allowed to vote for example.

 

Sorry but you can't use religion to treat people like trash.

 

A hot steaming pile of BS.

Stop listening/reading conspiracy theory type media sources.

 

The baker agreed to the laws of the state when the baker applied for and accepted the business license to operate in that state.

Can't follow the state laws, there will be a price to pay.

 

When one is talking about "civil rights" in America for the past 60 years - those are 2 very different conversations depending on what someone's level of understanding is.

Appropriately, civil rights is considered by the relationship between the citizenry and the government.

The government must treat everyone equally under the law. The government cannot pass a law saying that blacks have to sit in the back of the bus.

Just as they don't have the authority to say that persons of any race or either gender must be treated differently for any reason; be it "fairness", or quotas, or whatever.

That is how a free society is supposed to operate under the rule of law.

-----------------------------------------

But that is not what the Establishment controlled left means by "civil rights".

Within the Establishment controlled left I would include communists, socialists, progressives, fascists (corporatists), and most Democrats (but not all).

What they mean by "civil rights", is that the government should be empowered to arbitrarily use force against targetted individuals and groups for the supposed benefit of other citizens and groups.

All manner of sloganeering and slick packaging is employed to enlist the support of the poorly educated, uninformed, and naive.

It is easy enough to sell in the name of "fairness, justice, equality of outcome", etc.

------------------------------------

So that brings us to the people behind the agenda to advance this type of "fairness" in the name of "civil rights".

Take for example Rosa Parks of defiant bus rider fame.

Rosa Parks was a communist, and an active member of a communist cell. She was assigned the task of defying the law - and the rest is history.

So the question begs - if the stated goal of communism is to destroy western society, capitalism, religion, etc; and, replace it with their Marxist, atheistic utopia - why would they engage in activities that fall under the leftist's definition of "civil rights"??

If "civil rights" is a cause to bring our society together and make our country stronger and freer - why would that cause be championed by communists??

------------------------------------

The answer to that question is that "civil rights", as defined and practiced by the Establishment left and all their agencies listed above, is NOT intended to strengthen our society and make us more free.

It is intended to do exactly what it has been doing for 60 years now - dividing the country, destabilizing our society, agitating and exacerbating racial discord, attacking and weakening the family unit (especially amongst minorities), growing government power to regulate the citizenry, etc.

All of those things are straight out of the communist playbook for attacking, destabilizing, and destroying a target society.

------------------------------

So as you can see, "civil rights" in the American vernacular has a very different meaning than the "civil rights" of those who wish to destroy our society.

 

Where is that stated?

 

General welfare.

 

Ahhh, the old General Welfare clause.

Anything that can be remotely attributed to General Welfare is within the purview of the fed.

I mean, you only have to ignore the rest of the Constitution to make that ridiculous claim. But you do you.

 

Correct.
If the general welfare clause meant to give Congress the power to create laws regarding anything that might be fall under "common defense" and "general welfare", they would have omitted the 14 clauses that immediately follow.
Inclusion of those 14 clauses negates the argument.

 

Nope, just things that need to be done but are not profitable.

 

That's just silly.

So... are you claiming that the Constitution is not designed as a limiting document?

 

Where does the Constitution say anything about "profit"?

 

As I said:
Inclusion of those 14 clauses negates the argument.

 

Military, post office.

 

The word Profit appears in the Constitution just 3 times, and none of them have to do with profit in the context you're talking about.

 

The constitution states that we must maintain a military and the post office, no where does it say ONLY IF ITS PROFITABLE TO DO SO.

 

Well, I think thay kind of goes without saying.

Since government has no mechanism to make "profit".

Any money the government has was taken either by the fruits of others labor as a tax, or from others by way of inflation by printing money.

Government has zero ability to be profitable especially when talking about departments they operate.

 

So we agree that one of the functions of govt is to get things done that need to be done but wouldn't be profitable to do.

 

I agree that government is tasked with certain responsibilities, and profit has nothing to do with it.

 

Why would any self respecting white person vote for somebody who thinks like this?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/murder-rate-for-black-ame_b_4702228

This is a Huffington post piece by some idiot named Josh Sugarmann. No need to read the 2017 piece I'll tell you what he says. America is a terrible place that should be ashamed of ourselves because blacks are 6X more likely to be murdered than whites.

No mention in the whole piece about who commits these murders of blacks. Other blacks hello?

He provides statistics that damage the current gun debate. 80% of these murders of black people are with hand guns. He does not mention that the lion's share of these murders occur in cities with strict gun control laws.

So again why would I want to vote for this attitude? Blaming white people and guns for these murders but not the ones actually committing the murders? Just let the murderers go?

 

Here is the administration line on immigration from that tool Mayorkas.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07...due-to-climate-change-dhs-secretary-mayorkas/

So you white people are ruining the earth with your privilege and it is causing suffering among people in other countries so that is why so many want to come here.

Why would you vote for that? White Americans are harming brown people in Central America. Stop it you racists!

How can you vote for that lie?

 

I don't watch his show, but I do remember hearing about Jimmy Kimmel's audience cheering about less white people in America:



I think we can assume that the majority, if not the unanimity, of Jimmy Kimmel's audience is Democrat.

And those people cheering sound very white. Democrat whites, it appears, are masochists.

 

What about Chris Rock's comment yesterday?

That's the mentality of a lot of people in this country. Sorry I'm not voting for it. Idiot self hating Casper whites.

 

~ All lunatics ...