Do Something Patriotic - Read Trump's Speech at Mount Rushmore

20,789 Views | 185 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by bearister
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:41p, 7/5/20
Let's be real - this doesn't represent any change in Trump's outlook. This speech was obviously written by Stephen Miller and Kush must be so deep into the doghouse that Daddy refused to allow him to comment on the speech which is normally how Miller's speeches become less white nationalist-y.

Trump doesn't know what a Marxist is and probably couldn't tell you anything about the speech other than statues good democrats bad.

This is the same guy with no attention to detail and no interest in governing or coalition building. He probably first laid eyes on the speech as he was fumbling his way through it on the teleprompter.

I'm surprised that he doesn't have an in ear monitor telling him what to say. Like a racist Cyrano D'bergerac.

Long story short, hard to take this seriously as anything other than what it is - am early read on the manifesto Stephen Miller will distribute before his final act of terrorism when he is removed from his ill-gotten role as Trump's misanthropic muse.
Reply Quote
4
heartofthebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:54p, 7/5/20
As far as I can tell, there is nothing new to see here, from start to finish.
The speech didn't change anything for me...seems more of the same.
Was he ever going to be tactful because of a holiday?
I'll vote for Biden, or whoever the alternative is even though I'm not a Dem.
Biden might last a couple of years before he descends into full Alzheimer's.
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Reply Quote
3
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:57p, 7/5/20


One can only imagine the rage building inside the clearly humiliated young Mr. Miller in that photo. He was probably thinking about how someday he would make the whole world pay. Heck, at least he got a cult wife in the deal (that will stick around as long as Miller has a powerful job).*


*Did they ever find that kid's body?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 7:00p, 7/5/20
bearister said:


One can only imagine the rage building inside the clearly humiliated young Mr. Miller in that photo. He was probably thinking about how someday he would make the whole world pay. Heck, at least he got a cult wife in the deal (that will stick around as long as Miller has a powerful job).*


*Did they ever find that kid's body?

I wonder if his hair was already starting to fall out back then.
Reply Quote
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 2:08a, 7/6/20
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 7:06a, 7/6/20
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.


Please show me where I have supported any of those things?

Do you think Trump read your thread on BLM or that he can define Marxism?

Where has BLM said that they want to "destroy the nuclear family"? Do you believe it is their intention to destroy your nuclear family or my nuclear family? Are you afraid they are going to make it more difficult for people to get married or live with their own children? What is your precise concern here?

As for abolishing/defunding police, please show me where BLM advocates for "complete abolition of police". Do you have any evidence that the leaders of BLM are arguing for a USA with 0 police officers? That would be news to me.

You've taken a reactionary and defensive position for reasons I can only surmise. I haven't supported any of the things you've attributed to BLM and I am unaware of BLM having done so either. Perhaps you should question whether your news sources are telling you the truth or just trying to whip you into a state of frenzied fear like Trump.
Reply Quote
4
joe amos yaks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 7:59a, 7/6/20
bearister said:
Bobodeluxe said:
"We are now in the process of defeating the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who in many instances have absolutely no clue what they are doing,"
Emperor d tRump
July 4, 2020
All Hail!
" Listen, you f@uckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the c@unts, the dogs, the filth, the sh@it. Here is a man who stood up."


Go Travis! Vote Bickle in 2020.
Reply Quote
1 edit
prospeCt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:02a, 7/6/20










Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:22a, 7/6/20
I had options. Instead of reading tRump's speech I chose this:




*This was an activity at a tRump rally
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Golden One
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 10:33a, 7/6/20
Seems to me that his speech, including all the excerpts you noted in your post, are right on. Perhaps that's what annoys you and the other leftists so much. Trump sees you for what you are and is exposing you. Reality is sometimes tough to take.





Liberalism is a mental illness.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Krugman Is A Moron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:53a, 7/6/20
Can't run on what you're going to do economically when people have already seen four years of results.
Reply Quote
Krugman Is A Moron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to heartofthebear • 10:54a, 7/6/20
heartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
He won't
Reply Quote
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Golden One • 11:02a, 7/6/20
Golden One said:
Seems to me that his speech, including all the excerpts you noted in your post, are right on. Perhaps that's what annoys you the other leftists so much. Trump sees you for what you are and is exposing you. Reality is sometimes tough to take.





Liberalism is a mental illness.
LOL, Trump couldn't expose a polaroid. No one is surprised that you are lock step with his hysterical speech - you are exactly the sort of person he was speaking to.

What bothers OTB and others is that they believe Trump's unhinged rant exposes some sort of new tactic or worldview by Trump rather than desperation that he can't claw himself out of the grave he dug for himself.

If Trump were to get 5% of the vote, he would still have people like you in his corner. What you, and he, don't realize is how many people he alienates with his hysterics while he ignores the real problems that we are suffering from and that he's contributed to - eg COVID. That's why he's an incumbent down 12 points to a guy who has hardly left his basement in the last 3 months. Joe may manage to win this thing from his lawn chair because Trump is just that toxic to so many swing voters at this point. Once people see a charlatan for who he is, they can't unsee it.
Reply Quote
4
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Golden One • 11:05a, 7/6/20
Wow. A breathtakingly stupid post, even by GoldenOnenote standards! You really are completely brain washed by your party. You honestly believe everything the great pumpkin spoon feeds you.

Just look at your signature- you have already decided that your tribe is 100% correct, and Libs are all crazy.

Come back when you have something rational and well reasoned to contribute, and not just the talking points the Re-elect Trump folks sent you.
Reply Quote
2
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 11:20a, 7/6/20
AunBear89 said:
Wow. A breathtakingly stupid post, even by GoldenOnenote standards! You really are completely brain washed by your party. You honestly believe everything the great pumpkin spoon feeds you.

Just look at your signature- you have already decided that your tribe is 100% correct, and Libs are all crazy.

Come back when you have something rational and well reasoned to contribute, and not just the talking points the Re-elect Trump folks sent you.
You know Aunbear is a vapid poser and that his posts have no rational substance when you can tweak his posts and it can be something the other side could have written.


"Wow. A breathtakingly stupid post, even by AunBear standards! You really are completely brain washed by your party. You honestly believe everything the fake progressives spoon feeds you.

Just look at your post- you have already decided that your tribe is 100% correct, and conservatives are all crazy.

Come back when you have something rational and well reasoned to contribute, and not just the talking points the fake progressive folks sent you."

Almost comical that Aunbear writes about rational posting when I honestly do not remember anything intelligent he has ever written. All I see are just gibberish party line insults that feed into the frenzy of other mindless tribalists.
Reply Quote
4
OBear073akaSMFan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 11:24a, 7/6/20

Reply Quote
1 edit
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 11:32a, 7/6/20
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
I am not sure that BLM is a marxist organization. There are off-shoots that proclaim communism but I have no idea whether that is real or a Russian plant.

If they just promoted reformation of the police union and police culture that discourages whistle blowers, termination of the bad cops, and keeping each other in check, then I think they would have a lot more supports across the aisle. I think the poor messaging I had previously identified is counter-productive for broad support (if you have to explain the nuances after chanting the most divisive and crazy position - defunding the police - you have lost the messaging war).

As far as the nuclear family unit, I think they should also promote strong family unit (lack of which I think has been a disruption to meaningful progress in urban communities - there is a reason why all of us are so focused on parenting - parenting matters) and crime within the community (I mean look at the Wendy's takeover in Atlanta - where is the protest over all of the shooting among the protesters occupying Wendy's, including killing of a toddler). However, their position you are referencing noted below seems to be more about community complementing the family unit. That is how it was when I was growing up in a lower middle class neighborhood, and it worked.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:19p, 7/6/20
Unit2Sucks said:
Golden One said:
Seems to me that his speech, including all the excerpts you noted in your post, are right on. Perhaps that's what annoys you the other leftists so much. Trump sees you for what you are and is exposing you. Reality is sometimes tough to take.





Liberalism is a mental illness.
LOL, Trump couldn't expose a polaroid. No one is surprised that you are lock step with his hysterical speech - you are exactly the sort of person he was speaking to.

What bothers OTB and others is that they believe Trump's unhinged rant exposes some sort of new tactic or worldview by Trump rather than desperation that he can't claw himself out of the grave he dug for himself.

If Trump were to get 5% of the vote, he would still have people like you in his corner. What you, and he, don't realize is how many people he alienates with his hysterics while he ignores the real problems that we are suffering from and that he's contributed to - eg COVID. That's why he's an incumbent down 12 points to a guy who has hardly left his basement in the last 3 months. Joe may manage to win this thing from his lawn chair because Trump is just that toxic to so many swing voters at this point. Once people see a charlatan for who he is, they can't unsee it.
What bothers me specifically is that people are so tired of Trump's act that they completely ignore it and they don't see how it has evolved. 2016 was bad enough for them. In 2016 he was an outsider candidate that primarily ran a clean up Washington campaign where he secondarily liberally sprinkled racist dog whistles to gin up a segment of the Republican base. Many people voted for him based on the main portion of his message and hoped that the secondary portion would go away as he governed. I think that WIAF is that type of person. Many people chose not to vote for either candidate maybe partially because they found his rhetoric unacceptable and didn't want to encourage it, but didn't like Clinton either or Clinton's policies and just took the rhetoric as more extreme version of what Republican candidates have done in past campaigns while they then governed like Republicans. Some, probably enough to swing the election, liberals got fat and happy on 8 years of Obama and thought it was time to do their every 16 year tradition of blowing elections by deciding it was time to vote third party to teach the Democrats a lesson.

This speech is different. 1. It is no longer a dog whistle. It is an open call to culture war and attempt to instill fear that people who are different are coming to get you. 2. It is the whole damned speech. It is all he is about now. He can't run as an outsider anymore. We cannot allow a president to be elected on this platform.

In 2016, this crap was the cup holders on the car of his campaign. Now, it is the whole damned car. This is what he is running on and this is how he will govern. I firmly believe this kind of crap is wholly unacceptable to a large majority of Americans. But his campaign is counting on the fact that no one but his base will listen to him anymore. He needs to be held accountable by the people outside his base.

And for those that say they don't think anything will change anyone's mind at this point - yes it seems bizarre that anything could. It seems completely ridiculous that anyone could be undecided between Trump and Biden. But there is a percentage that lives in that space and that percentage will decide the election.

No Golden One, I'm not bothered because it was so on the nose. I'm bothered because hateful ignorant people like you are so predisposed to hate that you buy this stuff. That you are so deeply concerned about the impact to your life of a statue you didn't know existed in a park you didn't know existed, 1000 miles from your home being taken down. That you are so predisposed to hate people that you believe dumbass statements like our children are taught in school to hate America, which is even more dumbass by virtue of the fact that the conservative Texas school board has wielded outsized influence on the national textbook industry. And for me, the result is that I have to come in and protect my minority wife and my biracial children from racists asshats that listen to this bullshyte - as I have had to do on a number of occasions. So no, I'm not bothered by it being on the nose. I'm bothered by the impact it has on my family. A family who doesn't riot or take down statues or do any of the things you have decided to fear except exist. Because yeah, I get it. Their existence is something for you to fear. I'm bothered because I have experienced very real things to fear for my family, live and in person. Not fake things that you are told to fear by someone on cable news that have never and will never have any impact on you. And yes, I'm bothered that as White person with a lot of money with a minority family who has a lot of money, the live and in person issues I occasionally deal with are a tiny fraction, a tiny glimpse of what most minorities with out such means have to deal with.

That speech is not about politics or policy. It is pure 1984 stuff. It is about defining a group as different just because you can and then creating a false narrative that they are the enemy just for political gain. Trying to get people to believe that they are doing terrible things or are going to do terrible things just to get people's support out of fear of a made up danger. It is disgusting.

The fact that you can read that and agree with it tells me what I need to know. As I said, we are at a parting of the ways.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:26p, 7/6/20
Question regarding tRump's American Carnage/Law and Order path to re election:

Has anyone pointed out to tRump that all of this lawlessness, rioting, looting, shootings and monument toppling has taken place on his watch so why should we expect things to change if his watch gets extended 4 years?*


*The real answer to the question is that if he wins he will be tRump Unchained and consider it a mandate to mobilize the military and either summarily execute people in the street or imprison them without due process.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 12:45p, 7/6/20
calbear93 said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
I am not sure that BLM is a marxist organization. There are off-shoots that proclaim communism but I have no idea whether that is real or a Russian plant.

If they just promoted reformation of the police union and police culture that discourages whistle blowers, termination of the bad cops, and keeping each other in check, then I think they would have a lot more supports across the aisle. I think the poor messaging I had previously identified is counter-productive for broad support (if you have to explain the nuances after chanting the most divisive and crazy position - defunding the police - you have lost the messaging war).

As far as the nuclear family unit, I think they should also promote strong family unit (lack of which I think has been a disruption to meaningful progress in urban communities - there is a reason why all of us are so focused on parenting - parenting matters) and crime within the community (I mean look at the Wendy's takeover in Atlanta - where is the protest over all of the shooting among the protesters occupying Wendy's, including killing of a toddler). However, their position you are referencing noted below seems to be more about community complementing the family unit. That is how it was when I was growing up in a lower middle class neighborhood, and it worked.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Let me tell you a little secret. No one gives one tiddly damn what an organization with the name "Black Lives Matter" or people who have claimed leadership in that organization think on any specific issue other than stopping police brutality and racial profiling. Over the years, there have been many people that have claimed to have some sort of leadership position in "Black Lives Matter", and from what I've seen those people have run the gamut from extremely intelligent to barely coherent. If you want to find something crazy that has been said under the name "Black Lives Matter" it won't be hard. It is a grassroots movement that at least in its early incarnation was barely organized and had a bunch of local organizations whose connection was mostly that they were the first ones in an area to take on the name. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" and the movement behind that slogan is not about any one organization any more than the Civil Rights Movement was about what the Black Panthers thought about race relations.

I do not know the current inner workings of the Black Lives Matter organization. I do not care about the inner workings or outward positions of the Black Lives Matter organization. I care about reforming police practices. Defining those who want reform by the views of a small group of people who may have specific views is an easy way to just discredit the whole issue.

If someone doesn't want police reform, make that case. It is hard to make at this point. So people point to specific unpopular positions to paint with a broad brush. Abolishing all police in the country is not going to happen and it is not on the table. Doing things like having specifically trained mental health professionals to respond to mental health calls is on the table. Why don't we talk about what is really on the table rather than use a tiny fraction who want to tear the whole system down to make an excuse for maintaining an unacceptable status quo.

As for the family unit thing. I think that virtually everyone agrees that in an ideal world the nuclear family takes care of family issues, including raising the next generation, and that the greater community should support nuclear families in doing so. It is sad that some people view a call to support the nuclear family as an attack on it.
Reply Quote
5
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 12:49p, 7/6/20
OaktownBear said:
calbear93 said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
I am not sure that BLM is a marxist organization. There are off-shoots that proclaim communism but I have no idea whether that is real or a Russian plant.

If they just promoted reformation of the police union and police culture that discourages whistle blowers, termination of the bad cops, and keeping each other in check, then I think they would have a lot more supports across the aisle. I think the poor messaging I had previously identified is counter-productive for broad support (if you have to explain the nuances after chanting the most divisive and crazy position - defunding the police - you have lost the messaging war).

As far as the nuclear family unit, I think they should also promote strong family unit (lack of which I think has been a disruption to meaningful progress in urban communities - there is a reason why all of us are so focused on parenting - parenting matters) and crime within the community (I mean look at the Wendy's takeover in Atlanta - where is the protest over all of the shooting among the protesters occupying Wendy's, including killing of a toddler). However, their position you are referencing noted below seems to be more about community complementing the family unit. That is how it was when I was growing up in a lower middle class neighborhood, and it worked.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Let me tell you a little secret. No one gives one tiddly damn what an organization with the name "Black Lives Matter" or people who have claimed leadership in that organization think on any specific issue other than stopping police brutality and racial profiling. Over the years, there have been many people that have claimed to have some sort of leadership position in "Black Lives Matter", and from what I've seen those people have run the gamut from extremely intelligent to barely coherent. If you want to find something crazy that has been said under the name "Black Lives Matter" it won't be hard. It is a grassroots movement that at least in its early incarnation was barely organized and had a bunch of local organizations whose connection was mostly that they were the first ones in an area to take on the name. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" and the movement behind that slogan is not about any one organization any more than the Civil Rights Movement was about what the Black Panthers thought about race relations.

I do not know the current inner workings of the Black Lives Matter organization. I do not care about the inner workings or outward positions of the Black Lives Matter organization. I care about reforming police practices. Defining those who want reform by the views of a small group of people who may have specific views is an easy way to just discredit the whole issue.

If someone doesn't want police reform, make that case. It is hard to make at this point. So people point to specific unpopular positions to paint with a broad brush. Abolishing all police in the country is not going to happen and it is not on the table. Doing things like having specifically trained mental health professionals to respond to mental health calls is on the table. Why don't we talk about what is really on the table rather than use a tiny fraction who want to tear the whole system down to make an excuse for maintaining an unacceptable status quo.

As for the family unit thing. I think that virtually everyone agrees that in an ideal world the nuclear family takes care of family issues, including raising the next generation, and that the greater community should support nuclear families in doing so. It is sad that some people view a call to support the nuclear family as an attack on it.
Was anything you wrote in response to what I wrote?

What about what you wrote was a counter to what I wrote?
Reply Quote
3
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 12:59p, 7/6/20
OaktownBear said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Golden One said:
Seems to me that his speech, including all the excerpts you noted in your post, are right on. Perhaps that's what annoys you the other leftists so much. Trump sees you for what you are and is exposing you. Reality is sometimes tough to take.





Liberalism is a mental illness.
LOL, Trump couldn't expose a polaroid. No one is surprised that you are lock step with his hysterical speech - you are exactly the sort of person he was speaking to.

What bothers OTB and others is that they believe Trump's unhinged rant exposes some sort of new tactic or worldview by Trump rather than desperation that he can't claw himself out of the grave he dug for himself.

If Trump were to get 5% of the vote, he would still have people like you in his corner. What you, and he, don't realize is how many people he alienates with his hysterics while he ignores the real problems that we are suffering from and that he's contributed to - eg COVID. That's why he's an incumbent down 12 points to a guy who has hardly left his basement in the last 3 months. Joe may manage to win this thing from his lawn chair because Trump is just that toxic to so many swing voters at this point. Once people see a charlatan for who he is, they can't unsee it.
What bothers me specifically is that people are so tired of Trump's act that they completely ignore it and they don't see how it has evolved. 2016 was bad enough for them.
I think you are underestimating to what extent his hysteria is impacting his popularity. Republicans got wiped out in 2018 in part because he continued to try to fight a cultural war that wasn't that compelling for many swing voters. It's only accelerated since then and without the economy to prop him up, his support has unraveled. Other than the zealots, no one is getting excited by the garbage he is spewing these days.

Could it change? Sure, it's possible he somehow falls bass ackward into a cure for covid or it really does just disappear one day and the economy comes back and he is given all the credit. Given that we are 4 months away from election day and there is going to be a lag after COVID disappears before the economy really gets going, it's hard to see how that will happen in time to save him. But it's possible. What's not possible is that his broken record of unhinged rhetoric starts to resonate with people who have tired of his pitch and the pitchman (credit to Bearister who will post the McCarthy quote from Roy Cohn shortly).

With the lowest level of employment in 70 years and an uncontained pandemic, he's simply not going to be able to convince enough Americans to care about vandalized statues to win the election. It's preposterous to think his team is dumb enough to believe that to be a winning strategy but then again he never really did have the best people did he?
Reply Quote
2
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 1:04p, 7/6/20
calbear93 said:
OaktownBear said:
calbear93 said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
I am not sure that BLM is a marxist organization. There are off-shoots that proclaim communism but I have no idea whether that is real or a Russian plant.

If they just promoted reformation of the police union and police culture that discourages whistle blowers, termination of the bad cops, and keeping each other in check, then I think they would have a lot more supports across the aisle. I think the poor messaging I had previously identified is counter-productive for broad support (if you have to explain the nuances after chanting the most divisive and crazy position - defunding the police - you have lost the messaging war).

As far as the nuclear family unit, I think they should also promote strong family unit (lack of which I think has been a disruption to meaningful progress in urban communities - there is a reason why all of us are so focused on parenting - parenting matters) and crime within the community (I mean look at the Wendy's takeover in Atlanta - where is the protest over all of the shooting among the protesters occupying Wendy's, including killing of a toddler). However, their position you are referencing noted below seems to be more about community complementing the family unit. That is how it was when I was growing up in a lower middle class neighborhood, and it worked.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Let me tell you a little secret. No one gives one tiddly damn what an organization with the name "Black Lives Matter" or people who have claimed leadership in that organization think on any specific issue other than stopping police brutality and racial profiling. Over the years, there have been many people that have claimed to have some sort of leadership position in "Black Lives Matter", and from what I've seen those people have run the gamut from extremely intelligent to barely coherent. If you want to find something crazy that has been said under the name "Black Lives Matter" it won't be hard. It is a grassroots movement that at least in its early incarnation was barely organized and had a bunch of local organizations whose connection was mostly that they were the first ones in an area to take on the name. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" and the movement behind that slogan is not about any one organization any more than the Civil Rights Movement was about what the Black Panthers thought about race relations.

I do not know the current inner workings of the Black Lives Matter organization. I do not care about the inner workings or outward positions of the Black Lives Matter organization. I care about reforming police practices. Defining those who want reform by the views of a small group of people who may have specific views is an easy way to just discredit the whole issue.

If someone doesn't want police reform, make that case. It is hard to make at this point. So people point to specific unpopular positions to paint with a broad brush. Abolishing all police in the country is not going to happen and it is not on the table. Doing things like having specifically trained mental health professionals to respond to mental health calls is on the table. Why don't we talk about what is really on the table rather than use a tiny fraction who want to tear the whole system down to make an excuse for maintaining an unacceptable status quo.

As for the family unit thing. I think that virtually everyone agrees that in an ideal world the nuclear family takes care of family issues, including raising the next generation, and that the greater community should support nuclear families in doing so. It is sad that some people view a call to support the nuclear family as an attack on it.
Was anything you wrote in response to what I wrote?

What about what you wrote was a counter to what I wrote?
It was not intended to be a counter to what you wrote. Minot made comments. You responded. I continued the conversation from your response. I largely agree with what you wrote. I very strongly agree with your point about the family unit. Sometimes on the internet we get to used to a format being point, counterpoint where if we were sitting around the table people would make statements in argument or agreement with one another and sometimes refute, sometimes amplify, sometimes add to others points.
Reply Quote
1
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 1:11p, 7/6/20
OaktownBear said:


That speech is not about politics or policy. It is pure 1984 stuff. It is about defining a group as different just because you can and then creating a false narrative that they are the enemy just for political gain. Trying to get people to believe that they are doing terrible things or are going to do terrible things just to get people's support out of fear of a made up danger. It is disgusting.

The CONTENT of what he said in his speech was no worse than that what some of the less intelligent liberal posters write here.

It is much worse overall because of who he is and not because of what he said.

It is pure populism, taking a small segment of the extreme, painting the entire party or group based on the extreme, and saying that not siding with him means giving in to the extremists on the other side. We need to vote him out because, while it is bad enough that there are posters here who do the exact same thing, we cannot have the top person in our country mimic the idiots and create more division. At least the extremists on this board are feckless and have not made any one difference in this world. When the most powerful person on the planet takes the same braindead approach that vilifies an entire group based on the extremists, then we get a very divisive country where people feel free to show no civility on message boards or in real life.

But, as I mentioned before, no one who was not already convinced of what he said even before he said it will even bother giving any weight to what he said. And so, I tune him out as a troll in the same way that I tune out trolls here (or just resort to insulting them since that is the only way they communicate). Nothing I can do about Trump that I haven't already decided to do in 2016. And I don't think your call to make a firm decision on Trump is meaningful here because I don't see anyone here sitting on the fence. I don't think there will be too many taking this election for granted, knowing what is at stake.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 1:18p, 7/6/20
OaktownBear said:
calbear93 said:
OaktownBear said:
calbear93 said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.
I am not sure that BLM is a marxist organization. There are off-shoots that proclaim communism but I have no idea whether that is real or a Russian plant.

If they just promoted reformation of the police union and police culture that discourages whistle blowers, termination of the bad cops, and keeping each other in check, then I think they would have a lot more supports across the aisle. I think the poor messaging I had previously identified is counter-productive for broad support (if you have to explain the nuances after chanting the most divisive and crazy position - defunding the police - you have lost the messaging war).

As far as the nuclear family unit, I think they should also promote strong family unit (lack of which I think has been a disruption to meaningful progress in urban communities - there is a reason why all of us are so focused on parenting - parenting matters) and crime within the community (I mean look at the Wendy's takeover in Atlanta - where is the protest over all of the shooting among the protesters occupying Wendy's, including killing of a toddler). However, their position you are referencing noted below seems to be more about community complementing the family unit. That is how it was when I was growing up in a lower middle class neighborhood, and it worked.

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."
Let me tell you a little secret. No one gives one tiddly damn what an organization with the name "Black Lives Matter" or people who have claimed leadership in that organization think on any specific issue other than stopping police brutality and racial profiling. Over the years, there have been many people that have claimed to have some sort of leadership position in "Black Lives Matter", and from what I've seen those people have run the gamut from extremely intelligent to barely coherent. If you want to find something crazy that has been said under the name "Black Lives Matter" it won't be hard. It is a grassroots movement that at least in its early incarnation was barely organized and had a bunch of local organizations whose connection was mostly that they were the first ones in an area to take on the name. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" and the movement behind that slogan is not about any one organization any more than the Civil Rights Movement was about what the Black Panthers thought about race relations.

I do not know the current inner workings of the Black Lives Matter organization. I do not care about the inner workings or outward positions of the Black Lives Matter organization. I care about reforming police practices. Defining those who want reform by the views of a small group of people who may have specific views is an easy way to just discredit the whole issue.

If someone doesn't want police reform, make that case. It is hard to make at this point. So people point to specific unpopular positions to paint with a broad brush. Abolishing all police in the country is not going to happen and it is not on the table. Doing things like having specifically trained mental health professionals to respond to mental health calls is on the table. Why don't we talk about what is really on the table rather than use a tiny fraction who want to tear the whole system down to make an excuse for maintaining an unacceptable status quo.

As for the family unit thing. I think that virtually everyone agrees that in an ideal world the nuclear family takes care of family issues, including raising the next generation, and that the greater community should support nuclear families in doing so. It is sad that some people view a call to support the nuclear family as an attack on it.
Was anything you wrote in response to what I wrote?

What about what you wrote was a counter to what I wrote?
It was not intended to be a counter to what you wrote. Minot made comments. You responded. I continued the conversation from your response. I largely agree with what you wrote. I very strongly agree with your point about the family unit. Sometimes on the internet we get to used to a format being point, counterpoint where if we were sitting around the table people would make statements in argument or agreement with one another and sometimes refute, sometimes amplify, sometimes add to others points.
OK, fair enough. I was confused because of the format you mentioned (point, conterpoint), but you seemed to agree for the most part with what I wrote.
Reply Quote
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 1:48p, 7/6/20
Unit2Sucks said:
OaktownBear said:
Unit2Sucks said:
Golden One said:
Seems to me that his speech, including all the excerpts you noted in your post, are right on. Perhaps that's what annoys you the other leftists so much. Trump sees you for what you are and is exposing you. Reality is sometimes tough to take.





Liberalism is a mental illness.
LOL, Trump couldn't expose a polaroid. No one is surprised that you are lock step with his hysterical speech - you are exactly the sort of person he was speaking to.

What bothers OTB and others is that they believe Trump's unhinged rant exposes some sort of new tactic or worldview by Trump rather than desperation that he can't claw himself out of the grave he dug for himself.

If Trump were to get 5% of the vote, he would still have people like you in his corner. What you, and he, don't realize is how many people he alienates with his hysterics while he ignores the real problems that we are suffering from and that he's contributed to - eg COVID. That's why he's an incumbent down 12 points to a guy who has hardly left his basement in the last 3 months. Joe may manage to win this thing from his lawn chair because Trump is just that toxic to so many swing voters at this point. Once people see a charlatan for who he is, they can't unsee it.
What bothers me specifically is that people are so tired of Trump's act that they completely ignore it and they don't see how it has evolved. 2016 was bad enough for them.
I think you are underestimating to what extent his hysteria is impacting his popularity. Republicans got wiped out in 2018 in part because he continued to try to fight a cultural war that wasn't that compelling for many swing voters. It's only accelerated since then and without the economy to prop him up, his support has unraveled. Other than the zealots, no one is getting excited by the garbage he is spewing these days.

Could it change? Sure, it's possible he somehow falls bass ackward into a cure for covid or it really does just disappear one day and the economy comes back and he is given all the credit. Given that we are 4 months away from election day and there is going to be a lag after COVID disappears before the economy really gets going, it's hard to see how that will happen in time to save him. But it's possible. What's not possible is that his broken record of unhinged rhetoric starts to resonate with people who have tired of his pitch and the pitchman (credit to Bearister who will post the McCarthy quote from Roy Cohn shortly).

With the lowest level of employment in 70 years and an uncontained pandemic, he's simply not going to be able to convince enough Americans to care about vandalized statues to win the election. It's preposterous to think his team is dumb enough to believe that to be a winning strategy but then again he never really did have the best people did he?
To the contrary. I'm not underestimating it. My belief is that California is governed entirely by liberals today because the Republican party in California went too far to the right. The moderates left the party and became independents, which pushed Republican candidates further to the right. A state that 10 years ago ended a run of 24 years of Republican governors out of 28 years can't buy statewide office.

I believe that is where we are going nationally. I believe that Trump has lost popularity. I believe that Americans will not ascribe to this philosophy in the end. I believe that if the election were today, he'd get trounced. Further, I believe the Republican party is undergoing the same transformation nationally that it went through in California and will ultimately pay the same price.

I also believe that the more people that read that speech, the more likely he will be trounced. I do not underestimate this. If anything, I'm an optimistic guy. I overestimate it. But I'm not going to risk overestimating it this time. People need to pay attention. People need to care. People need to vote. Golden One will vote. Liberals have a poor track record of showing up. People need to show up. That is what I'm not convinced of.
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:49p, 7/6/20
Thomas Friedman is of the opinion that both China and Russia believe a tRump victory in 2020 is in their best interest:

" They know that as long as you're president, America will be in turmoil. For Xi, that means we're a less formidable economic rival, and for Vlad, that means we're a less attractive democratic model for his people. They also both know that as long as you're president the U.S. will never be able to galvanize a global coalition of allies against them, which is what China fears most on trade, human rights and Covid-19 and Russia on Ukraine and Syria.

Zhou Xiaoming, a former Chinese trade negotiator and deputy representative in Geneva, told Bloomberg's Peter Martin: "If Biden is elected, I think this could be more dangerous for China, because he will work with allies to target China, whereas Trump is destroying U.S. alliances."

Chinese officials, Martin reported, see a unified front on trade or human rights by the U.S. and its allies as "Washington's greatest asset for checking China's widening influence," and Trump's behavior ensures that will never come about."

Questions:
1. Do you agree with Mr. Friedman? If not, why not?
2. If you agree with Mr. Friedman, based on the fact that a handful of key Electoral College states will determine the outcome of the election, do you believe China and Russia have the ability to interfere with our election process to insure that tRump carries those states and thus "wins" the election?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1 edit
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 1:56p, 7/6/20
Unit2Sucks said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.


Please show me where I have supported any of those things?

Do you think Trump read your thread on BLM or that he can define Marxism?

Where has BLM said that they want to "destroy the nuclear family"? Do you believe it is their intention to destroy your nuclear family or my nuclear family? Are you afraid they are going to make it more difficult for people to get married or live with their own children? What is your precise concern here?

As for abolishing/defunding police, please show me where BLM advocates for "complete abolition of police". Do you have any evidence that the leaders of BLM are arguing for a USA with 0 police officers? That would be news to me.

You've taken a reactionary and defensive position for reasons I can only surmise. I haven't supported any of the things you've attributed to BLM and I am unaware of BLM having done so either. Perhaps you should question whether your news sources are telling you the truth or just trying to whip you into a state of frenzied fear like Trump.

BLM leaders are Marxist and their "what we believe" section includes verbiage regarding the nuclear family structure. Two parent homes are already uncommon.

Quote:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
Reply Quote
1
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 2:16p, 7/6/20
calbear93 said:
OaktownBear said:


That speech is not about politics or policy. It is pure 1984 stuff. It is about defining a group as different just because you can and then creating a false narrative that they are the enemy just for political gain. Trying to get people to believe that they are doing terrible things or are going to do terrible things just to get people's support out of fear of a made up danger. It is disgusting.




Quote:
The CONTENT of what he said in his speech was no worse than that what some of the less intelligent liberal posters write here.

It is much worse overall because of who he is and not because of what he said.
This separates you from many. Either they don't understand this, or more likely they are too dishonest to demonstrate that they understand this. There are whackos, racists, morons, prejudiced, etc. on all sides. There are all those stripes among politicians. They rarely rise to leadership. I can tell you there are some Democrats that I will NEVER vote for, a couple who have a voice who I have had the misfortune to see their true colors when they are speaking to "their people". But they know they can't say those things to a general audience. When it reaches a point when a national leader will say those things to a national audience, we have to push back. That doesn't make it anymore acceptable for the guy on a message board to say the same thing. But as you say, he is feckless. The main problem isn't that Trump says those things. It is that millions of people hear him say it and say "right on, Big Guy!".


Quote:
But, as I mentioned before, no one who was not already convinced of what he said even before he said it will even bother giving any weight to what he said. And so, I tune him out as a troll in the same way that I tune out trolls here (or just resort to insulting them since that is the only way they communicate). Nothing I can do about Trump that I haven't already decided to do in 2016. And I don't think your call to make a firm decision on Trump is meaningful here because I don't see anyone here sitting on the fence. I don't think there will be too many taking this election for granted, knowing what is at stake.
Biden has consistently lead in the average of polls by 6% over a period of about a year. That has recently risen to about 10% and dropped down to about 8.5%. Apparently, people are still movable. If Biden's lead goes down to 4%, he is in definite danger in the Electoral College. (he is still in danger at 6%, but much less so). So when you say "no one" will even bother giving any weight, well, "no one" doesn't equal 0%. Does it equal 5%? 10%? Probably not more than that. But 5-10% turns elections.

Reply Quote
LMK5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 7/6/20
Oaktown, you're leaving out some critical information. You know what everyday people are concerned about? Safety. Law and order. It's not the far left radicals people are concerned about, it's the silence from main stream Democrats in response to people openly burning, rioting, and killing. They are in danger of getting tagged with that "soft on crime" label once again. They will not stand up for regular people who have found themselves in very unsafe conditions:

1) Keisha Lance Bottoms has now decided, after a little girl was killed, that there will be no more negotiations with the Wendy's occupiers after weeks of doing nothing. That's what it took for her to act. I think the average swing voter is against negotiations of any kind in this type of situation. What has Joe Biden said about this?
2) Duh Blah-sio wants to take away 1B from the NYPD. Yeah, the same NYPD that has occupied a pedestal since 9/11. Look at the current crime rate increase since his views were made clear. What has Joe Biden said about this?
3) Jenny Durkan let CHOP/CHAZ run amok until--you guessed it--people started getting killed. What has Joe Biden said about this?
4) Feel a kinship with your fellow lawyers? Well, 2 had to stand outside their home to ensure theirs didn't meet the same fate as so many other buildings in St. Louis. Where were the so-called "moderate" voices of the Democratic establishment when they needed support? Where was the dissent when the district attorney publicly stated that she might bring charges against--not the trespassers--but the homeowners? What has Joe Biden said about this?
5) 15 people were killed in Chicago over the July 4th weekend alone. From May 29 to June 1, 18 were murdered there, the most violent 24-hour period in Chicago in 60 years. Where were the BLM protests? Where are the Democrats who have the guts to even utter the obvious viewpoint that defunding police will make the situation for minorities much worse? Where's Obama, it's his home town! What has Joe Biden said about this?

Sure we all want to vote against Trump. But I'll be damned if the Democrats--mainstream ones, not the radicals--have been so swayed by those radicals that they are paralyzed. They seem to be doing everything they can to ensure that swing voters have a very substantial reason not to vote against Trump--yet again.
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Reply Quote
4
3 edits
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 2:26p, 7/6/20
BearForce2 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.


Please show me where I have supported any of those things?

Do you think Trump read your thread on BLM or that he can define Marxism?

Where has BLM said that they want to "destroy the nuclear family"? Do you believe it is their intention to destroy your nuclear family or my nuclear family? Are you afraid they are going to make it more difficult for people to get married or live with their own children? What is your precise concern here?

As for abolishing/defunding police, please show me where BLM advocates for "complete abolition of police". Do you have any evidence that the leaders of BLM are arguing for a USA with 0 police officers? That would be news to me.

You've taken a reactionary and defensive position for reasons I can only surmise. I haven't supported any of the things you've attributed to BLM and I am unaware of BLM having done so either. Perhaps you should question whether your news sources are telling you the truth or just trying to whip you into a state of frenzied fear like Trump.

BLM leaders are Marxist and their "what we believe" section includes verbiage regarding the nuclear family structure. Two parent homes are already uncommon.

Quote:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
I'm not voting for BLM leaders for office. If they choose to run for office and claim an affinity for marxism, I won't vote for them.

I don't know or care whether BLM leaders are marxist. It has nothing to do with police reform.

I don't know or care what the position of BLM is on the nuclear family, but I don't see what is wrong with communities supporting each other "to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

But BLM leaders can say what they want to on those issues. No one cares. You cannot tarnish the views of millions of people who are calling for police reform with the views of a handful of people regarding issues that have nothing to do with police reform.
Reply Quote
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LMK5 • 2:57p, 7/6/20
LMK5 said:
Oaktown, you're leaving out some critical information. You know what everyday people are concerned about? Safety. Law and order. It's not the far left radicals people are concerned about, it's the silence from main stream Democrats in response to people openly burning, rioting, and killing. They are in danger of getting tagged with that "soft on crime" label once again. They will not stand up for regular people who have found themselves in very unsafe conditions:

1) Keisha Lance Bottoms has now decided, after a little girl was killed, that there will be no more negotiations with the Wendy's occupiers after weeks of doing nothing. That's what it took for her to act. I think the average swing voter is against negotiations of any kind in this type of situation. What has Joe Biden said about this?
2) Duh Blah-sio wants to take away 1B from the NYPD. Yeah, the same NYPD that has occupied a pedestal since 9/11. Look at the current crime rate increase since his views were made clear. What has Joe Biden said about this?
3) Jenny Durkan let CHOP/CHAZ run amok until--you guessed it--people started getting killed. What has Joe Biden said about this?
4) Feel a kinship with your fellow lawyers? Well, 2 had to stand outside their home to ensure theirs didn't meet the same fate as so many other buildings in St. Louis. Where were the so-called "moderate" voices of the Democratic establishment when they needed support? Where was the dissent when the district attorney publicly stated that she might bring charges against--not the trespassers--but the homeowners? What has Joe Biden said about this?
5) 15 people were killed in Chicago over the July 4th weekend alone. From May 29 to June 1, 18 were murdered there, the most violent 24-hour period in Chicago in 60 years. Where were the BLM protests? Where are the Democrats who have the guts to even utter the obvious viewpoint that defunding police will make the situation for minorities much worse? Where's Obama, it's his home town! What has Joe Biden said about this?

Sure we all want to vote against Trump. But I'll be damned if the Democrats--mainstream ones, not the radicals--have been so swayed by those radicals that they are paralyzed. They seem to be doing everything they can to ensure that swing voters have a very substantial reason not to vote against Trump--yet again.
1. Have the Trump voters really found themselves in very unsafe conditions?
2. Biden has made clear he is not for defunding the police. I don't think he has a responsibility to speak on every city's specific issues.
3. I see no evidence that the couple in St. Louis were given any reason to pull their guns on people.
4. I don't know whether police reform in minority neighborhoods will result in an increase or decrease in crime in those neighborhoods. That probably depends on the reforms that are implemented. What I do know is that those communities have made it very clear that they want changes in how their communities are policed. If they want to eliminate choke holds and kneeling on people's necks, if they want to eliminate no-knock warrants, if they want certain types of calls to be answered by mental health professionals, or medical responders, if they want police practices to be based on actions rather than race, I think they have the right to make that decision. There is no evidence that the types of changes they are asking for will increase crime. Many have argued with statistical basis that crime drops when police practices lead to trust between community and police and rises when police practices lead to distrust. But in any case, it is up to them and they have made their wishes abundantly clear. If those policies lead to a better place to live for them, good on them. If they lead to a worse place, that is on them. They can then choose to change the policies. Right now, they have policing practices they don't want forced on them. Frankly, why do you care how they decide to police their own community?
5. Plain and simple, I don't agree with riots, but it is pretty clear that every time a cop is captured on video choking the life out of a Black man, there will be riots. And there are a lot of cameras out there now thanks to our good friends at Apple. The way riots will stop is not by military style sweeps of protests. It is by not lighting the spark.
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to joe amos yaks • 2:57p, 7/6/20
joe amos yaks said:
bearister said:
Bobodeluxe said:
"We are now in the process of defeating the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters, and people who in many instances have absolutely no clue what they are doing,"
Emperor d tRump
July 4, 2020
All Hail!
" Listen, you f@uckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the c@unts, the dogs, the filth, the sh@it. Here is a man who stood up."


Go Travis! Vote Bickle in 2020.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 3:01p, 7/6/20
OaktownBear said:
BearForce2 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.


Please show me where I have supported any of those things?

Do you think Trump read your thread on BLM or that he can define Marxism?

Where has BLM said that they want to "destroy the nuclear family"? Do you believe it is their intention to destroy your nuclear family or my nuclear family? Are you afraid they are going to make it more difficult for people to get married or live with their own children? What is your precise concern here?

As for abolishing/defunding police, please show me where BLM advocates for "complete abolition of police". Do you have any evidence that the leaders of BLM are arguing for a USA with 0 police officers? That would be news to me.

You've taken a reactionary and defensive position for reasons I can only surmise. I haven't supported any of the things you've attributed to BLM and I am unaware of BLM having done so either. Perhaps you should question whether your news sources are telling you the truth or just trying to whip you into a state of frenzied fear like Trump.

BLM leaders are Marxist and their "what we believe" section includes verbiage regarding the nuclear family structure. Two parent homes are already uncommon.

Quote:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
I'm not voting for BLM leaders for office. If they choose to run for office and claim an affinity for marxism, I won't vote for them.

I don't know or care whether BLM leaders are marxist. It has nothing to do with police reform.

I don't know or care what the position of BLM is on the nuclear family, but I don't see what is wrong with communities supporting each other "to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

But BLM leaders can say what they want to on those issues. No one cares. You cannot tarnish the views of millions of people who are calling for police reform with the views of a handful of people regarding issues that have nothing to do with police reform.

Classic deflection, you care but you don't care. You want to know so ask, but when you get a response, you say it doesn't matter.
Reply Quote
7
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 3:22p, 7/6/20
BearForce2 said:
OaktownBear said:
BearForce2 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
MinotStateBeav said:
The leaders of BLM state they're marxists. They want the complete abolition of police. They want to destroy the nuclear family. Maybe it's you who should see who you're supporting.


Please show me where I have supported any of those things?

Do you think Trump read your thread on BLM or that he can define Marxism?

Where has BLM said that they want to "destroy the nuclear family"? Do you believe it is their intention to destroy your nuclear family or my nuclear family? Are you afraid they are going to make it more difficult for people to get married or live with their own children? What is your precise concern here?

As for abolishing/defunding police, please show me where BLM advocates for "complete abolition of police". Do you have any evidence that the leaders of BLM are arguing for a USA with 0 police officers? That would be news to me.

You've taken a reactionary and defensive position for reasons I can only surmise. I haven't supported any of the things you've attributed to BLM and I am unaware of BLM having done so either. Perhaps you should question whether your news sources are telling you the truth or just trying to whip you into a state of frenzied fear like Trump.

BLM leaders are Marxist and their "what we believe" section includes verbiage regarding the nuclear family structure. Two parent homes are already uncommon.

Quote:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
I'm not voting for BLM leaders for office. If they choose to run for office and claim an affinity for marxism, I won't vote for them.

I don't know or care whether BLM leaders are marxist. It has nothing to do with police reform.

I don't know or care what the position of BLM is on the nuclear family, but I don't see what is wrong with communities supporting each other "to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

But BLM leaders can say what they want to on those issues. No one cares. You cannot tarnish the views of millions of people who are calling for police reform with the views of a handful of people regarding issues that have nothing to do with police reform.

Classic deflection, you care but you don't care. You want to know so ask, but when you get a response, you say it doesn't matter.


I didn't ask anything

Your post has nothing to do with mine.

I care about what many people think. I don't care what you think. Your opinion is of negative value to any conversation.
Reply Quote
7
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.