The Angry Violent Left

[StPaulHusker]

8 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Sure I have seen plenty of studies showing race relations got worse under Obama.  Time will tell how they are after 4 or 8 years of Trump.  

Can you, YOU, describe what you mean by race relations got worse under Obama?

[Moiraine]

If race relations got worse under Obama, imo it’s because minorities felt like having a Black president meant they could speak up more about issues that affected them negatively, and there was a large group that got defensive about this instead of listening to them.

[Danny Bateman]

Friends don't let friends listen to Tucker Carlson. 

 

Although he seems to suggest this thread should be called "The Sad Insecure Dumb Left."

 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Clifford Franklin said:

Friends don't let friends listen to Tucker Carlson. 

 

 

 

It really is a contest on Fox to see which is the biggest idiot......Carlson or Hannity.

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

If race relations got worse under Obama, imo it’s because minorities felt like having a Black president meant they could speak up more about issues that affected them negatively, and there was a large group that got defensive about this instead of listening to them.

 

 

I’m assuming the person who rolled their eyes is one of the defensive people I mentioned.

[Ulty]

49 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

You two are entitled to have whatever beliefs and biases you want.  Those are your OPINIONS and it's ok to have opinions that run counter to those that are closest to Trump and have personally known him.  

 

I guess you can't really factually PROVE that someone is a racist, unless they admit to it, which no one ever does. There are a lot of subjective pieces to it.

 

But let's say, as a hypothetical, that we were doing a workplace investigation on a guy like Trump (which I do for a living, by the way). It doesn't matter if he is janitor or CEO. If we took the long record of things that he actually said on the job, and during his job interview (the campaign), those are factual pieces of evidence, because they are his own statements. Opinions from his friends saying that he is not racist, would be accepted but character references rarely carry any weight or relevance compared to actual evidence.

 

In the case of Trump, if he said the things he has actually said, he would have no doubt violated any workplace policy prohibiting discrimination or harassment, on the basis of race, national origin, and sex. Heck, probably even disability, although I think there are only one or two comments there, so not sure if there is enough on the basis of disability to show that it is severe and pervasive. However, the evidence would be sufficient to show that Trump would have created a hostile work environment on the basis of race, national origin, and sex in any workplace. That would be based on real evidence, not opinion. The evidence would be his own statements and actions, which are public record. They have been listed in numerous other threads.

 

The final report would not call him "racist," but he most definitely violates the policy. My workplace has high standards for this sort of thing. My vote and my morals have high standards as well. And I make my decisions based on evidence.

[Moiraine]

4 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

I guess you can't really factually PROVE that someone is a racist, unless they admit to it, which no one ever does. There are a lot of subjective pieces to it.

 

But let's say, as a hypothetical, that we were doing a workplace investigation on a guy like Trump (which I do for a living, by the way). It doesn't matter if he is janitor or CEO. If we took the long record of things that he actually said on the job, and during his job interview (the campaign), those are factual pieces of evidence, because they are his own statements. Opinions from his friends saying that he is not racist, would be accepted but character references rarely carry any weight or relevance compared to actual evidence.

 

In the case of Trump, if he said the things he has actually said, he would have no doubt violated any workplace policy prohibiting discrimination or harassment, on the basis of race, national origin, and sex. Heck, probably even disability, although I think there are only one or two comments there, so not sure if there is enough on the basis of disability to show that it is severe and pervasive. However, the evidence would be sufficient to show that Trump would have created a hostile work environment on the basis of race, national origin, and sex in any workplace. That would be based on real evidence, not opinion. The evidence would be his own statements and actions, which are public record. They have been listed in numerous other threads.

 

The final report would not call him "racist," but he most definitely violates the policy. My workplace has high standards for this sort of thing. My vote and my morals have high standards as well. And I make my decisions based on evidence.

 

 

Same with my company. And the president should be held to a higher standard. 

[Landlord]

45 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Sure I have seen plenty of studies showing race relations got worse under Obama.  Time will tell how they are after 4 or 8 years of Trump.  

 

 

Well hate crimes are already getting worse under Trump. So I suppose Trump/the GOP are using hate as a weapon to galvanize voters too, yeah?

[TGHusker]

16 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

I think you have it confused. The only people I see posting in lockstep are those in support of Trump. Everyone else has pretty varying opinions. TGHusker does not like Trump but supported Kavanaugh. I've disagreed with BRBs and Knapps views and many others as well. But I suppose you are right in a sense, though it is hard not to be in lock step when calling a spade a spade.

Boy this thread caught on fire in  a short time.     Let me add, I voted Republican in every presidential contest until this last one and no I did not vote for Hillary.  I just about voted for Johnson but thought in the end he was a bit to loony tune.  I could not vote for Trump for all of the  moral and UN-presidential reasons I previously have noted.  My 'support' for Kav was based primary for the lack of supporting evidence coming from the accusers.  Without the accusations, I was still moderately supportive but felt there were a couple of better choices (the female for one - can't remember her name - the Dems probably would have tried to disqualify her on her religion but that is another story).  I thought Kav was too tied at hip to Bush but that isn't unusual that a justice may be closely tied to their party of choice. 

  Violence and mob actions are not new and have been used by various political ideologies for some time.   While conservative talk radio has condemned Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals we also have seen both sides using its principles for their own advantage (think Tea Party).   The problem, which we see at the micro level on this forum is that we are shouting over each other  and never listening.   So sad and it is only going to get worse as we elect people who will cater to our most extreme fears instead of our common hopes and dreams.

 

Quote

 

Below, you’ll find Alinsky’s list of 13 “Rules for Radicals,” offered with his proviso that political activism cannot be a self-serving enterprise: “People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people.”

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Alinsky’s rules can and have been used for anti-democratic designs. But he defines the U.S. as a “society predicated on voluntarism.” His vision of democracy leans heavily on that of keen outside observer of early America, Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher who “gravely warned,” writes Alinsky, “that unless individual citizens were regularly involved in the action of governing themselves, self-government would pass from the scene.”

 

http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html

[Guy Chamberlin]

If you're black and you praise Donald Trump, he will invite you to the White House and let you go off on an incoherent rant.

 

Or maybe he'll let you be his totally ineffective HUD secretary. 

 

If you're an angry white person at a Trump rally, he will give you just enough racist subtext to get a big roar of approval. 

 

If you're the world's most unstable dictator, and you write a letter effusively praising Donald Trump, he will let you play him like a fiddle. 

 

If you're the media and you point out that Donald Trump's claims of "unprecedented success" were in fact, precedented, clearly and repeatedly and he's blatantly lying, your entire profession gets relegated to "fake news" and conservative pseudo-professors on internet message boards can avoid the hard facts.

 

If you're a woman who's lived long enough to appreciate the progress towards basic human equality, and you look at the state of America in 2018 under Donald Trump, the only proper response is disheartened disbelief. If you're a man who likes women, you'll feel the same. The pricks you knew in high school are in control of the country. There's corroborating evidence everywhere you turn. 

 

If you're an American company and you just received a tax break to make America great again, you're plowing the money into robotics, lobbying, executive compensation, and off-shore accounts. Yeah, that's f#&%ing great, patriots. 

 

The tree huggers tried to warn you about global climate change. Then the scientists tried to warn you. Even the Pentagon named it the #1 threat to global security. But since you doubled-down on global warming as a liberal hoax, you have nothing left to do but f#&% everyone else on Earth.  

 

You deny the Democrat President a chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with 10 months left on a 2nd term presidency. The guy is Merrick Garland, who happened to be John Roberts friend and mentor, a non-controversial centrist. Then you look up and see Brett Kavanaugh now taking the swing vote, who showed his judiciousness by virtually promising partisan retribution against a vast left-wing conspiracy during tearful, jaw-grinding and bizarre prepared statements that conservatives would have roundly mocked in any other circumstance.

 

Sorry, man. I actually don't think the left is mad enough. 

[StPaulHusker]

27 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If you're black and you praise Donald Trump, he will invite you to the White House and let you go off on an incoherent rant.

 

Or maybe he'll let you be his totally ineffective HUD secretary. 

 

If you're an angry white person at a Trump rally, he will give you just enough racist subtext to get a big roar of approval. 

 

If you're the world's most unstable dictator, and you write a letter effusively praising Donald Trump, he will let you play him like a fiddle. 

 

If you're the media and you point out that Donald Trump's claims of "unprecedented success" were in fact, precedented, clearly and repeatedly and he's blatantly lying, your entire profession gets relegated to "fake news" and conservative pseudo-professors on internet message boards can avoid the hard facts.

 

If you're a woman who's lived long enough to appreciate the progress towards basic human equality, and you look at the state of America in 2018 under Donald Trump, the only proper response is disheartened disbelief. If you're a man who likes women, you'll feel the same. The pricks you knew in high school are in control of the country. There's corroborating evidence everywhere you turn. 

 

If you're an American company and you just received a tax break to make America great again, you're plowing the money into robotics, lobbying, executive compensation, and off-shore accounts. Yeah, that's f#&%ing great, patriots. 

 

The tree huggers tried to warn you about global climate change. Then the scientists tried to warn you. Even the Pentagon named it the #1 threat to global security. But since you doubled-down on global warming as a liberal hoax, you have nothing left to do but f#&% everyone else on Earth.  

 

You deny the Democrat President a chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy with 10 months left on a 2nd term presidency. The guy is Merrick Garland, who happened to be John Roberts friend and mentor, a non-controversial centrist. Then you look up and see Brett Kavanaugh now taking the swing vote, who showed his judiciousness by virtually promising partisan retribution against a vast left-wing conspiracy during tearful, jaw-grinding and bizarre prepared statements that conservatives would have roundly mocked in any other circumstance.

 

Sorry, man. I actually don't think the left is mad enough. 

[Moiraine]

Well said @Guy Chamberlin

 

 

One thing I see a lot on FB, even avoiding 90% of political discussions I see, is people talking about divisiveness and how stupid it would be to lose a friend over politics, etc.

 

But there are things worth losing friends over, and there are things worth getting pissed off over and protesting over, and a lot of those things are going on right now.

[StPaulHusker]

One day I'm going to meet Guy Chamberlain in real life and buy him all the beers.

[Guy Chamberlin]

s#!t. I totally forgot about the idiotic border wall and bullying 5 year old kids you ripped away from their mothers.

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

s#!t. I totally forgot about the idiotic border wall and bullying 5 year old kids you ripped away from their mothers.

 

 

I already said I'd buy all the beers