Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2019, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors beside that, however.

We aren't reliant upon wealthy people or the bulk of the services provided by liberal government (like healthcare, housing, welfare, jobs and so forth) for that matter. The bulk of us are private sector people who work and make our livings in the private sector economy. The bulk of us aren't paid politicians or paid political operatives or paid public sector employees or welfare recipients or paid non profit business owners like yourself who are affiliated with political or social movements or one of their paid employee's either. What separates us from the much smaller countries that liberals often refer to as countries they wish or believe that we should be more like don't have a private sector like ours that's constantly working for us and providing stuff for us and solving problems and finding cures/solutions for issues and making advancements that improve our lives and so forth.

As far as wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups having influence over politicians and their ability to make good decisions, I can see it more likely to occur and go unchallenged or be ignored by the liberal side. You see, the liberal voters tend to need or believe they need or believe they deserve to receive or feel that their entitled to receive  than the conservative side, The conservative side has fewer needs that must be supported and fewer needs that must be addressed and fewer needs that must be taken into account with their decision making and fewer issues to address as well. Hitler's conquest of western Europe went very well until he was facing a group of  staunch conservatives.

Well, I think the smaller countries that we liberals and democratic socialists or greenies want to be more like (which have to some extent united into a "country" larger than the USA, in other words, the European Union), do a much better job of providing for peoples' needs and solving problems than the USA does. That's because they are mixed private/public economies, and don't live under a Reaganomics regime that allows the wealthy leaders of this private sector in the USA to pollute, export jobs, make lousy products, pay low wages, etc., if they want to.

Some liberals believe that they themselves or that others need services from the government. But the government is not the same as "wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups." The most wealthy and powerful people in these groups support the Republican Party, because they know it looks out for their interests, lowers their taxes and regulations, hampers unions, gives them subsidies and provides their paid lobbyists with all the attention they want so they can gain favors and be appointed to positions of power by Republican presidents like Trump, and provides them the ability to acquire and spend all the campaign spending money they want so they can buy elections.

Well, I guess you could call Churchill a conservative, but not a Trump-like one. And I don't think you could call FDR a conservative, because he brought in all these "socialist" programs you don't like. General Eisenhower later ran for president as a Republican, but by today's standards, as brower points out, he might be a Democrat today like Barack Obama. On the other front, Hitler faced his staunchest resistance of the war from Soviet communists, who certainly affected what he was able to do in The West, and were supported by The West. So I'm not sure your attribution of who Hitler faced is accurate, ha ha.