• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Left's demonization of Conservatives Becomes Dangerous.

lurchadams said:
trump! He painted a target on 4 sitting congresswomen's backs. Have you never watched a trump rally? The only thing missing are the nazi salutes - well most of the time they're missing.

Donald Trump praises CNN commentator fired for tweeting Nazi salute as 'a source of truth' | The Independent

View attachment 67260254

View attachment 67260255
Click to expand...
Nonsense - when it comes to incitemrnt Trump does hold a candle to Max Maxine Waters.


"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," Waters, who has called for President Donald Trump to be impeached, told supporters over the weekend.
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
Both parties need to state what are the extreme of the other. If Republicans think universal health care is extreme than they need to explain why it's extreme and give examples and how they feel about the topic. If Democrats think denying universal health care is extreme they need to do the same: define, explain, give examples and express their feelings. It's an uncomfortable exercise in honesty but the divisiveness is tearing us apart and making us act irrationally.

The fight over universal health insurance/care is the poster child for this irrational behavior. Everybody agrees that everybody needs medical services, yet it has turned into a major flash point with anger, lies, name calling, denials, accusations, bad behavior and irrational suggestions instead of a long, tedious, but non-partisan discussion of how to get it done.
Click to expand...

Or rather than this need to place everything at the federal level, each state can vote on how they want to do their healthcare. You know actually let people have more of a say in how much intrusion the government has in their lives. If California or any other blue state wants healthcare for all and a $300 minimum wage with free pony's for every child then more power to the them I wish them luck, just please don't include the rest of us with your policies when we do not wish for it. I simply don't understand why so many people wish to impose what they think is best for others on to people that simply want to not be bothered.
 
Bullseye said:
I've been arguing with myself all day on whether to post this or not. Obviously "post it" won.




I think this situation is growing more and more foreboding and dangerous. Beyond that I'm seeing far more tendencies on the right to push back rather than ignoring or retreating from the perpetrator. It's scary. I don't remember a time in decades where there was so much naked aggression between the sides.
I remember the time when both sides wanted basically the same things; they just had differing opinions on how to get there. I don't believe that still exists. The right and left have dramatically different images of what America will look like in the future.
Click to expand...

I see that as a long time struggle in this Nation between Corporations and people. Corporatism/fascism has the upper hand and has held it since before WWII. Perhaps before WWI. We have wars to feed the MIC Corporations, the Banking Corporations, the Energy Corporations, Wall Street, etc., and the same fascists in charge try to eliminate the people's programs i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc. That is what Conservatives/Republicans/Corporatists represent because it is their policy a/k/a Fascism. "The business of the USA is business." Running the Nation for business is the Republican mantra. It always returns to the analogy of "Which dog do you feed?" and we feed the War dog. We give the War Industry all the money the Nation can borrow and eventually you, me and Grandma will be paying that bill because "**** rolls downhill," and that is axiomatic.
/
 
I can see where the normal people pointing out the racism of the crazy side could be dangerous to racists. Yes indeed.
 
Nap said:
Or rather than this need to place everything at the federal level, each state can vote on how they want to do their healthcare. You know actually let people have more of a say in how much intrusion the government has in their lives. If California or any other blue state wants healthcare for all and a $300 minimum wage with free pony's for every child then more power to the them I wish them luck, just please don't include the rest of us with your policies when we do not wish for it. I simply don't understand why so many people wish to impose what they think is best for others on to people that simply want to not be bothered.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about health insurance Vermont did try to go it alone and provide universal health insurance to all Vermonters. They couldn't do it. They just did not have enough people to support it. States with large populations and good economies; California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts maybe Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, could swing universal health insurance, but the rest of the states could not. Either they don't have large enough population or they are simply too poor to support it.

We joined together as a nation in 1775 because the founders understood we are stronger united than we are as separate states. It's not good for one state to offer its citizens benefits that another state cannot afford.Having a Constitution means we work together not separately.

States cannot go it alone to decide social issues involving equality of opportunity and treatment. We are not going to go back to the 1950's with its segregation, sodomy laws, male domination in the professions and politics, prayer in schools, prohibition of contraceptives and legal separate and unequal education.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
I see that as a long time struggle in this Nation between Corporations and people. Corporatism/fascism has the upper hand and has held it since before WWII. Perhaps before WWI. We have wars to feed the MIC Corporations, the Banking Corporations, the Energy Corporations, Wall Street, etc., and the same fascists in charge try to eliminate the people's programs i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc. That is what Conservatives/Republicans/Corporatists represent because it is their policy a/k/a Fascism. "The business of the USA is business." Running the Nation for business is the Republican mantra. It always returns to the analogy of "Which dog do you feed?" and we feed the War dog. We give the War Industry all the money the Nation can borrow and eventually you, me and Grandma will be paying that bill because "**** rolls downhill," and that is axiomatic.
/
Click to expand...

Yeah, shame on those evil corporations for giving millions a way to support their families, creating new and useful products that make our lives better, and enabling us to acquire some measure of financial security.
 
lurchadams said:
Yeah. I think you meant, "doesn't hold a candle".
Click to expand...
Yeah I did.
lurchadams said:
Also, you should change your name to Bull _ _ _ _ (rhymes with "mitt").
Click to expand...
Gee Lurch, that's the first time in over ten years on internet forums anyone has ever come up with the idiocy. You're a creative genius! :no:
 
weaver2 said:
If you are talking about health insurance Vermont did try to go it alone and provide universal health insurance to all Vermonters. They couldn't do it. They just did not have enough people to support it. States with large populations and good economies; California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts maybe Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, could swing universal health insurance, but the rest of the states could not. Either they don't have large enough population or they are simply too poor to support it.

We joined together as a nation in 1775 because the founders understood we are stronger united than we are as separate states. It's not good for one state to offer its citizens benefits that another state cannot afford.Having a Constitution means we work together not separately.

States cannot go it alone to decide social issues involving equality of opportunity and treatment. We are not going to go back to the 1950's with its segregation, sodomy laws, male domination in the professions and politics, prayer in schools, prohibition of contraceptives and legal separate and unequal education.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you want to invoke the Constitution and the founders.
The powers not*delegated*to the UnitedStates*by the*Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the*States, are reserved to the*States respectively, or to the people
Click to expand...

The system was built so that most governing was done at the state level so as to bring the power down to the people.if you want change, prove it can work at the state level and lead by example so that the rest of the states can follow rather than forcing your values/opinions onto others. Continuing to believe that you can impose your will on others without consequence is incredibly naive, eventually there will be a breaking point of people getting tired of it.

Also, Vermont could afford it they just didn't want to raise taxes to do so because of the effect it would have on the economy. I would have a hard time believing that is possible for New Brunswick to have it but Vermont can't

Edit: The bolded is precisely why so many people hate "liberals" and the Democratic party is seen as toxic in so many states, if you don't follow their agenda and conform to their values you are racist and sexist scum.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Yeah, shame on those evil corporations for giving millions a way to support their families, creating new and useful products that make our lives better, and enabling us to acquire some measure of financial security.
Click to expand...

Shame on those Corporations for profitting from the deaths of 20 million people since WWII. "War is good business, and business is good." Conservative mantra.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
Shame on those Corporations for profitting from the deaths of 20 million people since WWII. "War is good business, and business is good." Conservative mantra.
/
Click to expand...
And saving the lives and improving the lives of millions more.
 
calamity said:
The left called out racist Nazis.

"Quick! Blame the Left."
Click to expand...

LOL! More like the left calls out racist Nazis.

Conservatives: “why are you demonizing us?”:lamo
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, shame on those evil corporations for giving millions a way to support their families, creating new and useful products that make our lives better, and enabling us to acquire some measure of financial security.
Click to expand...

Think if all that money and Human Resources was going into scientific research, medical research, space exploration, agriculture, education, etc....
 
ataraxia said:
Think if all that money and Human Resources was going into scientific research, medical research, space exploration, agriculture, education, etc....
Click to expand...
Some of it probably is. Just not down the government's toilet. Every one of those issues IS being worked by private enterprise.
 
Bullseye said:
Some of it probably is. Just not down the government's toilet. Every one of those issues IS being worked by private enterprise.
Click to expand...

It’s always been a joint venture. Before the commercial benefits are clear and the technology is mature, government spearheads the basic research. Once it’s more clear, only then do the relevant private industries come in and run with it.

That’s been true of just about every technological/scientific advance: everything from airplanes (the first place to fund Orville and Wilbur Wright was the US Army), to rockets, satellites, lasers, space exploration, nuclear weapons and energy, DNA and molecular biology, cancer research, solid state physics, superconductors, computers, the internet, etc...

Think about this: right now, one of the frontiers of science is particle physics. That’s where the Higgs boson (aka, “The God Particle”) was found in 2012. This seems to be the basis of how some particles have mass, and others, like light particles, don’t. It’s a huge insight scientifically, and in the future might have some very interesting technological/scientific implications. It was funded by the Dept of Energy in places like FermiLab in Illinois.

But what are those commercial applications? What industries would be interested in investing private R&D dollars into pursuing it? None. That’s because the science behind it has not really been well understood or worked out yet. Once it is, only then will the potential commercial applications become more clear, and private industries will jump in to develop it.

But right now, there is no interest. If government stops funding this, it will remain a black box.

This all or none thinking is really toxic. The world is not that simple.
 
Mach said:
Trump demonizes the squad of minority women Democratic congress women to dangerous levels. Republicans run propaganda that the left is demonizing Republicans to dangerous levels. You're part of their machine.
Click to expand...

Yes just like the demonization of Antifa is emboldening the violent extremists on the right.

In early April, Congress held its first hearing on white nationalism since the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. What was supposed to be an opportunity to address the rising threat of far-right extremism was, at certain points, upended by conservatives who insisted the real threat came from the left.

Candace Owens, then communications director for the right-wing student group Turning Point USA, wrote off white nationalism as a fearmongering “election strategy” on the part of Democrats. “If they were really concerned about white nationalism, they’d hold hearings on antifa,” she told the committee.

If you listened only to Owens’s testimony, you might never learn that the vast majority of extremist murders committed in 2018 were carried out by members of the far right who were steeped in white supremacist ideology. Or that the number of those murders is increasing. Or that many of the tech companies that control the online spaces where violent white supremacists become radicalized are failing to moderate hate content effectively, creating a fertile space for frustrated white men to become socialized into the world of hate.
Owens’s strategy has become standard fare on the right: diminishing the rise of white nationalist violence, diffusing blame onto “many sides” – as President Trump did after “Unite the Right” – or insisting, despite all evidence, that political violence is a left-wing problem. Trump downplayed the threat once again in the aftermath of the Christchurch, New Zealand, shooting that left 50 Muslim worshippers dead at the hands of a white supremacist. When a reporter asked the president whether he believed white nationalism was a rising global threat, he responded, “I don’t really.”
Click to expand...


Accusations in a Mirror: How the Radical Right Blames Rising Political Violence on the Left | Southern Poverty Law Center
 
Nap said:
I don't know if you want to invoke the Constitution and the founders.


The system was built so that most governing was done at the state level so as to bring the power down to the people.if you want change, prove it can work at the state level and lead by example so that the rest of the states can follow rather than forcing your values/opinions onto others. Continuing to believe that you can impose your will on others without consequence is incredibly naive, eventually there will be a breaking point of people getting tired of it.

Also, Vermont could afford it they just didn't want to raise taxes to do so because of the effect it would have on the economy. I would have a hard time believing that is possible for New Brunswick to have it but Vermont can't

Edit: The bolded is precisely why so many people hate "liberals" and the Democratic party is seen as toxic in so many states, if you don't follow their agenda and conform to their values you are racist and sexist scum.(We are not going to go back to the 1950's with its segregation, sodomy laws, male domination in the professions and politics, prayer in schools, prohibition of contraceptives and legal separate and unequal education.)
Click to expand...


Yes, I;ll invoke the Constitution: " promote the general welfare" Social Security and Medicare promoted the general welfare and I don't hear anyone complaining about it. Nobody complains about the CDC researching providing annual flu shots. The interState system is enjoyed by all with no complaints.

I honestly cannot understand the "imposing your will" position when the issue is universal affordable health insurance. How will individuals not benefit? How will states not benefit?

Vermont just isn't rich enough or populous enough to raise taxes. I believe they figured universal health care would bankrupt the state. New Brunswick is tied into and gets support from Canada's national health system which has the power to bargain with hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical corps and maybe even individual docs. I don't know exactly how their system works but there is a lot of leeway for each province to make decisions. When NB got behind in purchase of MRI equipment they paid for patients to get MRIs in Bangor until they negotiated with the national health service for equipment.

Nobody is sexist, racist scum for seeing the 1950s are a halcyon time. It was, for most of the population. I grew up then in small town USA and it was a wonderful time. Wages were high for Middle class families and they were stable. Fathers worked, mothers stayed home. Children played up and down the neighborhoods because there was a mother in every home. Little towns still had intact business districts. Drugs were not a problem. Education was almost free at state universities. There was no question about who ran the country and made the decisions. And people stayed in the places assigned to them.

Under the smooth surface there were many who did not enjoy the serenity and good times. Blacks were segregated and discriminated against. Homosexuals were subject to sodomy laws in almost every state. Women were discriminated against in many professions. (My sister was denied entrance into Cornell veterinary school simply because she was a woman. My other sister a medical doctor, was paid far less than her husband in exactly the same job and she had more responsibilities). We had required daily bible readings. My class had several Jewish kids who had to sit through morning readings from the New Testament. The sale of women's contraceptives was banned in many states and in those where they were legal they had to be prescribed by a doctor.

It wasn't a Democratic agenda that gave equal opportunity; women and minorities fought for their equality often without the help of any party. How does equality for everyone diminish life for conservatives? Nobody shoved anything down any conservatives throats. Unless you are saying that conservatives want to discriminate against blacks, women, homosexuals, and deny them jobs, education, marriage, and the freedom to stay in any motel or restaurant that serves the public. Is that what you are trying to say?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Or, about the corruption in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Just how many of Obama's cabinet had to resign in the face of corruption charges?

President Donald Trump has lost more of his Cabinet secretaries to corruption and other ethics concerns in his first term than any other president in U.S. history. The departure of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta over the past sweetheart deal he gave pedophile hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein is just the latest incident.

With Acosta’s announced exit, the total number of ethics-related Cabinet-level departures in the Trump administration has reached five. This is an ignominious record for a president who claimed he would “drain the swamp” in Washington and eliminate corruption. The president has instead run one of the most corrupt administrations in American history with lax oversight, nepotism, self-dealing and the appointment of dozens of lobbyists to oversee the industries they previously worked for.
Click to expand...

Trump's Record Of Ethically Tainted Cabinet Departures Rises With Acosta's Exit | HuffPost
 
Bullseye said:
Anyone who wants to discuss an issue rationally will get that from me, and I think IF you look at the post of mine you're talking about you'll see they weren't made in response to rational, respectful posts,
Click to expand...

OK let's start a discussion. I agree we all want the same things. Stability, decent job where our contribution is respected, a safe place to live, good health, good education for our kids, the ability to progress economically, and respect for our beliefs and who we are. I also agree that we think differently about how to achieve those things. We ought to be able to discuss one of those thing rationally, come to some understanding about how each other differs and think of compromises we could both make to reduce the divisiveness.
 
weaver2 said:
It's been 2+ years.
Click to expand...

And for 2 of those years, the Mueller investigation prevented any investigation into the corrupt Obama administration.

Why don't you know this?
 
weaver2 said:
OK let's start a discussion. I agree we all want the same things. Stability, decent job where our contribution is respected, a safe place to live, good health, good education for our kids, the ability to progress economically, and respect for our beliefs and who we are. I also agree that we think differently about how to achieve those things. We ought to be able to discuss one of those thing rationally, come to some understanding about how each other differs and think of compromises we could both make to reduce the divisiveness.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say, I'd be delighted if that was the way it were here on DP, or anywhere.


A few of us here on DP came from another forum where the atmosphere started out much more congenial. We got into some heated discussion but usually on topic. We even got to the point we met in person a few times a year and had a great time. For a while I actually spent some quality time with a lady I met at one of those get togethers. Then 2016 happened. Some members of that forum got more antagonistic ( all liberals, BTW) Even the lady I'd spent a lot of time with, a lib, suddenly started calling me names and accusing me of being some alt-right white supremacist. She went so far as to say she was sorry she'd ever socialized with us. BTW, I still maintain friends with a couple of the liberal poster on that forum and enjoy getting together with them over a pizza and beer every now and then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom