Pelosi defends MS-13 from Trump

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a little context for you, why Trump is claiming that only he can save you from those evil (fill in the blank) and why he is painting his opposition as anti whatever

.

No that's funny. Today's democratic party is founded on the notion that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is a hatemonger of some sort, Recall Hilary's 'deplorables' comment?

I agree that Trump plays this card all the time, but it's the backbone of current liberalism.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No that's funny. Today's democratic party is founded on the notion that anyone who disagrees with you about anything, is a hatemonger of some sort, Recall Hilary's 'deplorables' comment?

I agree that Trump plays this card all the time, but it's the backbone of current liberalism.

A form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.
Sound like anyone you know and love?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda.
Sound like anyone you know and love?

Sure, that sounds like Trump. He's one guy.

Many elected democrats refer to the pro-life crowd as anti-woman. They refer to those who want to enforce immigration laws, as xenophobes. They refer to Christians as homophobes. They refer to those who are concerned with jihadists as Islamophobes.

This kind of demonization of the other side, is far more common on the left, it's a huge reason Trump got elected, the right wanted someone who would hit back.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure, that sounds like Trump. He's one guy.

Many elected democrats refer to the pro-life crowd as anti-woman. They refer to those who want to enforce immigration laws, as xenophobes. They refer to Christians as homophobes. They refer to those who are concerned with jihadists as Islamophobes.

This kind of demonization of the other side, is far more common on the left, it's a huge reason Trump got elected, the right wanted someone who would hit back.

Since you have agreed that Trump fits Paxton's description of a Fascist leader, where are we now in Paxton's five stage of Fascism?
Here are the five stages of Fascism
1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
2. Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5. Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule.

[Sea Dangles]

He has no point, all he knows is that if it makes the NYT then it is certainly gospel. Material is running thin when Raider Ron makes the most sense in the forum. If the lefty fruitcakes want to keep fanning the flames then they better plan it for the long haul. They are the folks most responsible for the current bozo in chief and they can't seem to figure that part out obviously. Maggots🐛
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

"THESE ARE President Obama’s last few days in office, and so conservatives are dusting off their favorite critique: Barack Obama has been one of the most divisive presidents in memory.

It’s something you can expect to hear from right-wing media, so today, let’s take a tour through right-wing reasoning.
Obama has divided America, we’re told, by pointing out, after the mass shootings that this country suffers with mind-numbing regularity, that our lax gun laws are part of the problem. (Imagine!) He’s attacked wealthy Americans with incendiary comments such as this one: “The wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share.” Why, he has even demonized corporate jet owners by targeting a tax break they enjoy! (Have you no sense of decency, sir?)
Meanwhile, he’s been utterly reckless on race. One conservative website blasts the president for noting, in his remarks at the July memorial service for five slain Dallas police officers, that “if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime.” There is, after all, nothing quite so offensive as saying what’s true.
Granted, Obama usually talked in reasonable tones, but that is part and parcel of what made his divisiveness so insidious. “He spoke softly and antagonized only by innuendo,” one conservative intellectual wrote in the The American Thinker.

Now, a naif might call divisiveness by innuendo oxymoronic. (Or perhaps even pare that adjective down to something less syllabic.) Ah, but even if mostly unspoken — and perhaps even unintentional — Obama’s divisiveness “split the country like an ax of covert bigotry.”

Mind you, there are other kinds of presidential divisiveness that are every bit as troubling — and just as difficult for a nonconservative to spot. It is, for example, extremely alienating if a duly elected Democratic president supports policies conservatives don’t.

No wonder, then, that divisiveness detective Mo Brooks, a Republican US representative from Alabama, has declared Obama the most “racially divisive, economic divisive [sic], president” since those “who supported slavery.” Obama, you see, “really does not try to win elections based on public policies that are based on the best interest of America.” This placid prophet of antipolarization is the same congressman who suggested that Obama should be impeached and imprisoned for his executive actions on immigration.
Other times, Obama is panned for having the temerity to stick to his political priorities in the face of GOP opposition. Thus Obama found a way to “ram through” the Affordable Care Act, though it only had the support of a measly 59 Senators. Similarly, writing in the Sunday New York Times, Eric Cantor, House minority whip during Obama’s first two years, faulted the president for pushing ahead with his economic stimulus plan in the face of Cantor’s objection. The new president, Cantor recalls, said: “Elections have consequences and . . . I won. So I think on that one I trump you.” Why, the established order hasn’t witnessed such brazen solipsism since Napoleon crowned himself emperor rather than letting Pope Pius VII do the honors.

Elephantine observers may recall that some congressional Republicans, Cantor among them, had already decided to slow down Obama’s legislative agenda and deny him meaningful victories. And that the then-minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, declared his single most important goal was to make Obama a one-term president — and engaged in a long, obstructionist effort to that end. But none of that can be called divisive because . . . well, because it would ruin the conservative story line.

When it comes to divisiveness, then, what conservatives have is not a standard but rather a double standard. So here’s the question: After their hair-trigger criticism of Obama, will conservatives call out Donald Trump’s truly polarizing behavior — or suddenly decide that divisiveness no longer matters?"
By Scot Lehigh GLOBE COLUMNIST JANUARY 18, 2017
Actually I think Trumplicans are saying: It's ok, we are getting what we want, just don't look behind the curtain

[Pete F.]

As she said the following day
"Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his ‘Mexican heritage,’ bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are ‘stronger together.’ "

Of course when you are at the Trump Gloryhole, just be happy and don't look behind the curtain.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As she said the following day
"Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his ‘Mexican heritage,’ bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black president is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign. I also meant what I said last night about empathy, and the very real challenges we face as a country where so many people have been left out and left behind. As I said, many of Trump's supporters are hard-working Americans who just don’t feel like the economy or our political system are working for them. I'm determined to bring our country together and make our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. Because we really are ‘stronger together.’ "

Of course when you are at the Trump Gloryhole, just be happy and don't look behind the curtain.

A self-serving apology, suggested by her campaign staff when people were justifiably offended by her insane remarks. Not impressed. I am certain she knew exactly what she was saying (like Obama's bitter clinger remarks), and equally certain she meant it.

I despise Trump, hate his behavior. I know exactly what's behind the curtain, I know how vindictive and self absorbed he is. I call out ugliness on both sides.

Integrity was not on the ballot in 2016, not anywhere.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A self-serving apology, suggested by her campaign staff when people were justifiably offended by her insane remarks. Not impressed. I am certain she knew exactly what she was saying (like Obama's bitter clinger remarks), and equally certain she meant it.

Just curious how hard you type when you write this stuff.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Just curious how hard you type when you write this stuff.

If that’s the best response you have, we know I’ve won. And the answer is not hard at all. You are confusing being right, with being angry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Here’s a start
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...r-insults.html
Then you can go to his public appearances
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here’s a start
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...r-insults.html
Then you can go to his public appearances
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

In retrospect, she prob. was not called it at all given how upset the Repubs are its use.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

A lot.

How many times was Ben Carson called the n-word at democrat rallies? Probably a lot.

I'm talking about the behavior of people ta the top. And group with tens of millions of people in it, is going to have bad people. That says nothing about the group, unless the group is provoking the bad behavior.

Trump does some of that, I would bet he's responsible for some barroom brawls. Al Sharptons words have put multiple innocent bystanders in the grave, and the left gives him his own TV show.

People see it, Paul. It's why Trump got elected, and it's why under obama's watch the democrats took an historic drubbing at all levels, it's exactly why the GOP controls the oval office, both houses of congress, and a huge majority of state governorships and legislatures. The proof is in the pudding.

The only reason why the left matters right now, is because they control the media and academia, and they were brilliant to seize those institutions. Absolutely brilliant. They may prevail because of it. As of now, they have a long, LONG way to go.

Republicans want to talk about the merits of their ideas, because they are confident their ideas are the right ideas. Democrats want to call us all racist, that's their go-to response. It's the last play of the desperate.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How many times was Ben Carson called the n-word at democrat rallies? Probably a lot.

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I would lay money it happened many times at rallies during the primaries.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be astounded if it happened once.

I'm sure you would be.

Spence, why did your party get its azz so resoundingly kicked, at all levels, during the Obama years?

Lemme guess...racism? Hate? Or was it because people like me got tired of being slandered, tired of being painted so dishonestly?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

How many time do you think Clinton was called the C word at Trump's rallys?

"CRIMINAL"?.....probably quite often

[Sea Dangles]

It's quite amusing watching Jim slap around the circle jerk crew. A tired but decided beating but they lead with the chin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

TKO🥊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

TKO🥊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

visions of Tyson putting his mouth guard in backwards after getting walloped by Buster Douglas

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

visions of Tyson putting his mouth guard in backwards after getting walloped by Buster Douglas

c'mon...Spence....don't let them push you around like this...put on your pink hat and get back out there and make a fight of it!!!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

c'mon...Spence....don't let them push you around like this...put on your pink hat and get back out there and make a fight of it!!!!

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just tell him he's not smart enough to understand the complexities of the argument...that always works

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out. His links don’t even back up his assertion. Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First you said democrats didn't lose house seats. Now it was only because of gerrymandering. Well, which is it? Did seats stay flat, or did the democrats lose seats?

"Demographics and gerrymandering don’t reflect ideology."

The articles also talked about the fact that the democrats lost US Senate seats, and governorships. Was that because of gerrymandering? How does gerrymandering impact a statewide race, exactly? And the only reason the GOP could gerrymander, was because of the Tea Party tidal wave of the 2010 midterms. There was no ideological effect that led to the genesis of the Tea Party? No? Tell that to Rick Santorum...

NPR said that no president has come close to losing as many seats as Obama. There was something unique there. Then, we elected the biggest jerk in history, to beat the most inevitable candidate in history. How did that happen? White privilege?

"I’d rather just let Jim punch himself out"

Don't hold your breath, you have a long wait. This is just too much fun.