You're wrong. He did turn elections. He was deceptive and tried to swing emotion to the more socialist candidate, everytime. Emotion gets out the voter. He lied. He lied on purpose.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
True...but this is the essence of politics. You're deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. There are genuine political and philosophical differences among people. All sides think they're right and justify whatever it is they do to gain power.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
True in essence but way, way over the top. He didn't believe in laissez faire. He believed that wealth transfer was a necessary and good modification of market distribution.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this
True. Now it's a very substantial minority. And of course they don't see it the way you do. They believe that much property is obtained illegally and immorally and, regardless of that, that there are higher values than ownership.
Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
Why would you expect a majority view to not have representatives among journalists? As for thieves and killers and their supporters let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
True...but this is the essence of politics. You're deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. There are genuine political and philosophical differences among people. All sides think they're right and justify whatever it is they do to gain power.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
True in essence but way, way over the top. He didn't believe in laissez faire. He believed that wealth transfer was a necessary and good modification of market distribution.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this
True. Now it's a very substantial minority. And of course they don't see it the way you do. They believe that much property is obtained illegally and immorally and, regardless of that, that there are higher values than ownership.
Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
Why would you expect a majority view to not have representatives among journalists? As for thieves and killers and their supporters let he who is innocent cast the first stone.