Holy crap - this has to stop!

[Ray From Cleveland]

A comedian having the bad taste to use Trumps severed head as a skit rightfully provoked mass outrage and disgust.

But multiple instances of Obama effigies, of a lynched strung up negro man, something with powerful historic symbolism, did not.

This hate and and anger isn't new, it's been building. But as long as it gets justified nothing will change.

It used to be unthinkable to portray a president in these ways.

On the Trump play....I think it's only crime is bad timing. It was an attempt to portray the current political crisis as analogous to Julius Caesar. I have not seen it but that is the impression I get. A bit like Piss Christ, if you read what the artists INTENT was. I think this play is being used as a device now to stoke further outrage, and like the lefts demonstrations against Milo speaking at universities, the right has crashed, disrupted and protested productions.

I'm a fairly well-informed news junkie. In all honesty, I did not see any representations of petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama as having been lynched. Some far left publications did caricatures of the couple but nothing outrageous. Yes, I'm certain a Bing search will find many but they never hit the mainstream like the tramp Kathy Griffin. There was also no feature, award-winning movie about the assassination of George Bush.

I saw effigies of Obama hanging in a noose hit mainstream news because they were pretty awful. What Griffin did (and she's just a comedian) was also beyond the pale. I think the Obama effigies should have been condemned as strongly as what Griffin did. I don't see any difference there. I hate to think what Trump's young son thought when he saw that, or what Obama's young daughters though also. Pretty aweful stuff.

I see a difference. That preacher had stuff burning and hanging in his church yard virtually ever day. Ain't NOTHING that he didn't hang or burn. He burned Korans. He burned freakin' UNCLE SAM. He was obscure and meaningless. Griffin severed her 1st and LAST head. Possibly illegal. And then BLAMED the Trump family.

There's a long list now. From the burnt GOP campaign HQs to Madonna wanting to "blow up the WhiteHouse". I'm sorry, but making comparisons doesn't ever --- make it right.. ESPECIALLY -- if there is a MOVEMENT that condones this.

News item from Friday about 2 ladies becoming the "Leaders of the Resistance". You give it a NAME and LEADERSHIP -- and it's NOTHING like a psychotic preacher with pyromaniac tendencies...

I wasn't thinking about the nutty preacher - I was thinking about other effigies - there were many. I'm sorry but I don't think it was either obscure or meaningless at all especially in light of the other attacks on Obama and making comparisons makes a valid point - what's happening now happened before and was ignored, until it reached this level. Why was it ok when the right attacked Obama but not when the left attacked Trump? Seems to me it should all have been condemned at the beginning but it wasn't.

You think the first hundred days of Trump was bad? Wasn't any better for Obama: How Years Of The Right-Wing Media’s Obama Hatred Paved The Way For Trump (yes, it's Media Matters)

Here's a list you forget about:
Multiple attacks from media personalities, and even elected officials questioning Obama's birth and legitimacy.
Effigies of a black president hanging from a noose.
On Facebook, Trump’s Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed – Mother Jones
Pa. newspaper: Sorry we published letter calling for Obama's execution
Ted Nugent - a celebrity with at least as high a profile and media presence as Griffin repeatedly making references to killing Obama as well as derogatory statements.

You don't think property was destroyed or burned?
Conservatives forget history in discrediting Trump protesters

Obama’s election in 2008 was preceded and followed by violent attacks and property destruction targeted against minorities.

Kaylon Johnson, an African American campaign worker for Obama, was physically assaulted for wearing an Obama T-shirt in Louisiana following the 2008 election. The three white male attackers shouted “Fuck Obama!” and “****** president!” as they broke Johnson’s nose and fractured his eye-socket, requiring surgery.

More frequently, Obama’s presidency was marked by effigies of our first black president hanging from nooses across the country, for example in Kentucky, Washington State, and Maine, or being burned around the world. What Trump supporters fail to remember is that following Obama’s election, property was destroyed across the country, for example in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Carolina, and a predominately black church was torched in Massachusetts.​

How about video games killing Obama, or a carnival game - shoot Obama.
And lets not forget multiple assassination threats and shooting bullets at the White House.

It all leads up to what is happening now only then - the people pitching a fit over excessive vitriole justified it.

I'm having a little problem here with the story of the guy getting punched because he wore a tee shirt. From what I could find, there was only one person that got charged, not three, and he was a firefighter; a lieutenant no less. He denied all allegations, and the charge was not assault, but "Breach of Peace" whatever the F that is.

I can't seem to find the court hearing, sentencing or even if he was found guilty or not. He was suspended from the fire department, but I can't find if he lost his job or was reinstated.

Maybe you can help since it's your story.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.

As frustrating as it is to you and your ilk, the Electoral College perfectly serves its purpose. Were it not for the Electoral College, candidates would campaign in a dozen or so cities and the rest of the country would be slaves and cash cows to the citizens of those few wrecked cities.

Actually, replace "cities" with "states" and that's what it does already. The Wisconsins and Ohios get all the action, the Idahos and Massachusettses get the shaft. Both in terms of meeting the candidates and in terms of their vote. And nobody ever bothers with Alaska and Hawaìi --- they split 'em by 'gentlemen's agreement'.

I'm in Carolina (the real one, not the banana republic) so I actually had a vote. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington, had zippo. They could have voted with their states, could have voted against their states, or they could have stayed home. None of those "options" would have made a damn bit of difference to the end result.

That ain't a "vote". That's a farce. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "fuck it, what's the point?" Surely you can remember tales of totalitarian states that hold a fake "vote" where the glorious dictator gets an amazing 99% of the vote. Yeah we can relate.

It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.


Didn't think this through didja?

When that same state elects a governor, does it muster some kind of state electoral college to count up who won each county/parish/borough? Nope --- we do that by direct vote. All 57 states. What's the difference?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yet when the debates came along, Trump was the only one that represented our views. He was the only one that didn't pussy foot around. The others? They were talking "immigration reform." WTF did we ask for reform? We asked that immigration be stopped. We asked that Planned Parenthood be defunded. We asked the same of Commie Care, and all we got was excuses from the RNC.

The Republican voters sent a message to the RNC by nominating Trump. It's only our hope is that they are finally starting to listen. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Why should immigration be stopped? Why didn't they say the same thing when your forebears immigrated? Why should PP be defunded?

Why should Planned Parenthood be funded is the better question? Why should immigration be stopped? Because they are coming here taking our jobs. Because they are lowering the pay scale for Americans. Because Mexicans are turning our nation into a bilingual country. Because many here broke our laws. Because we have record amount of drug overdoses in this country (over 50,000 Americans in 2016) Because they are making money here and sending billions across the border.

Any other questions?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That ain't a "vote". That's bullshit. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "fuck it, what's the point?"

It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.

If our entire election was controlled by California, New York, Chicago, then wouldn't the rest of the country say the same thing? What's the point of voting?

 

[Pogo]

That ain't a "vote". That's bullshit. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "fuck it, what's the point?"

It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.

If our entire election was controlled by California, New York, Chicago, then wouldn't the rest of the country say the same thing? What's the point of voting?

There ain't no way to make that happen unless you only give votes to the cities.

Doesn't address the (heavily truncated) post, does it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't know about that. Depends on the Candidates. Der Trumpenmeister ain't a Repub. He Hijacked a party by force and bullying and I have NO fucking idea what he is. Folks say -- he's "populist"... WE can be "populist" too. Because the public and the media think Populist = being for the people and against the swamp....

I could make that "populist" case. But certainly, another ex governor or ex Senator who's fricking tired of being muzzled by the Party bosses could do it better. I truly think the right person could win it under an LParty banner. Wouldn't ever be a "libertarian ideologue" who wants to starts from 1st principles. But -- the party is mature enough now to actually understand that GOVERNING and fantasizing about IDEALS are two different things.

But yeah.. Having a bunch of Indies in Congress and the state houses is PROBABLY how you get folks to drop the I'm voting for only "winners" mistake. BEFORE this inevitable destruction happens..

True about depending on the candidates, but disagree Trump is an example. He didn't hijack the party; the Re publican party has been imploding for years. I remember several articles about the "Republican Civil War" and the "Republican soul searching" throughout the Bush 43 years. Now that war has reached it's endgame.

I think he did hijack it...they did NOT want him...emphatically...and his win for candidate was a sucker punch.

Agreed his nomination was a punch to the gut of the RNC but still disagreed about hijacking.

Hijacking means taking by force. Trump won by votes. If anything it was the majority of Republican members who hijacked control of the party away from the ruling elite. Too bad the Democrat voters couldn't do that to their party, eh?

For years Republican voters have been ignored by the RNC. When they didn't produce, they made excuses: We don't have the Congress, we don't have the Senate, we don't have the White House, but if we did, look out brother, because we will shove your agendas right up their ass!!!

Yet when the debates came along, Trump was the only one that represented our views. He was the only one that didn't pussy foot around. The others? They were talking "immigration reform." WTF did we ask for reform? We asked that immigration be stopped. We asked that Planned Parenthood be defunded. We asked the same of Commie Care, and all we got was excuses from the RNC.

The Republican voters sent a message to the RNC by nominating Trump. It's only our hope is that they are finally starting to listen. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

It's interesting because Democrats are saying the same thing about their party.

Yes they are, but the DNC made sure their concerns never allowed them to put in their candidate of choice.

I think that if Sanders did win, Trump would have had a tougher fight on his hands.

 

[Markle]

There are a half a dozen non-Muslim countries in Africa, a couple in central america and Venezuela in South America that are total basket cases. Why aren't they banned?

I've not noticed any terrorists being based in Venezuela. Would you kindly cite where Catholics, Protestants or Mormons have launched fatal terrorist attacks on other countries?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That ain't a "vote". That's bullshit. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "fuck it, what's the point?"

It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.

If our entire election was controlled by California, New York, Chicago, then wouldn't the rest of the country say the same thing? What's the point of voting?

There ain't no way to make that happen unless you only give votes to the cities.

Doesn't address the (heavily truncated) post, does it?

The cities have the highest population. Of course they would be able to control the entire election if we used the popular vote. The state of Idaho has a population of 1.6 million people. NYC has a population of over 7 million people. That means four states like Idaho couldn't even out vote one city in New York state. Add in the population of California which is nearly 40 million people, the combined population between one Democrat city and one Democrat state would be close to 50 million people. That's fair?

 

[Rustic]

These 21 Journalists Sold Out Their Profession and America for Hillary Clinton | TellMeNow

 

[flacaltenn]

True about depending on the candidates, but disagree Trump is an example. He didn't hijack the party; the Re publican party has been imploding for years. I remember several articles about the "Republican Civil War" and the "Republican soul searching" throughout the Bush 43 years. Now that war has reached it's endgame.

I think he did hijack it...they did NOT want him...emphatically...and his win for candidate was a sucker punch.

Agreed his nomination was a punch to the gut of the RNC but still disagreed about hijacking.

Hijacking means taking by force. Trump won by votes. If anything it was the majority of Republican members who hijacked control of the party away from the ruling elite. Too bad the Democrat voters couldn't do that to their party, eh?

For years Republican voters have been ignored by the RNC. When they didn't produce, they made excuses: We don't have the Congress, we don't have the Senate, we don't have the White House, but if we did, look out brother, because we will shove your agendas right up their ass!!!

Yet when the debates came along, Trump was the only one that represented our views. He was the only one that didn't pussy foot around. The others? They were talking "immigration reform." WTF did we ask for reform? We asked that immigration be stopped. We asked that Planned Parenthood be defunded. We asked the same of Commie Care, and all we got was excuses from the RNC.

The Republican voters sent a message to the RNC by nominating Trump. It's only our hope is that they are finally starting to listen. So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

It's interesting because Democrats are saying the same thing about their party.

Yes they are, but the DNC made sure their concerns never allowed them to put in their candidate of choice.

I think that if Sanders did win, Trump would have had a tougher fight on his hands.

Absolutely. Those Blue islands would have STILL been in their court. And Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania wouldn't have given that critical 1% to the Greens and another 1 or 2% "lefty vote" or so to the LParty. But MOST of all -- Sanders would have FORCED Trump to debate policy and forced errors. Clinton was just too easy to bully..

 

[Pogo]

That ain't a "vote". That's bullshit. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "fuck it, what's the point?"

It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.

If our entire election was controlled by California, New York, Chicago, then wouldn't the rest of the country say the same thing? What's the point of voting?

There ain't no way to make that happen unless you only give votes to the cities.

Doesn't address the (heavily truncated) post, does it?

The cities have the highest population. Of course they would be able to control the entire election if we used the popular vote. The state of Idaho has a population of 1.6 million people. NYC has a population of over 7 million people. That means four states like Idaho couldn't even out vote one city in New York state. Add in the population of California which is nearly 40 million people, the combined population between one Democrat city and one Democrat state would be close to 50 million people. That's fair?

Long as it's 'one person one vote', yup it's fair.

Should California's electoral vote be nullified simply on the basis that it has San Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego?

Are cities illegal?

You mention NYC with a "population of over seven million" Interestingly that's about the exact number of votes from New York -- the entire state -- in 2016. Over 2.8 million New Yorkers voted for the home team candy, yet Rump got zero electoral votes. That's fair??

Another angle is this ----- what do you suppose our national turnout rate would be if we had a system where every voter's vote actually counted? Think that might upset the apple cart of expectations? Think maybe a lot more New Yorker Rump voters would have turned out since their vote would actually mean something? Because in 2016 the WTA system made sure they didn't mean squat.

My state, and several others, counted up razor thin. Yet my state's electoral voters went and declared "wow it's amazing, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump. Never seen anything like it, it was unanimous".
That's fair?

I tell ya what, "we'll do it this way because this is the way we've always done it" just ain't a good reasoning and never has been. All that does is perpetuate the results you've always had.

 

[Markle]

I think he did hijack it...they did NOT want him...emphatically...and his win for candidate was a sucker punch.

The Republican elites, just as with the Democrat elites were outraged that anyone would have the audacity to upset their apple cart. President Donald Trump didn't just upset the apple cart, he blew it to kingdom come. Many of the elites are still bitter. They are appalled that they are not in control and I would not be surprised if they are part of the shameful leak problem.

The Democrats have a worse problem. They have no fresh faces, they have only their aging leadership. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and, last but least, Hillary Clinton. They have no policies only whining, obstructing and blaming. Nothing!

 

[Divine Wind]

Why should Planned Parenthood be funded is the better question?

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is by preventing pregnancies, a major mission of Planned Parenthood. Other missions include providing clinical breast examinations, cervical cancer screening, pregnancy testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, sex education and vasectomies. Only a third of PP funding is federal, and except in rare circumstances, that funding can't be used for abortion.

 

[Markle]

I tell ya what, "we'll do it this way because this is the way we've always done it" just ain't a good reasoning and never has been. All that does is perpetuate the results you've always had.

You're having a pipe dream if you even fantasize that the Electoral College system mandated by our Constitution will ever change.

Do you honestly believe that all the folks in the red counties are going to surrender their right to vote to those in the blue counties?

In addition, we desperately need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[Markle]

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is by preventing pregnancies, a major mission of Planned Parenthood. Other missions include providing clinical breast examinations, cervical cancer screening, pregnancy testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, sex education and vasectomies. Only a third of PP funding is federal, and except in rare circumstances, that funding can't be used for abortion.

The cash cow for Planned Parenthood is abortions. If Federal Funding is of so little importance, they wouldn't miss it, would they?

Money is fungible. Saying that money can't be used for abortions is pure nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

I tell ya what, "we'll do it this way because this is the way we've always done it" just ain't a good reasoning and never has been. All that does is perpetuate the results you've always had.

You're having a pipe dream if you even fantasize that the Electoral College system mandated by our Constitution will ever change.

Do you honestly believe that all the folks in the red counties are going to surrender their right to vote to those in the blue counties?

In addition, we desperately need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

I don't know what post you're failing to read but nobody suggested "surrendering" any votes. On the contrary I'm describing how those votes are already surrendered. And the point is not about the fundamental EC; it's about the WTA practice of it.

As far as that graphic suggesting "America is rejecting Liberal ideology" ----- considering Liberal ideology is what created this country and wrote its Constitution, I'm afraid you might be right.

And "in addition" --- no we don't. Bad enough we're restricted to a Duopoly pretending to be two different parties ... you want to just eliminate all parties but yours huh? Isn't that revealing.

 

[Divine Wind]

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is by preventing pregnancies, a major mission of Planned Parenthood. Other missions include providing clinical breast examinations, cervical cancer screening, pregnancy testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, sex education and vasectomies. Only a third of PP funding is federal, and except in rare circumstances, that funding can't be used for abortion.

The cash cow for Planned Parenthood is abortions. If Federal Funding is of so little importance, they wouldn't miss it, would they?

Money is fungible. Saying that money can't be used for abortions is pure nonsense.

Straw man argument. I didn't say Federal funding was unimportant, I said it was only a third of it's funding and that none of it could be used for abortions.

If you have some facts, please post them:
For Planned Parenthood abortion stats, ‘3 percent’ and ’94 percent’ are both misleading

 

[Pogo]

There are a half a dozen non-Muslim countries in Africa, a couple in central america and Venezuela in South America that are total basket cases. Why aren't they banned?

I've not noticed any terrorists being based in Venezuela. Would you kindly cite where Catholics, Protestants or Mormons have launched fatal terrorist attacks on other countries?

Ummmmmm...... the last time Manchester was bombed before the event in the last month it was the IRA. Ever heard of them?

The amazing thing is --when that was going on, nobody anywhere brought up "radical Catholic violence", nobody said "bomb the Vatican" and no George Bush or Jimmy Carter campaigned on "calling for a complete and total shutdown of Catholics" entering the USA.

Missed opportunities huh?

 

[Markle]

Why should immigration be stopped? Why didn't they say the same thing when your forebears immigrated? Why should PP be defunded?

Who said immigration should be stopped? Please try to be specific.

Why should Planned Parenthood be funded? They are an abortion mill, plain and simple. They can easily fund themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why should Planned Parenthood be funded is the better question?

The best way to reduce the number of abortions is by preventing pregnancies, a major mission of Planned Parenthood. Other missions include providing clinical breast examinations, cervical cancer screening, pregnancy testing, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, sex education and vasectomies. Only a third of PP funding is federal, and except in rare circumstances, that funding can't be used for abortion.

Years ago in our state, they pushed to have a lottery system. The claim was that proceeds would help fund our public schools. Okay, so we got the lottery and they paid into our school system. That's when our state government reduced state funding to the schools, so they didn't benefit at all.

When the federal government pays PP to fund other things than abortion, the money they get from other resources goes to abortions. There is no possible way for them to separate all money that comes in. The federal money they get simply offsets their private donations and fees that do go to abortion. If not for federal money, they would't be able to use private money for abortions. They would have to use that money to fund their other services.

It's simple money laundering is what it is. Indirectly, yes, our federal tax dollars are funding PP abortions.