Oblivious to The Hypocrisy Or Do They Just Not Care?

[Ben Framed]

Facts Matter

Transcript

0:00
One of the craziest things to watch is when politicians down play the real world problems that common people like you and I face while at the same time not even realizing how hypocritical the're being for instance with the giant spike in crime that we are seeing in New York City the Governor of New York  recently took a sub-way herself in order to show everyone how safe the system actually is but notice as she's doing so she is completely surrounded by arm guards who are keeping all the crazy people away from her meaning at the same time she's pushing to limit your ability to own guns she has an entourage of armed men protecting her from the supposedly safe subway but my favorite example of all was when about a month ago Gavin Newson was walking down the street with a reporter telling her how unnecessary the second amendment was while he himself at that very moment was surrounded by at least three armed security guards do you think these politicians are just oblivious to the hypocrisy or do they just not care. Leave you thoughts in the comments and subscribe for more.
0:55


https://youtube.com/shorts/I44PQzrsUIY?feature=share

[Michael Bush]

They just don't care.  You are not important, but they are.  So, from their point of view, there is no hypocrisy.

[Ben Framed]

They just don't care.  You are not important, but they are.  So, from their point of view, there is no hypocrisy.

I do not disagree, I suppose the 'You', in "You are not important", would include their very own constituency. Apparently their constituency agree and approve.  'Can' you explain that one?? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Michael Bush]

> 'You', in "You are not important", would include their very own constituency.

Yes.

> Apparently their constituency agree and approve.  'Can' you explain that one??

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the last election...

[Ben Framed]

They just don't care.  You are not important, but they are.  So, from their point of view, there is no hypocrisy.

I do not disagree, I suppose the 'You', in "You are not important", would include their very own constituency. Apparently their constituency agree and approve.  'Can' you explain that one?? 🤷🏻‍♂️

"Apparently you weren't paying attention to the last election..."

Apparently you assume from my last question, that I was not paying attention to the last election, if so you would be incorrect.  I 'assume' you 'were' paying attention to the last election as well.
It is beyond me how the constituency of the left continue to support those such as the Governor of California and New York who simply "just don't care" per your answer to the topic title.  I suppose this would be hard for anyone to explain, I was hoping you could.

[salvo]

All these MOON BATS know me,... and just want to whiz me off!

That's the only logical reason.

Sal

[salvo]

Hi Folks,

More hypocrisy? Two minutes of commercial first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7TGhGp-xk8


Sal

[Michael Bush]

>Apparently you assume from my last question, that I was not paying attention to the last election, if so you would be incorrect.

The point is, they have no constituency.  They weren't elected and don't have to worry about being reelected as long as they can keep in place all the ways they can cheat.  As long as ballots are not controlled, ballot boxes are not controlled, voters are not verified, and observers can be kicked out they can cheat as much as they like with no repercussions. There is no constituency to worry about.

[Ben Framed]

>Apparently you assume from my last question, that I was not paying attention to the last election, if so you would be incorrect.

The point is, they have no constituency.  They weren't elected and don't have to worry about being reelected as long as they can keep in place all the ways they can cheat.  As long as ballots are not controlled, ballot boxes are not controlled, voters are not verified, and observers can be kicked out they can cheat as much as they like with no repercussions. There is no constituency to worry about.

Thanks for your answer Michael. My question was concerning the 'constituency'; (The voters and supporters of 'the type people' mentioned above in the examples).

Why would the constituency of the left, 'the body of voters', 'the folks who vote in' and continue voting these folks into political positions, electing and re-electing these type representatives which wish to limit, disarm, or withdraw certain defenses guaranteed in the Second Amendment for each American Citizen, while having Armed Security themselves as in the example in the original post as well as other examples posted above.
Wonder why the voters of the Left, keep electing those who wish to limit 'them' helpless and unable to defend themselves against the evil doers and folks of prey. Why would they elect such people to represent them? Those elected representatives which prove hypocrisy themselves with armed security as they parade around flaunting such? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Michael Bush]

You're still assuming they were elected.  Yes a few people vote for them, but not that many.

[salvo]

copy & paste her:

Viral Facebook post: Quotes show Joseph Stalin and Joe Biden expressed similar views about counting votes.

PolitiFact's ruling: False

Here's why: Though divided by countries, decades and ideologies, former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and President Joe Biden are being compared in a recent Facebook post that looks at the purported words of both men.

"It?s not who votes that counts," Stalin supposedly said. "It?s who counts the votes."

Biden, meanwhile, is quoted as saying: "The struggle?s no longer just who gets to vote. It?s about who gets to count the vote."

In July, for example, Biden said: "It?s no longer just who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible voters to vote. It?s about who gets to count the vote ? who gets to count whether or not your vote counted at all. It?s about moving from independent election administrators who work for the people to polarized state legislatures and partisan actors who work for political parties. To me, this is simple. This is election subversion. It?s the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history. Never before have they decided who gets to count ? count ? what votes count."

"This struggle is no longer just over who gets to vote, or making it easier for eligible people to vote," Biden said in a video his account tweeted in October. "It?s about who gets to count the votes ? whether they should count at all. Jim Crow in the 21st century is now a sinister combination of voter suppression and election subversion."

In December he said: "Today, the right to vote and the rule of law are under unrelenting assault from Republican governors, attorney generals, secretaries of state, state legislators. They?re following my predecessor deep into the abyss. The struggle is no longer just who gets to vote or making it easier for eligible people to vote. It?s about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all. It?s a sinister combination of voter suppression and election subversion. It?s un-American, it?s un-democratic, it?s unpatriotic. And, sadly, it is not unprecedented now."

And speaking to reporters on Jan. 13 after meeting the Senate Democratic Caucus, Biden said: "State legislative bodies continue to change the law not as to who can vote, but who gets to count the vote ? count the vote. Count the vote! It?s about election subversion, not just whether or not people get to vote. Who counts the vote? That?s what this is about. That?s what makes this so different than anything else we?ve ever done." 

[Michael Bush]

>Quotes show Joseph Stalin and Joe Biden expressed similar views about counting votes.
>"It's not who votes that counts," Stalin supposedly said. "It's who counts the votes."
>Biden, meanwhile, is quoted as saying: "The struggle's no longer just who gets to vote. It?s about who gets to count the vote."

In other words it is 100% true, therefore PolitiFact says it's false.

[salvo]

Michael, I think you warned me once about the internet. You actually quoted a wise man:

*Never just believe what you read on the internet*
Abraham Lincoln

Sal

[animal]

The obvious answer is that they do not care. The only thing they "care" about is that they get their way... that they get reelected ... that they are able to monetize their offices... that they control the population through emotional manipulation ...  that goes for some members of both parties and on varying issues.
We live in a time in which political dogma is the driving societal force. Religion, science, sexuality and just about everything else you can name has become political. While I do not advocate implementation of religious dogma, when it ruled the day, at least there was a core morality that was common to the great religions. Now, morality is as fluid as the "gender" of a pop-star.
The politicians in power won their elections because their constituents do not experience cognitive dissonance. They are too absorbed in their chosen dogma to be able to think. In that respect, I see little difference between these voters and self flagellating medieval monks.
I'm sorry Mr Bush, but you are far too optimistic. These politicians were elected and are not the problem. They're merely a reflection of this nation's problems.

[Kathyp]

These politicians were elected and are not the problem. They're merely a reflection of this nation's problems.

That may be one of the truest statements yet.  Certainly true for me locally.  My state has a couple of problem areas that impact the entire state, yet even though the people in those problem areas complain endlessly, they put the same type of people back in office. 

Welcome to beemaster and the coffee house/member interaction section!   

[iddee]

How do you elect good people when only feces and manure file to run? Not much to vote for.

[cidersabuzzin]

How do you elect good people when only feces and manure file to run? Not much to vote for.

One could always stand as an independent, you're not too old....... yet!
cider

[iddee]

But I don't consider myself to be either of the two, so I won't be filing.