Just as a curiosity, as there were riots in multiple cities, how many of those cities had a Republican majority on the city council? And how many had a Democratic majority? Let’s talk real world numbers before we talk “denigrating Democrats”.
The thing is though with the Left’s take over of the university system that criticism works much better the other way as a criticism of their political usage of the word ‘Fascist’.
Again nationalism can be left wing and there are different forms of left wing politics.
Well, the debate has been going on for about 6 decades, if not more as to Mussolini; and it would appear there are plenty of historians who see him as having a blend of both Left and Right; but his nationalism was seen as Right. Not to be confused with “correct”.
Yes i agree.
I’m sorry you consider the movement of the sun false.
Oh, that’s right. You don’t want to talk about the issue, just make a narrow, yet false point.
Is our that no president has ever done what Trump did I’ve already refuted. Obama himself admired as much.
He was only anti-communist in the sense that he viewed them as competitors for power. He was “right wing” only in that he was just slightly to the right of communism.
We should have animosity toward people who wish to tear our republic down. I don’t need the president to tell me I should have animosity against people who present a lie that the founding principle of America is white supremacy. I already have it, but it is good for him to point out their despicable accusations.
Yes, it is different, because a State of the Union message is often used to promote political aims.LeafByNiggle:
The singular absolute worse case of this was Obamas State of the Union where he denigrated the 3rd branch of government.
Im sure that will be “different” in your eyes…
Here is what you (@hope) wrote that was (properly) characterized as an ad hominem:
The implication is that we cannot seriously address anything this source says negative about the President unless that source also has said something positive about the President. That is requiring some sort of purity test by the source, which is an attack on the source, not on the content of what was stated by that source.
What is more accurate is that you have not accepted any evidence of systemic racism in the US. That I can believe. But that has more to do with what you will accept than what actually qualifies as evidence.
Then please explain the cordial relationship between Reagan and Tip O’Neill, despite the fact that politically they remained bitter enemies? There was tribalism, but nothing that would make Reagan turn a 4th of July celebration into an attack on the Democrats.
What is your point behind these “curiosity” questions? Is it that Democrats cause riots? If so, you are confusing cause and effect. For whatever reason, large cities tend to have Democratic majorities. And for obvious reasons, large cites are also places where population density makes riots more likely. To provide evidence of your point you would have to list a number of cities of comparable size that have Republican majorities and no riots. Lacking that, you do not have a point, other than the fact the Democrats tend to be popular in large cities.
I think this is a slippery definition but given this definition i would say Hitler is on the Left like other far Left leaders. It is important to note that if we go to the extreme with regard to wanting equality it is necessary to have an extremely powerful and authoritarian state. Even then not only is absolute equality impossible but it always veers towards a rich ruling class having to confiscate more and more of other people’s wealth and often eliminate whole groups of people entirely.
www.history.com
Note to the readers: Here we see acknowledgement of a common problem in these debates - a problem for both liberals and conservatives, as both sides have been equally guilty of it. That is the problem of over-generalizing an issue. Why do we do it? I’m not sure, but I suspect it is because we are unable to defend the narrow point that was the subject of the thread. By casting the issue into the generic catch-all of “the evil other vs the good us” (replace “other” with either “liberal” or “conservative” and replace “us” with the converse, “conservative” or “liberal”) we enlarge the issue to the point that it cannot possibly be addressed in a comprehensive way in anything short of a multi-volume treatise, and even then it would be incomplete.
Well, there was Lyndon Johnson during the 1967 riots that were much worse than the ones we have seen this year. Then there was FDR in 1943 during the race riots in Detroit, Harlem, Beaumont Texas, Los Angeles, and Mobile. And there was that minor disturbance called the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 when Abe Lincoln was President. All of these Presidents endured these much worse circumstances, including attacks by the media and the opposing party, and none of them politicized something like a 4th of July celebration. Lincoln was the best. His second inaugural speech was a masterpiece of a carefully crafted address designed to unify the nation that was horribly divided - much more so than today. But today Trump supporters don’t value a carefully crafted address and they certainly don’t value unification, but prefer to tout Trumps spontaneous “speaking from the gut.” Well, you know what? The gut is not a very intelligent organ. I prefer Lincoln’s brain and calm consideration to Trump’s off-the-cuff bravado.
I just addressed this with my rant on over-generalization.
Maybe because these are internet posts with a 3200 character limitation, not a doctoral dissertation.
Exactly.
All the more reason to limit the topic to the topic of thread at hand.
Which is, Trump’s defense of America and her history and institutions at a time they are under attack.
History and institutions?
Which office did he hold?
Using the term “thugs,” referring to protesters or even rioters is a dog whistle for “black people.”Ender:
It’s interesting how it is only the Democrats that seem to hear these racist dog whistles.