Immediately following the House vote on the articles of impeachment, Twitter erupted in jubilant celebration. Tweet after tweet (with blue check marks in abundance) rejoiced at the news that the evil orange man had been finally and rightfully booted from office. People were and probably still are happy, happy happy.
If there was ever a better example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I haven't seen it.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
What's with all this Islamophobia?
-13 ( +4 / -17 )
Okay, Justin begs for forgiveness for the "brown face" incident and that's cool. He also apologized for the "black face" Day-O incident, I haven't seen any apology for the video of him in "black face" waving his arms and sticking his tongue at the camera but I'm sure it's included in his public self flagellation over his "mistakes".
His political rivals, whom he was calling '''white supremacist" sympathizers just a couple of months ago, are certainly going to try to use this against him, for sure. But who cares? He begged, so it's all good. Hey it's a learning moment after all.
Of course it's the Canadian voters who will be the judges in this and they will have their say pretty soon.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
That’s exactly what this entire thing is about.
I think what most of this thing is about book sales and profit. Of course most people don't need to read the book, they already have the whole story made up in their minds.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Just how would the US Government go about banning and confiscating all AR and AK rifles? It's one thing to say you will, or even to go so far as to pass legislation. But how is that going to look in practice?
First thing is figuring out where all those affected firearms are and who has them. The Feds should be able to get the low down on a lot of them through their own records but there are a bunch more to be identified in the individual State's record systems. The Feds will need open and complete cooperation from all the states, if not voluntarily, then through judicial action. It might take some time and effort but in the end, it can be done.
So now what? Now that the Feds have the skinny on the contraband, how do they go about rounding it up? The best case scenario would be the Feds notifying the owners of their legally mandated obligation to comply and then facilitating the orderly surrender and subsequent confiscation of the banned firearms. Best case.
So that takes care of the legally purchased and/or registered illegal guns. But what about the ARs and AKs that are not registered, were not purchased legally and do not show up in any state or Federal databases unless related to crime statistics. How are they going to get them? They can only estimate how many there are or who has them. Maybe a nationwide multimedia campaign would help to influence some of these illegal gun owners to surrender their weapons and maybe encourage others to help identify uncooperative violators.
Something like this will only be doable if everybody involved gets on board. Anything less will invariably end badly. In order for a mandate to have power it needs to be enforced, noncompliance needs to be addressed in a manner that reflects the level of resistance. It might be necessary to suspend the 4th and 10 amendments along with the 2nd for a while to achieve the goal. Ultimately, the most stubborn criminals will need to be rooted out and eliminated. It might require some killing, but they would be bad people by then, so maybe it would be for the best.
I guess my biggest question is who is going to do it. Police? National Guard? Federal Agents? US Military? private contractors? Bottom line is, the best case scenario ain't going to happen. There will be pushback, there will be resistance. If it comes to kicking in doors, forced searches, mass arrests and even killing people for exercising and defending what they believe is their constitutionally guaranteed right, it might not be that easy to find willing accomplices from the local population. Probably private contractors and/or foreign mercenaries would be the most effective.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Lmao! Not even close, but feel free to continue believing this is why gun control is effective in Hawaii and not Chicago.
I don't know what you are basing your opinion on but I can tell you, based on my lifetime experiences living in Hawaii, that the main reason gun controls work in Hawaii and not in Chicago is because...
Hawaii is a small Island, different politics, history etc..
Contemporary Hawaiian society is the product of a distinctly unique set of historical and cultural influences. This has resulted in a place where the daily lives of many, if not most, of its citizens are grounded in traditional cultural values adopted from the native Hawaiian culture as well as strong influences from Asia. For the most part, contemporary hawaiian society is collective in nature and the actions of one can impact the lives of those within their sphere. Couple that with an underriding "warrior" mentality that endorses dispute resolution through face to face physical violence and you get a situation where it's okay to get in a fist fight. Your friends and family will back you up and maybe even be proud of you. But pulling a gun to settle a difference is widely viewed as a sign of weakness and lack of respect for your family, for your community and for yourself.
I've only visited so I can't speak from personal experience. So I ask, is it the same in Chicago?
As an aside, It might surprise you to learn that there are more guns in private hands in Hawaii than the are people. There's plenty of guns in the Aloha State it's just we don't shoot each other all that much. It's a cultural thing.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The only people who hate it are those who can't afford to live there.
That's not exactly true. I have family members in California that hate it there, now. They have more than adequate resources to comfortably live there but just can't abide with what their home has been turned into. Other members of my family who love California and would like nothing more than spending their lives and raising their families there, have had to move because they have been priced out of their own communities.
Right now, according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, California has the highest poverty rate in the US. At around 20% that means there are around 8 million Californians "who can't afford to live there". And among the one in five Californians who are living that reality, Blacks, Hispanics and especially children constitute the majority.I gotta say,"The only people who hate it are those who can't afford to live there." smacks of some serious economic elitism. But don't forget if you chase out all the po' folks, who's gonna pick your kale or make your next avocado toast?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has banned any and all LGBTQ activity on pain of god knows what.
Maybe that's one reason why they hate Israel so much. Those Israelis have no sense of decency and let their LGBTQ community carry on all kinds of abhorrent behavior like same sex marriage, same sex cohabitation, and just all kinds of Haram homosexual activities. But all is not lost, Hamas has a plan for them.
Only amongst the uneducated. They surveyed whites with no college degree.
Ohhh...... Not the deplorables again. You gotta keep an eye on those irredeemables, they have a bad habit of voting. And you know what that can lead to. Just think, they let some people vote who haven't been properly indoctrinated in an American University. The horror!
I bet you won't be able to put down Iran in a face to face with me. You can write BS here, but talking crap in person is different.
-2 ( +5 / -7 )
If Pelosi and Cummings want to make Trump eat some crow, then they should disprove his statements with clear examples of how well the city of Baltimore has been run for the past 30 years. Showing how the Democratic leadership of Baltimore have made the lives of their most vulnerable citizens better and how what Trump says is false, would be a great way to start. They could also show how the 3.2 billion dollars in federal grants the city has received over the past 10 years has been wisely spent for the benefit of the people of Baltimore. That'll shut him up.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
The shooter in this case was named Santino William Legan. He is of mixed race with Italian and Iranian ancestry. By today’s matrix he is a person of color descended from immigrants and is clearly a minority. But apparently, the narrative dictates that Legan needs to be a white supremacist, so just like that he became supremely white.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Watching Mueller, I get the distinct impression that he is pretty sorry he got talked into this whole thing to begin with. He looked, to me, like someone who was sick of the whole deal and just wished he was somewhere else, anywhere else. The Bob Mueller sitting in that chamber looked tired and there is probably no one who would like to see this whole episode over and done with more than him.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
"go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."
And? Is that suppose to be racist? Is New Yorker a race? Or Minnesotan? People from Massachusetts are called Massachusettsans, and the folks from Michigan Michiganders. Is that their race?
Trump didn't mention race or color at all in his tweets but, without fail, the resistance read between the lines, heard the dog whistles, took the bait and went straight to the "racism" trope. The only way that those exact words could be construed as racist is if they are put into a context that is predicated on the assumption that Trump is a racist to begin with. Telling a representative from Michigan to go back to her district and make a positive contribution to the well being of her constituents is only racist if you want it to be.
Trying to turn every conceivable situation into a racism issue only dilutes the impact and meaning of the word. It's becoming just part of the background noise. People are just turning it off.
-9 ( +1 / -10 )
Okay, so what do we have?
Trump tweets something, that depending on the sensitivity of the reader, could be construed as either a clear example of his innate racism or as a perfectly reasonable observation. Depends on how you look at it.
Predictably, social media ignited. Trump was dragged over the coals in discussion groups and forums across the globe. The "squad" received the same kind of treatment On both sides, every insult and disparagement was gagged up and dutifully regurgitated. . But, so what? Trump wants the attention, not only for himself but for the "squad" and Pelosi.
There was a real showdown brewing in the Dem camp. Pitting the establishment moderate and business democrats against the new wave of freshman activists. Nancy scolded them, which resulted in AOC calling her a racist. It was boiling up to a head and then boom........ Trump drops his tweet. If the fight had continued Pelosi would have won, hands down, and that would have strengthened her position as leader of the party. Those establishment Dems don't like the "squad" mainly because they are afraid of them. Their apple carts are in jeopardy, too. A Pelosi victory would have helped to isolate and minimize an element that is perceived as a disruption to business as usual. But Trump screwed that up.
Now, as a result of Trump's crassness all eyes are on him and he is in charge of the narrative. Nancy had to defend the injured parties and in doing so she relinquished her authority to AOC and the "squad". Now AOC is the face of the Democratic Party. And Trump has seen the polls. For all the hype, socialism is poison to a majority of American voters and studies have shown that the more the electorate learns about socialism the more they dislike it. What Trump set up was a demonstration for the American voters to see just where the Democrats stand. If the Dems continue to appease the far left they run the risk of alienating a lot of middle ground voters.
The media took the bait, too. While every network was dutifully covering the "squad's" presser and anchors and commentators went on total OMB (orange man bad) jags, Trump's new border policy barring asylum seekers from applying at the southern border was relegated to a sidebar. And you know what they say, out of sight out of mind.
A lot of people expend a lot of energy going on about how stupid and inept Trump is, but in this situation everything seems to have worked out to Trump's advantage. Almost like it was a strategic thing. Nah... That can't be. Can it?
-4 ( +2 / -6 )
I don't see any non-Trumper here saying that Trump was "behind it all and should be prosecuted for child prostitution."
Well to be honest that was hyperbole on my part. Just like the line about the Right chanting. You're right no non-trumper has specifically said those words but in your response you spent six paragraphs attempting to connect Trump and members of the administration with Epstein. The only mention of Epstein was in relation to Trump. This story is about a rich and well connected perv that used his wealth a connections to live out his pedo fantasies. This story should also be about the young girls lured into his depravity.
@CrazyJoe previously posted that "Justice must come down on them like a ton of bricks." and I agree. Justice for Epstein's victims. But making the story all about Trump and trying to find any which way you can to tie this to him doesn't do much for the girls. In fact they seem to be being used as just props in the Orange Man Bad narrative.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
This is the kind of thing that makes it so easy for, let's say, the Russians to meddle in American elections and the American political process on the whole. There is a tendency (more like a pathology) in America now, where the zealots on both sides to take a story like this and twist it ( sometimes in the most convoluted manner) into some kind of "evidence" or even "proof" that their political opponents are despicable, hateful people.
Right now, the Left is honing in on what they want to believe. That being, Trump was behind it all and should be prosecuted for child prostitution. While the Right chants "Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton"
Jeff Epstein is a pedophile. He used his wealth and powerful connections to facilitate his pedophilic inclinations. He preyed on the naivety and lack of life experience of his victims to satisfy his sexual deviance. He is a despicable individual and deserves every bad thing that comes his way. He's the bad guy, He's the story. Not Bill Clinton and the Dems or Donald Trump and the GOP.
The victims have a story to tell and, who knows, maybe there is a powerful testament and lessons to be learned from those stories. But what do we see? "Bill Clinton rode the Lolita Express two dozen times" or "Trump said he was a great guy" By politicizing this story for points against the other side, downplays the vileness of Epstein and the experiences of the victims.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
With a congressional job approval rating of 18% it looks like Barr isn't the only one held in contempt.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
The latest CNN polling data gives Biden a 24 point advantage over Bernie at 39 and 15 respectively. The rest of the field are all in single digits with either stagnant numbers or losses in their ratings.
This just might be an example of the Democratic voter base clutching at a straw, with Biden being that straw. The reality is that the majority of Democratic voters are over 50, the majority of Democratic voters classify themselves as moderate to conservative and the majority of Democratic voters do not have a college degree. Within those specific demographics Biden clearly dominates, with as much as a 37 point lead over Bernie.
This could quite possibly be an indication that the Democratic Socialist agenda espoused by many of the candidates and promoted by a supportive media, is not as universally accepted among the American Democratic Party electorate as was hoped.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Let the games begin!
I think that a lot of Americans are getting tired of the "games". Maybe the Dems should concentrate more on the business of government and less on the "game".
-8 ( +6 / -14 )
Pretty crazy that the Trump administration and Republican Party, which limit their membership to white Christian males of European ancestry
You are aware that Dr. Ben Carson, the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (administration position) and former candidate for the Republican nomination for President, also happens to be black? Or that he traces his ancestry to Kenya? If not, then now you do.
I have to admit that he is guilty as charged for the offense of being a Christian.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Forget about how much this idea would cost. The real question is who is going to do the work? If you are going to take on an enterprise as ambitious as this, you need people to execute your vision. You will need a skilled workforce with a strong work ethic to get this job done.
Right now in the US there are literally millions of high paying trade positions going unfilled almost entirely because of a lack of interest. Among the demographic that would, necessarily, be a major constituent of this needed workforce, these types of careers are not widely seen as desirable. But if this going to work then somebody, or more like a lot of somebodies, is going to have to get their hands dirty and bust a sweat. It is not going to be enough to take to the streets demanding change, what's going to be needed is hard work.
There better be a very robust job training and skill development program in this plan or it will never have a chance.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
So what happens when the rich have brought down and their ill gotten gains have been redistributed to the poor? Who's going to pay for all the social programs when the rich are not rich anymore? Who's next? There are always going to be people that are poor. Do we just keep going until everybody is living in the same state of poverty?
It sounds like the Democrats are demonizing the wealthy in America and building the case for what amounts to the confiscation of their wealth and redistributing it to people who have less than them. Kind of like Robin Hood. But it should be noted that Robin Hood was a thief.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
I want to hear the exact threats. @Laguna came up with a pretty good one ala "The Sopranos" but of course "came up with" is the crucial operative phrase.
I have to say, that when the Trumpophobe's on this site get going, it can be pretty entertaining. You guys should get together and write a book.
I think a good title could be: "The Trump Prophecies" The complete story of Donald Trump, an exploration of the possibilities as seen through the lens of supposition.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
if someone stands right in front of you, in your face, not letting you move, I might be inclined to think its not a friendly action.
If you watch the video I alluded to in my previous post it is clearly visible that, in fact, it was Nathan Phillips, along with other activists, who approached the group of students and not the other way around as reported. It is also clear that Nathan Phillips, along with other activists, interjected himself physically into the group of students while pounding on a drum and loudly chanting. It is also clear that the group of activists accompanying Nathan Phillips were shouting insults and jibes at the group of students which were openly based on the ethnicity of the majority of the students.
The video shows Nathan Phillips progress as he moved into the group of students. Almost all of the students made way for him as he encroached on their personal spaces but one student did not move. The video shows Nathan Phillips continuing to pound his drum and chant as he continued to press his advance, while the student stood his ground and declined to retreat. The student is not seen in the video responding to Nathan Phillips verbally or taking any kind of threatening or physical action against Nathan Phillips. He just stood there.
So I would pose the question, if someone comes up to you, unbidden, gets right up in your face beating a drum and loudly chanting, and then refuses to go around you but insists on trying to force you to back down before their presence, wouldn't you be inclined to think it's not a friendly action?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
A complete 2 hour live stream of the incident is available for viewing. The video clearly shows that the narrative pushed by the media and the semi famous was wrong. All that is left now, is to attack people based on their religious beliefs and the color of their skin. There are posts all over social media expressing the desire to punch that smirking, white kid in the face. The school's closed because of concerns about safety, the cry for the students death ( their parents,too) has come out, people's lives have been changed forever all because some people are so caught up in their own confirmation biases that they will dive head first into the mob without any real idea about what really occurred.
It seems that what is real doesn't matter anymore, it's what some people want to believe that drives this outpouring of latent anger issues and racism.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Nobody thinks we shouldn't have borders and should allow everyone in. Nobody.
Well, that's not exactly true.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The difference being that the left is afraid of a very real danger, a president who is eroding America’s freedoms and democracy,
Now to really add some punch to that statement you should elaborate with something like "a president who is eroding America’s freedoms and democracy by......" And follow that with a specific list of examples where America's freedom and democracy have been eroded. That would be a slam dunk, as it is the statement begs the question, How?
whereas the right is afraid of a boogeyman created through trump whipping up fear and hysteria to get the people to let him erode America’s freedoms and democracy.
You just might be right on about the right being afraid of something but it ain't the boogeyman. They have a whole bunch of different reasons for their angst. Each one open for dissection and discussion and each one open to be judged on its merit or lack thereof. Offering examples of the right's fears and disputing them if it is warranted makes for a better comparison than just dismissing them as the boogeyman.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
There's nothing you can say to help Trump fans. They are terrified.
Republican men will feel less fear.
Okay, now that we have determined that the primary motivators for "Trump fans" and in particular "Republican men", are fear and hate. I think it's reasonable to ask what the motivators of the resistance are.
The resistance seems to have a really good hate on for Trump and it is a very popular activity among many of the resisters to imagine a litany of potential injuries and insults that Trump could probably inflict on humanity. You will find a lot of people within marginalized communities like the LGBTQ community and among racial and religious minorities saying that they live in fear of Trump and his policies. Their fear of what Trump might do, drives their acrimony towards him and his regime and that only exacerbates their fear.
Wouldn't that indicate that much of the resistance, just like the other guys, is motivated primarily by fear and hate? A good first step in any negotiation is to look for commonality. If both sides openly embrace their own fear and hate, then their positions and concerns will be more understandable to the general public. Unless the intention is to mislead, an open and honest discussion should be the goal. If both sides however, deny their own fear and hate and only assign that trait to the others, well then we have what we have now, I guess.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Mexican TV has been running a news clip of one of the rallies in Tijuana where a guy on a loud hailer is addressing a crowd saying that "Trump was right. This is an invasion".
And? What does that have to do with anything?
What does "that" (what Mexicans think about the situation) have to do with anything? Isn't the sentiment of a significant number of Mexican citizens relevant in this discussion? After all it is their country. Why demean their voices in the matter?
1 ( +3 / -2 )