sevensixtwo
Junior Member
- Messages
- 144
He said he felt good about Russia nuking the US cities because that was where the enemy was based. If you look at which areas are and red and blue, Democrats are pretty well concentrated in the cities.
Was John Titor a Republican?
- Thread starter sevensixtwo
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,025
I don't know, but I know this: U.S. cities don't deserve to succumb to socialism and communism, like they've done for the past several decades! 
- Messages
- 12,453
How big of a deal his political views would be?
HDRKID
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,585
OK so let us look at a time line when the Cuban Missle Crisis led to a nuclear war in russia. The old soviet union did destroy most major metropolis areas in america. However, the small towns still stand and they are growing.
It is a world with less than 10% minorities and those get no help from the majority as the war destroyed most of the nation and there is no money for social programs. People have to learn to survive. Liberals tend to live in large cities, those where destroyed by the old soviet union. Also, the few unlucky enough to survive... did face arm gangs. Not much hope for people who want to ban guns. Basically, a lot of people in 2016 still remember the bad old days after the war. Democrats were blamed for being to soft on russia. Rich liberals are seen as caviar commies. Not a lot of love for traitors after the war.
Basically, it is a nation of small towns, but there are no giant wall marts to be seen. Freedom levels are a lot higher than ours. John Titor spoke of a rights erosion in our era. This has become evident to most of us. Still, losing the big cities means there is no more cinema. Hollywood is no more. Not a lot of people care. Most focus on finding food and simply being able to survive. There is little emphasis on art or poems. Yeah, these are seen as not so necessary. People of that time line do not buy a lot of useless junk from RED CHINA. Instead of watching cartoons on TV, they are tending a garden and repairing 50's cars. New York fashion scene is gone. Still, there is some need for songs. Most of these are patriotic songs used to marshall men for war.
People have learned to live with less and enjoy more. Religion is a lot more common. If a young person were to claim to be an atheist, they would be as welcome as pedo is in our era.
Remember the following, Kennedy was a liberal democrat who wanted to appease russia. Certainly, in our time line he was a success. However, in another he faced a Khrushchev who was a lot more aggressive. Liberal media of the day existed in large cities and those were soon vaporize. With them we lost a lot of new reporters and people who were part of that infrastructure that was now gone. The capital was move inland as John Titor mentions, but the nation is not the same. Most of the weak wimps are gone. A kind of frontier wild west mentality is common.
It is a world with less than 10% minorities and those get no help from the majority as the war destroyed most of the nation and there is no money for social programs. People have to learn to survive. Liberals tend to live in large cities, those where destroyed by the old soviet union. Also, the few unlucky enough to survive... did face arm gangs. Not much hope for people who want to ban guns. Basically, a lot of people in 2016 still remember the bad old days after the war. Democrats were blamed for being to soft on russia. Rich liberals are seen as caviar commies. Not a lot of love for traitors after the war.
Basically, it is a nation of small towns, but there are no giant wall marts to be seen. Freedom levels are a lot higher than ours. John Titor spoke of a rights erosion in our era. This has become evident to most of us. Still, losing the big cities means there is no more cinema. Hollywood is no more. Not a lot of people care. Most focus on finding food and simply being able to survive. There is little emphasis on art or poems. Yeah, these are seen as not so necessary. People of that time line do not buy a lot of useless junk from RED CHINA. Instead of watching cartoons on TV, they are tending a garden and repairing 50's cars. New York fashion scene is gone. Still, there is some need for songs. Most of these are patriotic songs used to marshall men for war.
People have learned to live with less and enjoy more. Religion is a lot more common. If a young person were to claim to be an atheist, they would be as welcome as pedo is in our era.
Remember the following, Kennedy was a liberal democrat who wanted to appease russia. Certainly, in our time line he was a success. However, in another he faced a Khrushchev who was a lot more aggressive. Liberal media of the day existed in large cities and those were soon vaporize. With them we lost a lot of new reporters and people who were part of that infrastructure that was now gone. The capital was move inland as John Titor mentions, but the nation is not the same. Most of the weak wimps are gone. A kind of frontier wild west mentality is common.
- Messages
- 8,853
He said he felt good about Russia nuking the US cities because that was where the enemy was based. If you look at which areas are and red and blue, Democrats are pretty well concentrated in the cities.
The easiest targets are those on the edge of the country. Really interesting that there are more Democrats in theose places, though.
- Messages
- 4,025
Which Kennedy are you talking about? John F. Kennedy was a "conservative" Democrat.
HDRKID
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,585
TAKEN FROM Conservatives are trying to claim JFK as one of their own
During the 1960 presidential campaign, when Republicans tried to make the term liberal anathema, Kennedy embraced it. A liberal, he said in one speech, “cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties,” and under that definition, he said, “I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
If Khrushchev had attacked america... we would be living in a world far different than our own. McCarthyism would come back with a vengeance. There would be after the war... few if any social programs. Nation would be a lot more libertarian than now. Government involvement in citizens daily lives would be reduced to a minimum. Most of our infrastructure would be gone. With most of our industry destroyed, we would become more agrarian. John Titor speaks of this in his world line, but he does not talk a lot about big breakthroughs in robotics or AI. Lack of infrastructure could be the reason.
During the 1960 presidential campaign, when Republicans tried to make the term liberal anathema, Kennedy embraced it. A liberal, he said in one speech, “cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties,” and under that definition, he said, “I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
If Khrushchev had attacked america... we would be living in a world far different than our own. McCarthyism would come back with a vengeance. There would be after the war... few if any social programs. Nation would be a lot more libertarian than now. Government involvement in citizens daily lives would be reduced to a minimum. Most of our infrastructure would be gone. With most of our industry destroyed, we would become more agrarian. John Titor speaks of this in his world line, but he does not talk a lot about big breakthroughs in robotics or AI. Lack of infrastructure could be the reason.
- Messages
- 4,025
@HDRKID - That fact about JFK is probably correct. But how he describes a liberal does not describe most of today's mainstream Democrats, who are socialists and/or communists. Take Barack Obama, for instance. If you take an informed look at what he has done through his actions, it's impossible that he believes an individual liberty, freedom, capitalism, and free enterprise.
What Obama has been doing is contributing to the tearing apart the quality of society, including schools; creating government jobs and making people dependent on the government (or, buying votes), and furthermore not giving people incentives to work; and enacting and proposing legislation that put the First and Second Amendments under attack. JFK believed in safety nets for people; he did not believe in making people dependent on government entitlement programs.
Most, if not, all of these social programs are intended to buy votes for the Democratic Party and Republican establishment politicians, not to genuinely help people. Increased government involvement usually means a huge step towards socialism/communism. Most of today's mainstream Democrats, especially, believe in the concept of bringing all businesses in the power of the state before that of expanding industry. If there was minimal government involvement in our affairs, businesses and entrepreneurship would be sprouting up big time, and there would be more businesses and less of them going in debt, or bankrupt.
For all of the above reasons I've provided, Joe McCarthy was right, and it would not be tragic at all if "McCarthyism" came back. And furthermore, for those above reasons, I find your argument to be ignorant and/or ill-informed. Thus I stand by my claim that JFK was a "conservative" Democrat, and he fit the true definition of a liberal, and Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid do not!
What Obama has been doing is contributing to the tearing apart the quality of society, including schools; creating government jobs and making people dependent on the government (or, buying votes), and furthermore not giving people incentives to work; and enacting and proposing legislation that put the First and Second Amendments under attack. JFK believed in safety nets for people; he did not believe in making people dependent on government entitlement programs.
Most, if not, all of these social programs are intended to buy votes for the Democratic Party and Republican establishment politicians, not to genuinely help people. Increased government involvement usually means a huge step towards socialism/communism. Most of today's mainstream Democrats, especially, believe in the concept of bringing all businesses in the power of the state before that of expanding industry. If there was minimal government involvement in our affairs, businesses and entrepreneurship would be sprouting up big time, and there would be more businesses and less of them going in debt, or bankrupt.
For all of the above reasons I've provided, Joe McCarthy was right, and it would not be tragic at all if "McCarthyism" came back. And furthermore, for those above reasons, I find your argument to be ignorant and/or ill-informed. Thus I stand by my claim that JFK was a "conservative" Democrat, and he fit the true definition of a liberal, and Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, and Reid do not!
MartinezDeMedio
New Member
- Messages
- 19
John titor never said anything about being democrat or republican. In fact when someone mocked him for his statements on the civil war the person referred to it as a war between democrats and republicans. John replied "I'm not sure I ever said the war was between democrats and republicans." John described the war as between between people who embraced city live and security over freedom versus the people who embraced rural life and protecting their liberties. I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what a republican is. Do you think that rural people are republicans, is that what you're saying? Because if anything it seems like the republicans are the ones who love city life the most. After all many capitalist bankers and business owners vote republican. Republican party is the party of the rich. The democratic party has its fair share of rich jerks, but the modern democratic party is leaning towards a progressive notion. I don't believe John was a republican if he was it wasn't in the same way we think of republicans. On that note I doubt he was a democrat based on what he said it seems like the people in John tutors timeline fought against the government, if the war started in 2004 that tells us the government was the bush administration was his enemy. So why would John be a republican? We could argue that maybe, just maybe in his timeline bush lost the 04 election, but I doubt it. In fact, john said and hesvily implied because his people had just dealt with y2k, so when the 04 re election was rigged, people revolted and that started the civil war which was on full swing by 08. So obviously the bush administration triggered the civil war. Perhaps in his timeline Obama played a Lincoln type role, or maybe Obama was too intimidated to run, we don't know who was president. Either way john wasn't too fond of the 2008 President nor the 04 president, especial the 04 president. I don't think john was republican nor democrat, at least not in the way we think of democrat and republican. He said in his future there are over ten active parties. For all we know Titor was a libertarian or green party or even constitution party! Either way titor had a deep disdain for the government of today, that includes dem and rep! I see a lot of titor researches these days implying that trump would have been titors choice and personally that makes me sick. Hillary sucks yeah, but she won the popular vote. I have this weird notiong that John titor wasn't very fond of the electoral college, it doesent seem to align with his other views. People who are anti administration tend to be anti electoral college, including trump himself. Also, I see a lot of these same people acting as if JT predicted Trump somehow. Maybe he did. But I don't think JT would of liked Donald Trump. Titor was against things like greed, and waste and ignorance and prejudice, all things that Donald represents. One can say the same about Hillary yes but that doesent change the fact that Donald Trump is a big fat corporate pig. I don't care how any of my fellow titor researchers vote, but it really makes me scratch my head when people imply or ask if titor was a republican. If you actually read titors posts he seems very critical of the current administration which as I pointed out was a republican administration at the time. Its easy to forget what titor actually said versus what it sounds like what he said. Remember, the tea party which are the most staunch of Republicans are based in big cities. Donald trump isn't a country dweller, he lives on fifth avenue in a big expensive tower. Yes, so does Hillary. But Obama came from the suburbs of Chicago not the center. Mcain lives in the big city too. Arizona has some places Russia would love to bomb. Sarah Palin lives in Alaska's biggest city and spends plenty of time in NY. The bushes come from kinneybunkport and Texan cities. Guliani is a new yoker too. Just because the republican party has the "feel" of being the rural party doesent mean they actually are. The oil barons are all republicans. The FBI is ran by republicans. The Republicans sent us to Iraq. The republicans are the ones who ignore the bill of rights. I'm not defending the democratic party, not at all. But when it comes down to facts, the republican party IS the establishment.