Trump / FBI / Russians

Lol I stand by my post, it’s nothing an American President should ever say, feel, think, or do. I didn’t fact check it no, don’t have time for that, I just popped in for a minute, between studying. Got my test tomorrow morning!

 

Hmmm if you say so, thought that first LOL post had a little more to it the first time I read it.

 

All good, just calling bullshit when it arises

 

Your not totally crazy. I edited out a partial sentence as I was continuing the charade...then I just put lol and it still posted a partial sentence...all g man, I was just messing with you.

 

All good, thought you went off the deep end there for a sec

 

Finally. Siggy from out of the woodwork. Was wondering how long you could hold out from posting.

So, serious question. Haters being who, the left? Who are the people who close freeways, riot & destroy property, who threaten federal employees & their families, who post utter lies & defamatory comments, who run people out of restaurants when they are trying to dine peacefully, who make unsubstantiated accusations against people & intimidate the LMS into printing their wild claims as if it were 'news,' who deem others as racist when in fact it's the Dems who have facilitated the destruction of the African American community in the USA the past 50 years, who just hate because that's all they know how to do? Who are those folks?

What's upsetting to these people to the point that they become violent in order to hurt humans, and perhaps to you(?), regarding full employment for the USA, regarding the lowest unemployment levels for minorities in the USA since records have existed, the highest levels of home ownership, in short the greatest levels of prosperity that the USA has ever known?

Why you mad, bro?

 

Hate is bad, dude. Whether it's the few hundred psychos known as the alt right, or the wackadoodles known as the KKK, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Queda, or the socialist left dems.....hate is bad.

___________________________________________________


Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.

For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.

How did the American left—conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world—become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.

The genius of the left in the ’60s was simply to perceive the new moral imperative, and then to identify itself with it. Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its immoral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge of America’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.

This bestowed enormous political and cultural power on the American left, and led to the greatest array of government-sponsored social programs in history—at an expense, by some estimates, of more than $22 trillion. But for the left to wield this power, there had to be a great menace to fight against—a tenacious menace that kept America uncertain of its legitimacy, afraid for its good name.

This amounted to a formula for power: The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left. And the ’60s handed the left a laundry list of menaces to be defeated. If racism was necessarily at the top of the list, it was quickly followed by a litany of bigotries ending in “ism” and “phobia.”

The left had important achievements. It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy. It also established the great menace of racism as America’s most intolerable disgrace. But the left’s success has plunged it into its greatest crisis since the ’60s. The Achilles’ heel of the left has been its dependence on menace for power. Think of all the things it can ask for in the name of fighting menaces like “systemic racism” and “structural inequality.” But what happens when the evils that menace us begin to fade, and then keep fading?

It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ’60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today—the source of its angst and hatefulness—is its own encroaching obsolescence. Today the left looks to be slowly dying from lack of racial menace.

A single white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Mo., four years ago resulted in a prolonged media blitz and the involvement of the president of the United States. In that same four-year period, thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.

White-on-black shootings evoke America’s history of racism and so carry an iconic payload of menace. Black-on-black shootings carry no such payload, although they are truly menacing to the black community. They evoke only despair. And the left gets power from fighting white evil, not black despair.

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.

Yet the left is still stalked by obsolescence. There is simply not enough menace to service its demands for power. The voices that speak for the left have never been less convincing. It is hard for people to see the menace that drives millionaire football players to kneel before the flag. And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.

For the American left today, the indulgence in hate is a death rattle.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).

 

I'd def be interested in hearing some of those DMT stories.

 

the firebombings of black churches in Alabama and the lynchings of thousands of innocent blacks led to the chasm that caused the bombings from the reactionary leftists, plus they were all on lsd plus meth = dma and the right wing industrial military complex invented it and supplied the gen pop with it so there is some history mister meh

it's time to wake up and embrace all our fellow Americans and thank goodness and especially thank the valiant efforts of our brave patriots for our freedoms so pump the brakes a bit on both sides and take a deep long cleansing breath of good jah as long as it's home grown no foreign beaner or bumble-clot or slant eyed weed damn it

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

I agree with this statement. But at the same time I would assume you would say that DJTs football shenanigans also drives a wedge between Americans... but, for some reason, I don’t think you will.

 

What shenanigans are you referring to?

 

Haha. K

 

I was serious. I think the wedge was already placed their by the morons kneeling. He’s demanding they respect the flag and our Country. I happen to agree with that stance. They can protest another way. That’s the wrong way to go about it and it diminishes their cause. People would support the cause more if they didn’t disrespect the flag and Country. Not to mention those that fight for our freedoms. I don’t see his stance on this to be shenanigans.

 

"Get that son of a bitch off the field right now".....no, no that doesn't sound divisive at all.

 

I don't disagree that they shouldn't kneel. But it's not his place to get involved. He's hurting American businesses intentionally because they would not let him be an owner. And he knows that his base will rally and that people on the other side will call him racist and protest. That is pretty much the definition of division.

DJT is saying they should fire those SOB's. The fact is they can't. They have a collective bargaining agreement. If they did fire them they would get sued and they would lose. You think billionaire white owners want their players kneeling? You think they care about ploice brutality? They would love for it to go away, but they are in a bad position and DJT knows it. And he's getting even with the guys thet wouldn't let him in their club. But their club is American businesses that employ 1000's of Americans.

 

Just wondering nynj. Why isn't it his place to get involved? Politicians get involved in issues all the time.

What about when RR shiiiitcanned the air traffic controllers? They were unionized: PATCO. RR fired 11,000+ of them when they demanded a 100% pay increase, which would have cost the taxpayers $700 mln.

Isn't this (NFL) basically a bunch of unionized employees in the private sector who are utilizing their place of employment to protest in a political manner? As such, if the employer has certain professional standards that aren't being met by the employees, the employer has the right to terminate. Union or not.

 

And btw, that's Shahid Khan's theory regarding Trump's being butt hurt at team denial of NFL ownership.

Maybe. Maybe not, as pertains to Trump.

(Khan owns the Jags)

I'd say consider the source: Khan. Pakistani now American. Muslim. Self-made billionaire via the USA automotive manufacturing industry. In fact, Khan is the wealthiest person of Pakistani heritage on the planet. And he's not a fan of Israel.

Trump: Strong defender of Christianity & strong supporter of Israel. Spoke out many times regarding his desire to limit Muslim immigrants to the USA. And then enacted the limits on immigration to the USA from Islamic nations that created an uproar.

All I'm saying is, it behooves one to dig & examine motive rather than just accept Khan's rather glib opinions as facts.