From | Message | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
![]() x.com |
||
dmaestro 06-Sep-25, 05:38 |
![]() We know why this country was really founded, what it did to others, arid what it really stands for. |
||
|
![]() |
||
|
![]() "The 3 Pillars Of The American Idea" www.zerohedge.com "America’s founding ideals: Relics, or a roadmap?" There is uncertainty about the future. Here’s what we can learn from the past. standtogether.org |
||
|
![]() Yes, that speech seems to make him as embracing white nationalist ideology. This includes him in a very small number of Americans with that view, certainly not most conservatives or Republicans. This places him among the **least bipartisan** members of the Senate, signaling a strong alignment with party-line initiatives. Concerning his Bipartisanship: He is Lowest among Senate Republicans: Only **14%** of the 217 bills Schmitt cosponsored were introduced by non-Republicans. And, his Percentile Ranking is: - Compared to all Senate freshmen: **10th percentile** - Compared to all senators: **1st percentile** - Compared to Senate Republicans: **0th percentile** This speech seems to place him back in history along with every other civilization that embraced slavery, racism, bigotry, biases, and favoritism... which was all of them. It seems that he has not gotten the memo that civilizations today (including America) have joined a new age and that we do believe in our founding documents... as well as all the legislations, policies, and procedures adopted for those stated purposes. It's a shame that Schmitt voices the views of this speech as it gives DM an opening to once again denigrate current-day America. The implication in DM's ONE line discussion is completely offensive and unacceptable. It is wrong. The country was not founded for the reasons Schmitt states, nor does it stand for those things as DM implies. It is certainly true that America has harmed people along its' march to modernity and enlightenment, just as with every other civilization throughout history, but that was not the intent. The intent was to survive and prosper and today that includes all of us. |
||
|
![]() In other words, you don't think he's going to be reelected, huh? |
||
|
![]() Do you have any thoughts on the content of his speech? |
||
|
![]() Hmm, how could you have missed my response above? He's completely clueless! As for his getting reelected, well, I was hoping that the good citizens of Missouri could spot a fool when they hear one talking and not vote for such. |
||
|
![]() |
||
dmaestro 07-Sep-25, 09:18 |
![]() Softaire: Unfortunate he convinced the voters. VF: Deportation for the entire speech in context would be excessive and hypocritical. |
||
|
![]() |
||
|
![]() Unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in an age that requires more than one broad encompassing thought. We need to be able to remember and speak about our past biases and make decisions on what to do about it next. We need to reflect on immigration policies and how various implementations of it will affect voting, employment and unemployment, salary and benefit ranges. We have problems in providing adequate housing and medical services access. There is a range of thoughts that need answers about attracting business and jobs to the local area. And, a most important subject that desperately need attention is the proliferation of crime. So, while we can universally condemn one speech on one topic, the man may have been voted into office as a result of more favorable attitudes about a large range of issues. Because we agree that the one speech is not up to standards, it does not mean he is clueless on several other issues. |