FYI, it's not clear syphilis came to Europe from America, although it remains a strong hypothesis. There is also some evidence of syphilis, or syphilis-like diseases, existing in Europe long before Columbus - one of these may have become much more dangerous around the 1400s through environmental changes / mutations.
The general hypothesis is that Europe and Asia also had forms of syphilis, but that Columbus brought back a form from the Americas in 1493 that was significantly more virulent in humans than the forms in the "Old World" which caused the epidemic level outbreak of syphilis in the early 1500s.
Oh man, you really should have stopped to think about your beloved orange Republican daddy before you tried that line. He's the king of resentment.
Read your own post until you realize the level of lunacy you've reached. Someone suggests Democrats might not be driven by pure compassion, and this is what your brain responds with. I really do wish you would snap out of this.
I mean, it doesn't really matter what they are motivated by. It's what they DO that actually matters
Have you ever seen me claim Trump is motivated by care and compassion? Half the time Agema does the "but Trump" defense, there are posts by me treating him with the same standard in the same thread. My biggest point here of the last 8 years is literally that Trump does the same things the Democrats do.
Didn't you just recently spend a page or two claiming he helps his nephew out of care and compassion, in response to others suggesting otherwise?
If you take a gander at what Agema wrote and you quoted he said that "The Democrats are aiming more at people who are motivated more by care and compassion", i.e. that they are going more for the parts of the electorate who feel motivated by care and compassion. No statement was made on whether the Democratic politicians themselves embody these traits.
Straw man, as Bedinsis pointed out.
Not even a little bit.
You misspelled pity and resentment again.
He doesn't care. He's got to argue, and he's got to be "the winner". He's a clown.
In the last election people with lower income were more inclined to vote for Democrats. So evidently the poor people are voting for the Democrats.
Actually, in many ways they do want the government to offer them a hand. They want the government to ensure that they have minimums of housing, food, healthcare, and other necessities. They want the government to ensure infrastructure and safety for them and their communities to thrive, to give them opportunities via education, to protect them from exploitation. The left is lazily characterised as handouts by the right to avoid discussing what the left is often trying to do. It's about giving people a secure foundation and opportunities for people to get work and use that hard work to build themselves up. A labour union is empowering workers to represent themselves without having to get the government involved. One of the reasons the government has had to increasingly intervene directly is the success of the right at shattering the ability of workers to represent themselves effectively.
This is just bollocks. I'm sorry, but it's the worst sort of shoddy, semantic sophistry.
You think a slim majority means they don't want the 46% who voted against them?
Says you, captain ivory tower, without an ounce of self-awareness.
Stop, step back, realize the truth: this isn't "they want". This is "you want". You want a society where people have minimums of things, you want a society where people are safe and secure, you want these things for people. And good, you should, those things make for a good, peaceful society. I also want those things. We disagree on the best means to achieve those ends.
You're not disputing what I claimed, only the way I claimed it. You know what compassion means, you have no comeback, so you are content to sidestep the issue entirely.
They obviously want everyone. My conclusion from the statistics would be that income isn't the biggest indicator of whom people vote for, true, since it is split rather evenly across income levels. Your conclusion seemed to be that "and therefore these specific policies are unwanted". I don't think there's anything to conclude that. In particular I consider political apathy the biggest factor in determining elections, an apathy borne from a perceived lack of options, a lack of faith in congress to get anything done and a lack of faith in politicians. And the picture I've gotten is that winning the election comes down to getting people to vote, not convincing people whom to vote for, which goes hand in hand with the political apathy being the biggest factor.
This is your typical pathetic and risible rejoinder to when you make pathetic and risible arguments and decide to dig your heels in for no good reason. It wouldn't be so bad, except that this sort of shit has happened dozens of times before and you never learn. The meaning of a word is determined by how people actually use it in real life at the time it was employed. Not some bizarre intellectual confection of what the archaic root of the word means if translated / interpreted in a very specific way - not least because that specific way has inevitably been dishonestly cherry-picked.
Of course people want these things. It's easy to look up polls/surveys and see what people want. Sure, there's all manner of variability, but in terms of general popularity, less affluent people obviously do want to make sure that there's a guaranteed minimum and provision of resources and assistance to help them progress.
Dude, how would I know whether I am more compassionate than other people I've never met and don't know anything about? What a bizarre idea! Where did you dredge that up from - do you think this is some weird sort of boast, that I'm trying to say that I am somehow better than you?
