After Years of Democrats Supporting Violence and Domestic Terrorism, Suddenly it is Trump’s Fault
- Status
S
StudentMI
Guest
I also must protest at the depiction of Occupy in the excerpt above. Occupy was more complicated than that, and much more decentralized. I remember vividly when it occurred and heard of libertarians taking part, average soccer mom types, Democrats, a few Republicans, anarchists, far leftists, etc. It wasn’t just communists.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
StudentMI . . .
There are many leftists within the Republican Party and I lament that fact here often.
True. But “Occupy” was always a big business evangelization effort disguised as opposing big business. (The “Occupy” people basically were for “punishing” big business, by more taxation against the taxpayers – they would not put it that way though).
There are many leftists within the Republican Party and I lament that fact here often.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Apologies for posting the Covid article. I clicked the wrong link. I meant to post this.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Funny that Trump and his advisors have settled on the strategy of calling Biden a socialist. What, I wonder, would they have called Bernie Sanders if he had been the Democratic nominee? But, as Trump confided to Billy Bush in the scandalous taped conversation about Trump’s attitudes toward women, “if you say something often enough, people will believe it.”
On the other hand, even though Biden is no socialist, people think he might not remain President for very long if elected, certainly not into a second term. Therefore, they are worried about the more leftist people in the Democratic party, especially Kamala Harrris, who may assume the presidency if Biden needs to resign.
Still, let’s not kid ourselves. Trump needs to project the image of socialist on Biden, as he needs the violence to continue and pin it on the Democrats, to bolster his chances of being re-elected, just as Republicans claim that the identity politics of the Democrats is their way of maintaining leadership and power. It is deja vu all over again, just as Nixon ran on a law-and-order platform in 1968, with the important exception that Nixon was not President at the time while Trump is.
On the other hand, even though Biden is no socialist, people think he might not remain President for very long if elected, certainly not into a second term. Therefore, they are worried about the more leftist people in the Democratic party, especially Kamala Harrris, who may assume the presidency if Biden needs to resign.
Still, let’s not kid ourselves. Trump needs to project the image of socialist on Biden, as he needs the violence to continue and pin it on the Democrats, to bolster his chances of being re-elected, just as Republicans claim that the identity politics of the Democrats is their way of maintaining leadership and power. It is deja vu all over again, just as Nixon ran on a law-and-order platform in 1968, with the important exception that Nixon was not President at the time while Trump is.
Last edited:
R
Roselle
Guest
Hi levels of violence have been going on for years, in particular in Democrat run cities. I wish more was done to put an end to it.
This is an older article by Thomas Sowell, but thought it highlighted well the difference in opinions when it comes to stopping violence in the big cities.
except:
…Differences of opinion on law enforcement are sharp and unmistakable — and have been for more than 50 years. However, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
Unfortunately, facts seem to play a remarkably small role in clashes over law enforcement policies. And that too has been true for more than 50 years.
In his memoirs, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that “all of us must assume a share of the responsibility” for rising crime rates in the 1960s because “for decades we have swept under the rug” the slum conditions that breed crime.
But the hard fact is that the murder rate in the country as a whole was going down during those very decades when social problems in the slums were supposedly being neglected.
Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years.
The same reversal in the country at large saw murder rates by 1974 more than twice as high as in 1960. This was after the murder rate had been cut in half from where it had been in the 1930s.
Ghetto riots, which erupted in the 1960s, were blamed on poverty and discrimination. But what were the facts?
Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country. But ghetto riots were not nearly as common in the South.
The most deadly ghetto riot of the 1960s occurred in Detroit, where 43 people were killed — 33 of whom were black. In Detroit at that time, black median family income was 95 percent of white median family income. The unemployment rate among blacks was 3.4 percent and black home ownership was higher in Detroit than in any other major city.
What was different about Detroit was that politicians put the police under orders that restricted their response to riots — and some rioters said “the fuzz is scared.” It was black victims who paid the highest price for letting rioters run amuck.
By contrast, Chicago’s 1960s mayor Richard Daley came on television to say that he had ordered his police to “shoot to kill” rioters who started fires. There was outrage among the politically correct across the country. But Chicago, with a larger population than Detroit, had no such death rate in riots.
In later years, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s aggressive police policies in high-crime neighborhoods cut the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been before…
This is an older article by Thomas Sowell, but thought it highlighted well the difference in opinions when it comes to stopping violence in the big cities.
except:
…Differences of opinion on law enforcement are sharp and unmistakable — and have been for more than 50 years. However, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
Unfortunately, facts seem to play a remarkably small role in clashes over law enforcement policies. And that too has been true for more than 50 years.
In his memoirs, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that “all of us must assume a share of the responsibility” for rising crime rates in the 1960s because “for decades we have swept under the rug” the slum conditions that breed crime.
But the hard fact is that the murder rate in the country as a whole was going down during those very decades when social problems in the slums were supposedly being neglected.
Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years.
The same reversal in the country at large saw murder rates by 1974 more than twice as high as in 1960. This was after the murder rate had been cut in half from where it had been in the 1930s.
Ghetto riots, which erupted in the 1960s, were blamed on poverty and discrimination. But what were the facts?
Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country. But ghetto riots were not nearly as common in the South.
The most deadly ghetto riot of the 1960s occurred in Detroit, where 43 people were killed — 33 of whom were black. In Detroit at that time, black median family income was 95 percent of white median family income. The unemployment rate among blacks was 3.4 percent and black home ownership was higher in Detroit than in any other major city.
What was different about Detroit was that politicians put the police under orders that restricted their response to riots — and some rioters said “the fuzz is scared.” It was black victims who paid the highest price for letting rioters run amuck.
By contrast, Chicago’s 1960s mayor Richard Daley came on television to say that he had ordered his police to “shoot to kill” rioters who started fires. There was outrage among the politically correct across the country. But Chicago, with a larger population than Detroit, had no such death rate in riots.
In later years, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s aggressive police policies in high-crime neighborhoods cut the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been before…
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I have a little more time and wanted to develop an idea that although I have developed on CAF before, it has been years (since the “Occupy Wall Street” movement was in fell swing) so here is that idea again . . . .
The “Occupy” people basically were for “punishing” big business, by more taxation against the taxpayers.
They would not put it that way though.
When big businesses (“big businesses”, esp. the banking industry but just look at which businesses fund political candidates and you can easily see more. Or you can go to old newspapers and read about the fines imposed against other businesses.
Google is getting more and more worthless and actually may hinder good research sometimes with their agenda and manipulation of searches to “evangelize” you to their religion of secular humanism) carry out illegal activities, the Government virtually never prosecutes the criminals involved.
So they give the company “fines” which because the companies are already so huge, just pass that “fine” off to the consumer (you didn’t think the bank executives went down the basements, open their personal bank vaults, and pay the “fines” out of their own funds did you?).
This punishing or “fining against businesses” results
in the costs being passed on to the consumer.
But it also results in more regulations “against” the company under the guise of not letting that happen again (but big business already violated laws and regulatory standards. What makes these guys think MORE regulation will help the next time around?).
This was exemplified quite nicely by how the leftists dealt with the banking industry back in 2008 and following.
This increases costs for businesses products which of course get passed on to the consumer (thus the hidden “tax”).
It also invariably results in an increased regulatory burden which actually HELPS the Big Corporate entities to a certain extent.
It helps them by eliminating smaller businesses (that do not have the means to deal with more already-burdensome regulations) and start-up businesses (businesses that could possibly compete soneday).
It rids them of “the pesky competition”. The smaller competition.
This results in enriching big business even more.
The more of a monopoly the big business has, the better this is for them!
The executives almost never have criminsl charges brought against them, and almost never go to jail.
Their company gets fined and as I said, the company just passes that cost on to you and I.
In other words, the TAXPAYER gets FINED.
It also has the effect of INCREASING the BIGGEST BUSINESS of them all . . . GOVERNMENT.
("We now “need” a whole new regulatory agency or a new dimension to an existing agency.
More Government bureaucracy, LARGER, larder Government,
appointment of political buddies to head up these agencies,
new annual certifications and re-certifications, etc. etc.
and the beast continues to get fed.
And we wonder why the middle class continues to dwindle when these Fabian socialist policies (like Biden’s philosophy) incrementally ratchet up?
The “Occupy” people basically were for “punishing” big business, by more taxation against the taxpayers.
They would not put it that way though.
When big businesses (“big businesses”, esp. the banking industry but just look at which businesses fund political candidates and you can easily see more. Or you can go to old newspapers and read about the fines imposed against other businesses.
Google is getting more and more worthless and actually may hinder good research sometimes with their agenda and manipulation of searches to “evangelize” you to their religion of secular humanism) carry out illegal activities, the Government virtually never prosecutes the criminals involved.
So they give the company “fines” which because the companies are already so huge, just pass that “fine” off to the consumer (you didn’t think the bank executives went down the basements, open their personal bank vaults, and pay the “fines” out of their own funds did you?).
This punishing or “fining against businesses” results
in the costs being passed on to the consumer.
But it also results in more regulations “against” the company under the guise of not letting that happen again (but big business already violated laws and regulatory standards. What makes these guys think MORE regulation will help the next time around?).
This was exemplified quite nicely by how the leftists dealt with the banking industry back in 2008 and following.
This increases costs for businesses products which of course get passed on to the consumer (thus the hidden “tax”).
It also invariably results in an increased regulatory burden which actually HELPS the Big Corporate entities to a certain extent.
It helps them by eliminating smaller businesses (that do not have the means to deal with more already-burdensome regulations) and start-up businesses (businesses that could possibly compete soneday).
It rids them of “the pesky competition”. The smaller competition.
This results in enriching big business even more.
The more of a monopoly the big business has, the better this is for them!
The executives almost never have criminsl charges brought against them, and almost never go to jail.
Their company gets fined and as I said, the company just passes that cost on to you and I.
In other words, the TAXPAYER gets FINED.
It also has the effect of INCREASING the BIGGEST BUSINESS of them all . . . GOVERNMENT.
("We now “need” a whole new regulatory agency or a new dimension to an existing agency.
More Government bureaucracy, LARGER, larder Government,
appointment of political buddies to head up these agencies,
new annual certifications and re-certifications, etc. etc.
and the beast continues to get fed.
And we wonder why the middle class continues to dwindle when these Fabian socialist policies (like Biden’s philosophy) incrementally ratchet up?
Last edited:
K
KMC
Guest
I went to check out the Occupy protest in our city. It was peaceful, and the people were will to talk about what they felt the way they did. Markedly different from what I see broadcast every night.Cathoholic:
I also must protest at the depiction of Occupy in the excerpt above. Occupy was more complicated than that, and much more decentralized. I remember vividly when it occurred and heard of libertarians taking part, average soccer mom types, Democrats, a few Republicans, anarchists, far leftists, etc. It wasn’t just communists.
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
Democratic Mayors oversee all these cities that have uncontrolled riots: Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, Minneapolis…
Yet, Democrats said nothing about the riots during the entire Democratic National Convention, except to refer to them as “peaceful”.
Yet, Democrats said nothing about the riots during the entire Democratic National Convention, except to refer to them as “peaceful”.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You would think the Democrats in charge of those places would stop it then, in order to frustrate Trump’s chances. But they don’t agree with you. They allow it because they want it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Interesting statement, and one I believe is true. It has seemed to me that over the years, the last two or three especially, that Google doesn’t really give you much if it’s a politically charged subject. It’s all one side of the argument. Little or no balance. It’s frustrating at all times, but especially when you really aren’t interested in the political aspect of something but just want factual information.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Do you really believe that Dems want their cities to be overrun with violence? I don’t think so. Rather, they realize that most of the protestors are peaceful while some are not. The criminals should be stopped, but how to do so without antagonizing the peaceful protestors is the issue in their minds. I don’t happen to agree with the leaders on this point. But neither do I agree with Trump’s solution of sending in the national guard to quell all the protestors without differentiating between those who are peaceful and those who are not. There has to be a better solution than that.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Really? If I can pick the guy throwing a molotov cocktail out of a video film, why can’t the cops? Truth is, the cops can most assuredly tell who’s creating the violence. They’re not allowed to do anything about it.
Arrest the ones who break windows and throw things at people and set fire to buildings, and what you will have left is the peaceful ones (if there are any).
- Status