That is a patently absurd equating of dangerous propaganda that feeds into totalitarianism with opinions you simply think are not well expressed or with which you disagree. You give him such a pass and then you say you don't support him. His speech was frightening and there is no reason to be an apologist for it.calbear93 said:The CONTENT of what he said in his speech was no worse than that what some of the less intelligent liberal posters write here.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.
Do Something Patriotic - Read Trump's Speech at Mount Rushmore
20,811 Views |
185 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by bearister
I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
blungld said:That is a patently absurd equating of dangerous propaganda that feeds into totalitarianism with opinions you simply think are not well expressed or with which you disagree. You give him such a pass and then you say you don't support him. His speech was frightening and there is no reason to be an apologist for it.calbear93 said:The CONTENT of what he said in his speech was no worse than that what some of the less intelligent liberal posters write here.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.
OK, nice discussing with you.
If "everyday people" were concerned with their safety, would they be more troubled by the 15 killed in Chicago this weekend or the people dying every day in their city of COVID, which is now the 3rd leading cause of death in this country?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.
This idea that Trump is going to make the country safer from violence is, at best, unsupported. He hasn't taken any steps to make us safer, although to be fair I guess statues can breathe easy now that Trump has signed an executive order ordering the government to enforce a law that was already on the books. Tucker Carlson and other right wing talking heads likes to stoke the fear and outrage machine every time there is a high violence weekend in Chicago because .... well I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable reason.
Meanwhile, in your Republican utopia of Arizona, 200+ people have died of COVID in just the last week and 1,800+ have died in the last 3 months.
350 people have been murdered in Chicago - it's awful and the root causes of the violence should absolutely be addressed, but that's not why Tucker Carlson and the dog whistlers on the right enjoy bringing it up. Trump's solution to crime is to shout in all caps "LAW AND ORDER!!" as if he were promoting the TV show, but he has done nothing and will do nothing to address the problems.
Trump used to pretend to care about the economic problems suffered by "everyday" people but now that he has ruined our economy through his hamfisted approach to COVID, all he has left is stoking outrage and cultural division. He's obviously found an audience with a lot of middle aged and older white men, particularly the uneducated, but those people no longer represent the broader views of this country which is why it's become more and more apparent to swing voters just how out of touch Trump is.
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.
I think an argument can be made that silence by moderates make them complicit to the extremist behavior. Someone in the Democratic Party with a national platform should be saying - hey silly delusional folks, not a single police brutality is solved by removing statutes of Jefferson, Columbus, Ghandi, Lincoln, or Washington. No black person's life is made better by your patronizing defacing of a founder's statute or looting of a North Face store. Someone in the Democratic Party with a national platform can say - hey listen - CHOP and armed occupation of the infamous Wendy's are not moving the discussion in a productive manner. But mostly silence, allowing Trump to argue incorrectly that they are all in support of such behavior.
We all can reasonably believe that Collins and Graham are not racists but I am sure that their silence in the face of extremism in the party is not dismissed by those here as just choosing not to address those without power. Let's be honest, the white supremacist are not going to have power any more than Antifa are going to have power. However, just like Republicans must standup and voice clearly their disgust with extremist on the Republican side, Democrats need to do so as well. Not seeing much of that right now.
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
I'm not them, but I think it's tough to attribute things to "sides" when they don't necessarily represent any political view. Whose side did the white looters I saw on video stealing surfboards from the Santa Monica Patagonia store represent? Whose side did the person who put the noose in Bubba Wallace's garage represent? I understand why people draw sides but it's dangerous to equate all actions into one or another tribe. Antifa do not represent any side and do not have any place in the Democratic party. As much as Trump and Fox News would like to believe otherwise, George Soros doesn't fund Antifa and the things that conspiracy theorists say about him aren't actually true.calbear93 said:
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
To your main question - I think it's important for our leaders to project moral authority. I'm not the biggest Biden fan (I think we deserve to have an intelligent president and he seems to me more like Dubya in that regard), but I give him credit for taking unpopular stances in the face of pressure from people in his own party and who are otherwise aligned with him when he disagrees.
More specifically, Biden has called out the violence and the riots that have been associated with recent protests on multiple occasions . He didn't say "very fine people" or otherwise seek to dogwhistle to the offenders but unequivocally criticized the people doing things he doesn't approve of, even if some of those people may have otherwise been deemed to be people who some would argue should be his voters.
Unit2Sucks said:I'm not them, but I think it's tough to attribute things to "sides" when they don't necessarily represent any political view. Whose side did the white looters I saw on video stealing surfboards from the Santa Monica Patagonia store represent? Whose side did the person who put the noose in Bubba Wallace's garage represent? I understand why people draw sides but it's dangerous to equate all actions into one or another tribe. Antifa do not represent any side and do not have any place in the Democratic party. As much as Trump and Fox News would like to believe otherwise, George Soros doesn't fund Antifa and the things that conspiracy theorists say about him aren't actually true.calbear93 said:
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
To your main question - I think it's important for our leaders to project moral authority. I'm not the biggest Biden fan (I think we deserve to have an intelligent president and he seems to me more like Dubya in that regard), but I give him credit for taking unpopular stances in the face of pressure from people in his own party and who are otherwise aligned with him when he disagrees.
More specifically, Biden has called out the violence and the riots that have been associated with recent protests on multiple occasions . He didn't say "very fine people" or otherwise seek to dogwhistle to the offenders but unequivocally criticized the people doing things he doesn't approve of, even if some of those people may have otherwise been deemed to be people who some would argue should be his voters.
Thanks for the links. I knew he took a prompt position against the defund police movement but I was not aware he made those statements you pointed out. Good for him.
No worries. People criticized Biden for being out of step with the left wing of the party throughout the primary debates but I think it's turning into a pretty strong asset to assure swing voters that he isn't going to cater to ever single issue extremist voter, unlike the current occupant of the White House.calbear93 said:Unit2Sucks said:I'm not them, but I think it's tough to attribute things to "sides" when they don't necessarily represent any political view. Whose side did the white looters I saw on video stealing surfboards from the Santa Monica Patagonia store represent? Whose side did the person who put the noose in Bubba Wallace's garage represent? I understand why people draw sides but it's dangerous to equate all actions into one or another tribe. Antifa do not represent any side and do not have any place in the Democratic party. As much as Trump and Fox News would like to believe otherwise, George Soros doesn't fund Antifa and the things that conspiracy theorists say about him aren't actually true.calbear93 said:
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
To your main question - I think it's important for our leaders to project moral authority. I'm not the biggest Biden fan (I think we deserve to have an intelligent president and he seems to me more like Dubya in that regard), but I give him credit for taking unpopular stances in the face of pressure from people in his own party and who are otherwise aligned with him when he disagrees.
More specifically, Biden has called out the violence and the riots that have been associated with recent protests on multiple occasions . He didn't say "very fine people" or otherwise seek to dogwhistle to the offenders but unequivocally criticized the people doing things he doesn't approve of, even if some of those people may have otherwise been deemed to be people who some would argue should be his voters.
Thanks for the links. I knew he took a prompt position against the defund police movement but I was not aware he made those statements you pointed out. Good for him.
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.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.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Who is your selection for VP?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
You mean who do I want to be president on the day Joe Biden is declared mentally unfit for office?bearister said:Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Who is your selection for VP?
His selection is for Joe Biden to voluntarily give up the nomination despite being the clear winner in primary votes and being well ahead in general-election polls.bearister said:Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Who is your selection for VP?
Golden One said:
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Kudos for off the charts unintentional irony. I love it when Trump and his disciples call other people dumb.
You probably think Obama golfed too much and that Clinton was an immoral womanizer.
Any other of Trump's projections worth mentioning at this point?
This reminds me of an argument I stepped in with my wife many, many years ago and believe me, I dropped it quickly and I never stepped into a similar argument again. The problem being I spoke theoretically instead of practically. There was some issue, and David Duke came out in favor of it. (Don't remember what it was. It was ridiculous. Never would have supported it. Doesn't matter for the story). My wife made the offhand comment, "Yeah, you know it's bad when you agree with the KKK on an issue". Without thinking I said "well, no, they are always on the same side of the issue, so it is theoretically possible that on one issue the other side could be so unreasonable that the KKK could be on the right side for the wrong reasons." "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!???" "Okay, for argument sake, say there was a very poorly designed affirmative action policy. Well, the KKK is against every affirmative action policy. I might be against the policy because it is very poorly designed. So, theoretically I would be on the same side as the KKK on that issue." "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU WOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE KKK!!!???" "You are right I would never be on the same side of an issue as the KKK. Can I get my blanket and pillow before I sleep on the couch tonight? Or should I just curl up on the couch right now and spend the night shivering?"calbear93 said:
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
Point - I am not responsible (except to my wife) for every lunatic that votes on the same side of an issue as I do. Your hypothetical is that they have no major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party. Without more than that, why would the party have any reason to answer for that? It is not a matter of "party unity". It is a matter that the other side always wants to ascribe those people to you and you can spend your time swatting away all the gnats they throw your way or you can stand up and talk about what you believe in from a position of strength rather than talk about what you don't believe in from a position of weakness.
Basically, it depends on the situation. We have a two party system. That means the vast majority will support one party or the other in the general election. There are a lot of crazy people, so that means there will be crazy people within the tent
I don't need Donald Trump to constantly say David Duke is bad. I need Donald Trump to not say things that David Duke will cheer.
Of course there are times when a story happens and it will necessitate our leaders having a comment one way or the other.
But no, I don't think Donald Trump has to respond to every asshat quote or behavior of some asshat Republican that a liberal throws in Donald Trump's face. And I don't think Biden has to respond to every asshat quote or behavior of some asshat Democrat that a conservative throws in his face.
I have to ask in return - why do you ask this question of me and sycasey and not of anyone on the other side? It implies, I assume unintentionally, that only one side has an issue with extremists. Trump has had many extremists speaking at his campaign rallies. Republicans have literally had people speak at their rallies that in other venues have advocated capital punishment for homosexuals. Look, if a candidate is going to speak against every extremist on his side of the political spectrum, that is all s/he will ever be doing. And the bottom line is that it just gives more attention to it. If some leader in BLM is a Marxist, that is not the Democrats' problem. If somebody on the right is a White supremacists, that is not the Republicans' problem.
Until a mainstream politician decides to feed the beast. Then it is their problem.
My selection would be for Joe Biden to be cancelled the same way that Chris Matthews was cancelled, but apparently liberal outrage has its limits.sycasey said:His selection is for Joe Biden to voluntarily give up the nomination despite being the clear winner in primary votes and being well ahead in general-election polls.bearister said:Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Who is your selection for VP?
The leaders of BLM claim, in their own words, to be trained marxists.calbear93 said: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.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.
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."
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
Does that make BLM a marxist organization? It is hard to say. I think BLM means different things to different people, which is a big part of the problem. Even if the leaders are marxist (or anti-capitalist), I suspect most people protesting don't hold those views. And it sure looks like most of the violence/looting/property damage is by people who are using the BLM banner for their owner purposes (i.e., antifa types).
The bolded statement pretty much nails it.
The funny thing about this thread is that it ignores what happened before July 4 and before November 2016. The culture war predates Trump by about 50-60 years. Trump has always been a wedge issue/culture war politician. Nothing in his speech was surprising. And in truth, despite what the OP claims, his speech was not terribly controversial in defending America's founders and Lincoln (notably he did not defend confederates). Before the last month, those views were not particularly controversial and outside the beltway they still are not.
The speech was arguably inappropriate for the time and place. Divisive and, in that respect, not presidential on a national holiday. But Trump was elected, in part, precisely because he will fully engage on these cultural issues and doesn't really care about protocol.
And people seem to be ignoring that the culture war has been a hot battle the last 5-6 weeks. Pulling down statues of founding fathers at protests is a thing - and protests like that took place on the 4th, the same day as Trump's speech. Like it or not, Trump is going to fight.
Who said anything about being dumb? Again, you're just making shyte up, which is standard protocol for you. I said that Biden's mental acuity is failing badly. He is suffering from a serious case of dementia, and may already be deep into Alzheimer's. Do you even know the difference between dementia and being dumb? I doubt it. And I said absolutely nothing about Obama and golf or Clinton and womanizing. Again, you're just making stuff up to avoid having to address the serious issue I raised.Unit2Sucks said:Golden One said:
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Kudos for off the charts unintentional irony. I love it when Trump and his disciples call other people dumb.
You probably think Obama golfed too much and that Clinton was an immoral womanizer.
Any other of Trump's projections worth mentioning at this point?
Liberalism is a mental illness.
i guess because I already know their answer. While we may have disagreement on certain policies (nothing is black and white but mostly different position on a broad spectrum on each issue), I would say that those of us who are generally more conservative on this board (which would cover a lot of ground) would generally have a similar bias against certain liberal views and have similar blind spot against our party's own faults. I usually find it more enlightening to discuss opposing views with intelligent members on the other side than preaching to the choir.OaktownBear said:calbear93 said:
A question to OTB and Sycasey - how important is it for national leaders to call out extremist and destructive behavior from their side even if the extremist are not having a major impact on policy and are only a tiny fraction of the party? Is party unity more important than standing up to wrong behavior by those in the same party? Is it important to speak up?
I have to ask in return - why do you ask this question of me and sycasey and not of anyone on the other side? It implies, I assume unintentionally, that only one side has an issue with extremists. Trump has had many extremists speaking at his campaign rallies. Republicans have literally had people speak at their rallies that in other venues have advocated capital punishment for homosexuals. Look, if a candidate is going to speak against every extremist on his side of the political spectrum, that is all s/he will ever be doing. And the bottom line is that it just gives more attention to it. If some leader in BLM is a Marxist, that is not the Democrats' problem. If somebody on the right is a White supremacists, that is not the Republicans' problem.
I tend to agree with you on what you wrote on having to speak up against extremist, with two caveats.
There are many on this board (including those who often engage in passionate hyperbole and conspiracy theory) who demand we speak out on these boards against extremist to show that we are not also extremists.
And when the extremist dominate the news, like the white supremacist during the Charlotte incident, during separation of kids from their parents on the border, during the looting or during the defund police overaction and armed overtake of an area (whether CHOP or Wendy's), I think leaders have to take a stand and bring us back to sanity. Glad that Biden is speaking up and gives me some comfort that he will not try to appease every extremist who demand he take stupid positions. Trump has clearly failed at this.
BearGoggles said:calbear93 said: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.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.
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."
The funny thing about this thread is that it ignores what happened before July 4 and before November 2016. The culture war predates Trump by about 50-60 years. Trump has always been a wedge issue/culture war politician. Nothing in his speech was surprising. And in truth, despite what the OP claims, his speech was not terribly controversial in defending America's founders and Lincoln (notably he did not defend confederates). Before the last month, those views were not particularly controversial and outside the beltway they still are not.
While I think the culture war has gotten a lot worse during the last four years and no other president during the last few decades has inflamed the culture war as Trump has, I think (not based on any research) that the current culture war started sometime during 1990 decade when political correctness became a mechanism to shame and censor people and try to get people to think and talk the same. My gut feeling (again based on no evidence) is that there was more civility before that trend when people were generally a bit more gracious and less thirsty to feel insulted and feel wronged . With the political correctness crowd, people were burnt at the stake for saying the wrong thing independent of intent. I think people were generally accommodating at first to correction on politically correct way to speak since the intent was not to be insulting and hurtful, but when the extremists took further and further liberty to silence dissent, I think some people went to the extreme on the other side. And as people on both sides generally conceded more and more to the extremist on each side to avoid conflict in their own party, that accommodation actually created more conflict overall as the accommodation of the extremists created bigger divide between parties. After awhile it is as if the two parties are living in different realities populated by different species speaking different languages. I can guarantee you that the usual suspects here will then say I am accommodating Trump. promoting totalitarianism or that I am not seeing how much more evil the Republican party is and how above the fray they are. Think about how quickly some here throw the term MAGAt, RWNJ, SJW, etc. as their first and only response. And after awhile, especially with the crowd who engage in that behavior, most of us will stop listening and our first reaction will be to dismiss and insult When the person on the other side of the discussion comes in convinced I am evil and stupid, what is the point of engaging in a rational manner? And that pattern has played out in large scale in our country and in our current politics. And we stop listening to each other and continue to vilify each other.
Maybe the failures of Trump with COVID-19 and Floyd will start bridging the gap, but for those who are fed up with experiences of political correctness and now the cancel culture, with clearly flawed human beings who are no morally superior in either thought or action (definitely not in action) somehow thinking they have the moral standing to be sanctimonious and self-righteous (anything more unappealing than that?), we have settled in to our respective bunkers and it is a full blown culture war between the two parties.
And both sides will never see their respective role in how this has played out.
Sure, you say Biden has a problem with failing mental acuity but you aren't calling him dumb. Have you examined him? What are you basing this opinion on? Given you performance here, I have a hard time believing you could go toe to toe with Biden.Golden One said:Who said anything about being dumb? Again, you're just making shyte up, which is standard protocol for you. I said that Biden's mental acuity is failing badly. He is suffering from a serious case of dementia, and may already be deep into Alzheimer's. Do you even know the difference between dementia and being dumb? I doubt it. And I said absolutely nothing about Obama and golf or Clinton and womanizing. Again, you're just making stuff up to avoid having to address the serious issue I raised.Unit2Sucks said:Golden One said:
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Kudos for off the charts unintentional irony. I love it when Trump and his disciples call other people dumb.
You probably think Obama golfed too much and that Clinton was an immoral womanizer.
Any other of Trump's projections worth mentioning at this point?
Liberalism is a mental illness.
The reason I pointed out those other examples is because people like you and Trump are projecting Trump's issues onto Biden. I would like you to watch the following video and tell me whether you think Trump could still answer a question like this today. I find it self-evident that he is not capable of doing so and frankly I find it hard to believe he was ever capable of it. Biden can still answer questions and stay on topic. Biden has always been prone to verbal gaffes but he is still capable of speaking intelligibly. Trump is incapable of extemporaneously speaking the way he was able to just a few years ago. Seriously - watch this video and find me a video of Trump speaking like this (without a teleprompter) recently.
Also, to everyone else in the thread who is capable of understanding content, bonus points because not only is Trump speaking almost like a coherent person, but he takes a reasonable position that he would never take today now that he has gone full white nationalist.
BearGoggles said:The leaders of BLM claim, in their own words, to be trained marxists.calbear93 said: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.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.
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."
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
Does that make BLM a marxist organization? It is hard to say. I think BLM means different things to different people, which is a big part of the problem. Even if the leaders are marxist (or anti-capitalist), I suspect most people protesting don't hold those views. And it sure looks like most of the violence/looting/property damage is by people who are using the BLM banner for their owner purposes (i.e., antifa types).
The bolded statement pretty much nails it.
The funny thing about this thread is that it ignores what happened before July 4 and before November 2016. The culture war predates Trump by about 50-60 years. Trump has always been a wedge issue/culture war politician. Nothing in his speech was surprising. And in truth, despite what the OP claims, his speech was not terribly controversial in defending America's founders and Lincoln (notably he did not defend confederates). Before the last month, those views were not particularly controversial and outside the beltway they still are not.
The speech was arguably inappropriate for the time and place. Divisive and, in that respect, not presidential on a national holiday. But Trump was elected, in part, precisely because he will fully engage on these cultural issues and doesn't really care about protocol.
And people seem to be ignoring that the culture war has been a hot battle the last 5-6 weeks. Pulling down statues of founding fathers at protests is a thing - and protests like that took place on the 4th, the same day as Trump's speech. Like it or not, Trump is going to fight.
I'm surprised by your blindness. There is nothing controversial about praising our founding fathers. What is controversial is wrapping yourself in patriotism to define the other side as against everything about America. If he said "I love Abe Lincoln" that would have been every 4th of July speech. That is what he said. He said we hate him. He said we are trying to take him away from them. He said our teachers are teaching our children to hate America. He set himself up as the great protector against hordes that don't exist.
I realize the culture wars are nothing new, especially to people over a certain age. That doesn't mean they should be tolerated. They exist because every so often someone like Trump comes along and it works for them.
calbear93 said:BearGoggles said:calbear93 said: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.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.
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."
The funny thing about this thread is that it ignores what happened before July 4 and before November 2016. The culture war predates Trump by about 50-60 years. Trump has always been a wedge issue/culture war politician. Nothing in his speech was surprising. And in truth, despite what the OP claims, his speech was not terribly controversial in defending America's founders and Lincoln (notably he did not defend confederates). Before the last month, those views were not particularly controversial and outside the beltway they still are not.
While I think the culture war has gotten a lot worse during the last four years and no other president during the last few decades has inflamed the culture war as Trump has, I think (not based on any research) that the current culture war started sometime during 1990 decade when political correctness became a mechanism to shame and censor people and try to get people to think and talk the same. My gut feeling (again based on no evidence) is that there was more civility before that trend when people were generally a bit more gracious and less thirsty to feel insulted and feel wronged . With the political correctness crowd, people were burnt at the stake for saying the wrong thing independent of intent. I think people were generally accommodating at first to correction on politically correct way to speak since the intent was not to be insulting and hurtful, but when the extremists took further and further liberty to silence dissent, I think some people went to the extreme on the other side. And as people on both sides generally conceded more and more to the extremist on each side to avoid conflict in their own party, that accommodation actually created more conflict overall as the accommodation of the extremists created bigger divide between parties. After awhile it is as if the two parties are living in different realities populated by different species speaking different languages. I can guarantee you that the usual suspects here will then say I am accommodating Trump. promoting totalitarianism or that I am not seeing how much more evil the Republican party is and how above the fray they are. Think about how quickly some here throw the term MAGAt, RWNJ, SJW, etc. as their first and only response. And after awhile, especially with the crowd who engage in that behavior, most of us will stop listening and our first reaction will be to dismiss and insult When the person on the other side of the discussion comes in convinced I am evil and stupid, what is the point of engaging in a rational manner? And that pattern has played out in large scale in our country and in our current politics. And we stop listening to each other and continue to vilify each other.
Maybe the failures of Trump with COVID-19 and Floyd will start bridging the gap, but for those who are fed up with experiences of political correctness and now the cancel culture, with clearly flawed human beings who are no morally superior in either thought or action (definitely not in action) somehow thinking they have the moral standing to be sanctimonious and self-righteous (anything more unappealing than that?), we have settled in to our respective bunkers and it is a full blown culture war between the two parties.
And both sides will never see their respective role in how this has played out.
I'm really trying not to be snarky here. Truly. But I lived in the 80's when you could use the n word in many circles with impunity. What I saw a lot of in the 90's was people saying, geez you can't call people by racial slurs and the other side complaining that was PC. It was terribly PC to criticize the owner of the Denver Broncos for calling Jerry Rice a Chinaman, for instance. Honestly, 93, I have a feeling that if we looked up all the times in the 90's someone got criticized for a statement and then countered with a charge of political correctness, I honestly believe 9 times out of 10 you would look at the statement and say, okay that was bad.
But I struggle with blaming the liberal side for culture wars in the 90's. Google Patrick Buchanan, RNC 1992.. it isn't subtle since he full on declared the culture war.
LOL! You're absolutely hilarious and incredulous. Have you seen any of Biden's so-called meetings with the press? His interviews by cable news commentators? His speeches? The poor guy doesn't always know which office he is running for. He often doesn't know what city or state he is in. He routinely fumbles and mumbles over his words. He often loses his train of thought in mid-sentence. I can't really believe that you can't plainly see that this guy has serious dementia.Unit2Sucks said:Sure, you say Biden has a problem with failing mental acuity but you aren't calling him dumb. Have you examined him? What are you basing this opinion on? Given you performance here, I have a hard time believing you could go toe to toe with Biden.Golden One said:Who said anything about being dumb? Again, you're just making shyte up, which is standard protocol for you. I said that Biden's mental acuity is failing badly. He is suffering from a serious case of dementia, and may already be deep into Alzheimer's. Do you even know the difference between dementia and being dumb? I doubt it. And I said absolutely nothing about Obama and golf or Clinton and womanizing. Again, you're just making stuff up to avoid having to address the serious issue I raised.Unit2Sucks said:Golden One said:
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Kudos for off the charts unintentional irony. I love it when Trump and his disciples call other people dumb.
You probably think Obama golfed too much and that Clinton was an immoral womanizer.
Any other of Trump's projections worth mentioning at this point?
Liberalism is a mental illness.
The reason I pointed out those other examples is because people like you and Trump are projecting Trump's issues onto Biden. I would like you to watch the following video and tell me whether you think Trump could still answer a question like this today. I find it self-evident that he is not capable of doing so and frankly I find it hard to believe he was ever capable of it. Biden can still answer questions and stay on topic. Biden has always been prone to verbal gaffes but he is still capable of speaking intelligibly. Trump is incapable of extemporaneously speaking the way he was able to just a few years ago. Seriously - watch this video and find me a video of Trump speaking like this (without a teleprompter) recently.
Also, to everyone else in the thread who is capable of understanding content, bonus points because not only is Trump speaking almost like a coherent person, but he takes a reasonable position that he would never take today now that he has gone full white nationalist.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
OaktownBear said:BearGoggles said:The leaders of BLM claim, in their own words, to be trained marxists.calbear93 said: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.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.
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."
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
Does that make BLM a marxist organization? It is hard to say. I think BLM means different things to different people, which is a big part of the problem. Even if the leaders are marxist (or anti-capitalist), I suspect most people protesting don't hold those views. And it sure looks like most of the violence/looting/property damage is by people who are using the BLM banner for their owner purposes (i.e., antifa types).
The bolded statement pretty much nails it.
The funny thing about this thread is that it ignores what happened before July 4 and before November 2016. The culture war predates Trump by about 50-60 years. Trump has always been a wedge issue/culture war politician. Nothing in his speech was surprising. And in truth, despite what the OP claims, his speech was not terribly controversial in defending America's founders and Lincoln (notably he did not defend confederates). Before the last month, those views were not particularly controversial and outside the beltway they still are not.
The speech was arguably inappropriate for the time and place. Divisive and, in that respect, not presidential on a national holiday. But Trump was elected, in part, precisely because he will fully engage on these cultural issues and doesn't really care about protocol.
And people seem to be ignoring that the culture war has been a hot battle the last 5-6 weeks. Pulling down statues of founding fathers at protests is a thing - and protests like that took place on the 4th, the same day as Trump's speech. Like it or not, Trump is going to fight.
I'm surprised by your blindness. There is nothing controversial about praising our founding fathers. What is controversial is wrapping yourself in patriotism to define the other side as against everything about America. If he said "I love Abe Lincoln" that would have been every 4th of July speech. That is what he said. He said we hate him. He said we are trying to take him away from them. He said our teachers are teaching our children to hate America. He set himself up as the great protector against hordes that don't exist.
I realize the culture wars are nothing new, especially to people over a certain age. That doesn't mean they should be tolerated. They exist because every so often someone like Trump comes along and it works for them.
I'm surprised by your emotional and atypically irrational arguments. Trump didn't define the other side as un-American. He cited SOME people as having a destructive (and in his view false) narrative - of wanting to cancel founding fathers, their ideals, and anyone that has an opposing point of view. That is happening in SOME arenas - that is beyond in dispute.
Who is the "we" you're referring to? Trump was referring to the people tearing down statues, seeking to force change through violence (or threat thereof) and seeking to re-write history with a 21st century woke perspective and/or with abject falsities to advance a political agenda (the 1619 project). Maybe that is "you" - which would explain you're using "we" and being so emotional. But Trump's criticism was directed at that crowd - which is far from everyone but contrary to your assertion, does exist.
Every president of the past 50+ years has engaged in the culture war to a varying degree. Nixon's silent majority. The Dems with Roe v. Wade and anti-war protests (again, some dems, not all). Reagan's moral majority. Obama advancing wedge issues like gay marriage and DACA through questionable executive edicts. But for you, suddenly Trump is a bridge too far because he fights back during a time when the other side in the culture is literally damaging public property, demanding that we defund the police, and creating nation-states inside Seattle (and a few other places). That's pretty rich.
I would prefer Trump shut up. I would prefer he use the Fourth of July (and other national holidays) as a way to unite - rather than divide. That is why the speech was bad. But notwithstanding all the gas-lighting, the speech itself was a pretty typical defenses of the founding fathers, their ideals, and to a lesser extent American exceptionalism.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/president-trump-mount-rushmore-speech-distorted-by-media/
Biden's always been the way you describe. I've heard Biden answer questions far more intelligibly than anything Trump has done in the past 2 years. Trump rarely seems to understand the question he's being asked or shows himself to be capable of staying on point. He rambles through answers and veers off tangent. If you could find me anything close to Trump speaking like he did in the anti-confederate flag response he gave in 2015, I would love to see it. I don't think Biden is a good public speaker, by any stretch, but he runs circles around Trump.Golden One said:LOL! You're absolutely hilarious and incredulous. Have you seen any of Biden's so-called meetings with the press? His interviews by cable news commentators? His speeches? The poor guy doesn't always know which office he is running for. He often doesn't know what city or state he is in. He routinely fumbles and mumbles over his words. He often loses his train of thought in mid-sentence. I can't really believe that you can't plainly see that this guy has serious dementia.Unit2Sucks said:Sure, you say Biden has a problem with failing mental acuity but you aren't calling him dumb. Have you examined him? What are you basing this opinion on? Given you performance here, I have a hard time believing you could go toe to toe with Biden.Golden One said:Who said anything about being dumb? Again, you're just making shyte up, which is standard protocol for you. I said that Biden's mental acuity is failing badly. He is suffering from a serious case of dementia, and may already be deep into Alzheimer's. Do you even know the difference between dementia and being dumb? I doubt it. And I said absolutely nothing about Obama and golf or Clinton and womanizing. Again, you're just making stuff up to avoid having to address the serious issue I raised.Unit2Sucks said:Golden One said:
Joe Biden is in such a mental fog that he barely knows what day of the week it is or what city he is in from day to day. It's hard to believe that such a mentally incapacitated individual is really running for President of the United States. As the campaign progresses during the next 4 months, Biden's seriously failing mental capacity will become so apparent that he will lose ground to Trump in a big way.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Kudos for off the charts unintentional irony. I love it when Trump and his disciples call other people dumb.
You probably think Obama golfed too much and that Clinton was an immoral womanizer.
Any other of Trump's projections worth mentioning at this point?
Liberalism is a mental illness.
The reason I pointed out those other examples is because people like you and Trump are projecting Trump's issues onto Biden. I would like you to watch the following video and tell me whether you think Trump could still answer a question like this today. I find it self-evident that he is not capable of doing so and frankly I find it hard to believe he was ever capable of it. Biden can still answer questions and stay on topic. Biden has always been prone to verbal gaffes but he is still capable of speaking intelligibly. Trump is incapable of extemporaneously speaking the way he was able to just a few years ago. Seriously - watch this video and find me a video of Trump speaking like this (without a teleprompter) recently.
Also, to everyone else in the thread who is capable of understanding content, bonus points because not only is Trump speaking almost like a coherent person, but he takes a reasonable position that he would never take today now that he has gone full white nationalist.
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Please post your contributions in the Trump vs Biden video thread that I just started for this very purpose.
Coincidentally I spent the weekend in Arizona! Flagstaff is gorgeous if you've never been there. On the drive out there we stopped in Lake Havasu City and it's not a rumor--London Bridge is actually there! How'd they do that? Only in America! I had the best Chicago Dog of my life in a small restaurant (and I do mean "in") at the foot of the bridge. What is it about boaters and Trump flags? Some guy named Anderson owns all the dealerships in town LOL.Unit2Sucks said:If "everyday people" were concerned with their safety, would they be more troubled by the 15 killed in Chicago this weekend or the people dying every day in their city of COVID, which is now the 3rd leading cause of death in this country?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.
This idea that Trump is going to make the country safer from violence is, at best, unsupported. He hasn't taken any steps to make us safer, although to be fair I guess statues can breathe easy now that Trump has signed an executive order ordering the government to enforce a law that was already on the books. Tucker Carlson and other right wing talking heads likes to stoke the fear and outrage machine every time there is a high violence weekend in Chicago because .... well I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable reason.
Meanwhile, in your Republican utopia of Arizona, 200+ people have died of COVID in just the last week and 1,800+ have died in the last 3 months.
350 people have been murdered in Chicago - it's awful and the root causes of the violence should absolutely be addressed, but that's not why Tucker Carlson and the dog whistlers on the right enjoy bringing it up. Trump's solution to crime is to shout in all caps "LAW AND ORDER!!" as if he were promoting the TV show, but he has done nothing and will do nothing to address the problems.
Trump used to pretend to care about the economic problems suffered by "everyday" people but now that he has ruined our economy through his hamfisted approach to COVID, all he has left is stoking outrage and cultural division. He's obviously found an audience with a lot of middle aged and older white men, particularly the uneducated, but those people no longer represent the broader views of this country which is why it's become more and more apparent to swing voters just how out of touch Trump is.
Went to Grand Canyon NP (no crowds!), Wupatki NM, downtown Flagstaff, and a couple of gorgeous hikes. Temps in the low eighties! Open restaurants (had Indian, Italian, and Thai inside)! Gas for $2.30! Wish you were there Unit2. I would have gladly bought you your favorite mixed cocktail providing of course you hadn't exceeded your morning limit. I know you could use a little rest after having to take refuge in SoCal while the multi-pierced entitled pothead BLM devotees were vandalizing your favorite park (with the tacit approval of local leaders).
Here's the thing: Some on this board are implying that the rioters, looters, and white people haters are some kind of fringe. It's wishful thinking. Turn on CNN or MSNBC any time of day. Better yet, look at videos of the guests they had on for July 4th. Radical, racist, America haters and criminal sympathizers. Police defunders. CNN and MSNBC are businesses. They know their audience, not you. They are catering to that audience with this garbage. It's what their viewers want to hear, so you can hope that mainstream Democrats don't think like the wackos but that's not what CNN and MSNBC are telling us with their content.
Boys, there aren't enough people who wear cowboy hats to elect Trump. The Democrats--by their affiliations and their silence--are attempting suicide by a thousand quotes. They--not some guy in a MAGA hat--will keep Trump in the race. Every time a youngster gets shot in a city with a mayor who is a cop-defunding advocate creates another 1000 parents who must vote against that mayor's party.
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
Every time Captain Catastrophe doubles down on his racist rhetoric in an attempt to emulate the George Wallace or Strom Thurman campaign plan he further proves to Americans that are not part of his hardcore base at 39-40% that he is unfit to lead a country that needs a leader that will be President for all Americans. His recent speeches and tweets solidifies what most Americans believe which is it is time for a change and that we need a rational adult to lead this country. This country cannot stand another 4 years of Captain Catastrophe and his Merry Band of Idiots. His attacks on African Americans by going to Tulsa, First Nations people by going to Rushmore, and others during these times show that he is incapable of being the President that we need and deserve. It is inclusion, not exclusion that will bring us together, heal old wounds, and allow all Americans to reach their full potential which will undoubtedly raise this country and its people up as we will all need to be rowing the same way if the success of this country and its people are the ultimate goal. Refuse to progress and we will find ourselves mired in the mud of mediocracy.
Okay. I get it. You are a man with standards. Good luck with that. I'm living in the real world. And if buying the bridge in Brooklyn is the only way I can get across it, then let me ask how much. These days we live in a failed state. Our democracy is in the last stages much like at the end of the Roman Empire. What do you want? Give me some names?Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
How do you propose he be "cancelled" when he has clearly won a strong majority of Democratic votes and shows no sign of fading in the general election against Trump? "Cancellation" in the colloquial Twitter sense means that popular opinion has sharply turned against a person. There is no such thing happening to Biden.Matthew Patel said:My selection would be for Joe Biden to be cancelled the same way that Chris Matthews was cancelled, but apparently liberal outrage has its limits.sycasey said:His selection is for Joe Biden to voluntarily give up the nomination despite being the clear winner in primary votes and being well ahead in general-election polls.bearister said:Matthew Patel said:There isn't a single good candidate for VP that Biden is considering. If you think any of those black women give a crap about George Floyd more than Obama cared about black people for eight years, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale cheap.heartofthebear said:I don't know why you would say that. There are many good candidates. There are also some bad ones.Matthew Patel said:He won'theartofthebear said:
I hope he picks a good VP.
That will be our next president.
Who is your selection for VP?
A table could go toe to toe with Biden and it would be a draw because at least the table wouldn't embarrass itself.Unit2Sucks said:
Sure, you say Biden has a problem with failing mental acuity but you aren't calling him dumb. Have you examined him? What are you basing this opinion on? Given you performance here, I have a hard time believing you could go toe to toe with Biden.
"This woke crowd, this is just temporary, this is just an illusion. Black women should have been mentioned in the game for a very long timethis moment is forcing any of the Black women that you even being mentioned in serious contention for the vice presidential slot, they are being mentioned because of the bubbling up of the grassroots," she said. "This has to beabout an affirmation of humanity. It cannot be about just checking off the box."
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/505647-nina-turner-addresses-bidens-search-for-a-running-mate?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=31146&#
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/505647-nina-turner-addresses-bidens-search-for-a-running-mate?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=31146&#
I find it hilarious that conservatives and people like you that want to take down Biden are unwittingly setting expectations for his debate performance so low that there is no way he can fail.Matthew Patel said:A table could go toe to toe with Biden and it would be a draw because at least the table wouldn't embarrass itself.Unit2Sucks said:
Sure, you say Biden has a problem with failing mental acuity but you aren't calling him dumb. Have you examined him? What are you basing this opinion on? Given you performance here, I have a hard time believing you could go toe to toe with Biden.
It is also hilarious that the slamming his mental acuity is just ticking off the older voters that Trump needs. I imagine that will be heightened when he proves not to be senile at the debates which he will because he isn't. I'm sure older voters are thrilled with Trump's two pronged attack of sending them to the Covid ice floe and bashing his opponent for being old.
Biden didn't seem senile at the Democratic debates. It was clear however, that everyone else on stage was smarter than him. That would have been the case even with Joe minus 40 years. A 10 year old could hold his own with tRump, intellectually. tRump is just a bully that regurgitates Tucker, Stephen Miller and Fox & Friends talking points. I'm not happy Joe is our guy, but you gotta dance with the guy that brought you.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Featured Stories
See All
De Jesus Ready to Start Next Phase of His Life at Cal
by Jim McGill
No. 24 Cal Powers Past Florida State
by Cal Athletics
Bears' Rally Falls Short, Lose 71-68 to Virginia Tech
by Jim McGill