2122M wrote:

Again, You can justify and ignore and deflect all you want, but at the end of they day you will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the very worst that America has to offer when you show up to support this president.

casinterest wrote:

I am not the left. Just the middle. Just because you bow to the fascist and enable him rather than challenging the overt lies and racism doesn't make you an expert on facism. years from now when archives are read, you will have sided with an ignorant lying fascist, and I will have challenged it. I stand with intelligence, not cowardliness and ignorance. So go back and lean on your ancient article from January 2017 prior to him taking office, when we now have over a year and a half of Trump proving that he is well on the way to fascism.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Trump is a facist. He is only limited by the current constraints of the US Government.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... ccounter=1[i][size=85]

This sums up perfectly the way the left thinks.

I posted a well reasoned, detailed analysis that Trump is not a fascist based on interviews with scholars of fascism.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1 ... -democracy

You rely on a fairly vague opinion piece by one lecturer with absolutely no expertise in fascism.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/politics/our-staff ... ben-worthy

And yet you unilaterally declare that Trump is a fascist. If that is how you weigh evidence, you simply can never be believed due to your deep susceptibility to confirmation bias.

And even then... you point out that our systems will not actually let Trump effectuate fascism. A tacit admission that the threat is illusory.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the new left.

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

Again, You can justify and ignore and deflect all you want, but at the end of they day you will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the very worst that America has to offer when you show up to support this president.

This argument is meaningless. The same can be said of the left.

Your argument comes full circle to what I said several posts ago: Both parties have whackos.

Deal with it.

2122M wrote:

What large scale hate group is openly supporting a specific democratic candidate? What terrorist organization threw its full and vocal support behind Hillary? You would potentially have an answer with Louis Farrakhan and his support of Obama, but it should be noted that Obama quickly and vehemently rejected that support (unlike Trump's "good people on both sides") and Farrakhan has since withdrawn any support for Obama, as opposed to the Nazi's cozying up more and more with every decision Trump makes.

Bricktop wrote:

2122M wrote:

Again, You can justify and ignore and deflect all you want, but at the end of they day you will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the very worst that America has to offer when you show up to support this president.

And that's the problem. I reject your logic that Defending Trump = Defending Nazis = You're a Nazi too. That is the essence of the equivalency you're trying to make. You know you want to say it, so why not come right out and do it? Republicans are White Supremacists. Heck, you wouldn't even be in the first five million of your side to say it. You'll feel so much better getting it off your chest.

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

What large scale hate group is openly supporting a specific democratic candidate? What terrorist organization threw its full and vocal support behind Hillary? You would potentially have an answer with Louis Farrakhan and his support of Obama, but it should be noted that Obama quickly and vehemently rejected that support (unlike Trump's "good people on both sides") and Farrakhan has since withdrawn any support for Obama, as opposed to the Nazi's cozying up more and more with every decision Trump makes.

I could go down this rabbit hole, but I am not going to. The reason is quite simple. These people do not define the party platform. They just don't. So it is an entirely meaningless exercise.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I am not the left. Just the middle. Just because you bow to the fascist and enable him rather than challenging the overt lies and racism doesn't make you an expert on facism. years from now when archives are read, you will have sided with an ignorant lying fascist, and I will have challenged it. I stand with intelligence, not cowardliness and ignorance. So go back and lean on your ancient article from January 2017 prior to him taking office, when we now have over a year and a half of Trump proving that he is well on the way to fascism.

Repeatedly saying that Trump is a fascist does not actually make him a fascist.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1 ... -democracy

In all seriousness, if you have some actual facts to bring to the table, now would be the time to do so.

casinterest wrote:

Dictionary.
"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

casinterest wrote:

He does meet it, but let's continue. Since you like OLD ARTICLES, Here is one from 2016 that dovetails Trump's 14 points of connectivity with facism.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Dictionary.
"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

You: A one sentence dictionary definition.

Me: A deep dive by several experts on the field.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it.

Trump doesn't even meet the definition you provided, which makes it even more grand.

casinterest wrote:

"The first is a cult of tradition, a hearkening back to an earlier time when everything was better. Republicans have long leaned on this trope, often touting the administration of Pres. Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961 as particularly wonderful and ignoring the racism, class struggles and systemic sexism of the era."

https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

MAGA.

Let us continue as you see fit.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He does meet it, but let's continue. Since you like OLD ARTICLES, Here is one from 2016 that dovetails Trump's 14 points of connectivity with facism.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

A novelist as an expert in fascism?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

casinterest wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

He does meet it, but let's continue. Since you like OLD ARTICLES, Here is one from 2016 that dovetails Trump's 14 points of connectivity with facism.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

A novelist as an expert in fascism?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The first is a cult of tradition, a hearkening back to an earlier time when everything was better. Republicans have long leaned on this trope, often touting the administration of Pres. Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961 as particularly wonderful and ignoring the racism, class struggles and systemic sexism of the era."

https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

MAGA.

Let us continue as you see fit.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

"The first is a cult of tradition, a hearkening back to an earlier time when everything was better. Republicans have long leaned on this trope, often touting the administration of Pres. Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961 as particularly wonderful and ignoring the racism, class struggles and systemic sexism of the era."

https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a- ... checklist/

MAGA.

Let us continue as you see fit.

Well, I see you want to hold out Umberto Eco is the expert rather than, well, the experts I held out.

In any event, you are also describing a populist. Which is what Trump is.

casinterest wrote:

Trump says crime is on the rise. It isn’t.

casinterest wrote:

Trump says the inner cities are war zones.

casinterest wrote:

Trump claimed global warming was a Chinese hoax, then denied he’d said it. It’s not … and he did.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Trump says crime is on the rise. It isn’t.

Wrong. The violent crime rate, after a long period of decline, has been rising for a couple of years:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/v ... ease-.html

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Trump says the inner cities are war zones.

They are, although Trump appears to be starting to get that under control.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Trump claimed global warming was a Chinese hoax, then denied he’d said it. It’s not … and he did.

This has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is a fascist inasmuch as it doesn't further a fascist agenda.

VTKillarney wrote:

Let's continue . So many more points to make.


"During the second presidential debate, Trump promised to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against his rival Hillary Clinton for a crime the FBI has already reprimanded her for. He wants to jail his political opponent. That’s fascism.

"

2122M wrote:

If I can interject. Cas said crime, not necessarily violent crime.

2122M wrote:

These articles point to these two cities and having high crime rates compared to the rest of the country, but as your first link indicates, crime is historically low all over the country.

trpmb6 wrote:

To be fair that doesn't count the amount of afghanis or iraqis killed there. So it's a half truth statement.




Still, the fact that we can even make this type of comparison should be shameful to the residents of Chicago.

Also keep in mind, Afghanistan has a population of 34 million people. Chicago only has a population of 2.7 million. If you wanted to then account for population the graph only gets worse for Chicago. Afghanistan would be 104 killed per million people; Chicago would be 183 killed per million people. So that's no bueno.

Bricktop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We can agree that Russia interfered with our elections. So did our FBI. But your alleged collusion with the Trump Campaign, and the frequent naming of Donald himself is unproven. Get proof, we'll talk.

FBI? Really? Okay, Alex Jones.

Maybe you should ask Hillary about James Comey. C'mon man, read your talking points. You may not understand them but you can at least repeat them back.

Couldn't care less. It just speaks to how irredeemably hate-filled and intransigent you are. I don't do , so I will stop here.

trpmb6 wrote:

I didn't omit the source, its embedded in the url's of the images.

I guarantee you the 51 million visitors who go to chicago each year don't go to see the crime ridden portions of south city, in fact, if tourists were the ones being killed you would see a marked decline in tourism numbers. which we aren't.

Ahh look, a map showing that this year's shootings are all occurring in the south and west sides, away from tourism centers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html

Also the timing of these shootings suggests these aren't tourists either. Not sure how many tourists are out at 3am in the morning on the west side of chicago, but it sure is hell won't be me.

trpmb6 wrote:

Chicago is merely the label that is applied because it happens to be the general area being discussed. When people discuss crime in St. Louis they could be talking about St. Louis County, or St. Louis City, or in often times a completely different city East St. Louis which is on the other side of the river from St. Louis. But people muddle those up and depending on which you use the statistics are drastically different. Same is true for Chicago.

If you'd like we can refer to specific townships within Chicago's metropolitan area. But doing so only makes the crime numbers look worse.

You're grasping at straws here.

casinterest wrote:

"he fact is, most murders in Chicago are concentrated in certain high-crime neighborhoods where most outsiders never venture. Most Americans would not set foot in Afghanistan, unless they were sent there by the US military, the press, or international organizations. But millions of Americans visit Chicago every year. Indeed, in 2015 Chicago set a tourism milestone, with 51 million visitors – more than any other year on record. The Windy City is setting both tourism records and murder records at the same time. Go figure."

casinterest wrote:

I stated Crime rates are falling.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

"he fact is, most murders in Chicago are concentrated in certain high-crime neighborhoods where most outsiders never venture. Most Americans would not set foot in Afghanistan, unless they were sent there by the US military, the press, or international organizations. But millions of Americans visit Chicago every year. Indeed, in 2015 Chicago set a tourism milestone, with 51 million visitors – more than any other year on record. The Windy City is setting both tourism records and murder records at the same time. Go figure."

Translation: If it's not happening in the neighborhoods where well off white people congregate, it's not really a problem.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that. Trump didn't either. He spoke specifically of the harm that inner city violence is doing to African-Americans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G2G-Q_disQ

trpmb6 wrote:

Edit: i'm not going to discuss this further. We're way off topic. Move to the Trump general thread if you wish.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed without issue. Murkowski and Collins are on board.

trpmb6 wrote:

Did Trevor Noah do his show at 2am on the west side without a security detail? I doubt it.

VTKillarney wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Edit: i'm not going to discuss this further. We're way off topic. Move to the Trump general thread if you wish.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed without issue. Murkowski and Collins are on board.

Well said. I am tired of debating whether or not Chicago has a crime problem.

Let's keep it on topic.

NARAL wrote:

“We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights,” the influential pro-choice organization NARAL tweeted Tuesday.

seb146 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

FBI? Really? Okay, Alex Jones.

Maybe you should ask Hillary about James Comey. C'mon man, read your talking points. You may not understand them but you can at least repeat them back.

The FBI was not looking into a Hillary/Russia connection. The FBI were looking doing separate investigations independent of each other. The FBI keeps digging and digging farther and farther into Russian hacking of our elections and is finding a lot of connections between team MAGA and Russia. What is the connection between Hillary and Russia? Links, please.

seb146 wrote:

Couldn't care less. It just speaks to how irredeemably hate-filled and intransigent you are. I don't do , so I will stop here.

It actually speaks volumes that you feel the need to ride me over this. It shows how triggered you are. What about during the Obummer years?

Bricktop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Maybe you should ask Hillary about James Comey. C'mon man, read your talking points. You may not understand them but you can at least repeat them back.

The FBI was not looking into a Hillary/Russia connection. The FBI were looking doing separate investigations independent of each other. The FBI keeps digging and digging farther and farther into Russian hacking of our elections and is finding a lot of connections between team MAGA and Russia. What is the connection between Hillary and Russia? Links, please.

Reading comprehension isn't a biggie with you, eh? Or remembery? I will help you. Hillary said Comey cost her the election because of her email investigation thingy. She even wrote a book about it. Ring a bell? Or did you block it out as a just another pathetic excuse like the sane people did?

It actually speaks volumes that you feel the need to ride me over this. It shows how triggered you are. What about during the Obummer years?
Triggered? To see what that looks like get a mirror. Good luck, and please don't harm yourself.

seb146 wrote:

He closed the investigation, said why the investigation was closed, then opened the investigation to investigate emails that had been investigated. Right wing media went nuts because they thought for sure these old emails that had been investigated had something incriminating, which they did not. Talk about no remembery. Geez....

Hillary Clinton opened up on Wednesday about President Donald Trump's firing of James Comey, saying she would have won the election had it not been for the former FBI director's letter about his investigation of her private email account.

Meaning: when we did it, it was patriotic and just and freedom of speech. When you guys do it, it is hurtful and hateful and stop doing it because you hate freedom.

Speaks volumes on what you think is acceptable.....

Bricktop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He closed the investigation, said why the investigation was closed, then opened the investigation to investigate emails that had been investigated. Right wing media went nuts because they thought for sure these old emails that had been investigated had something incriminating, which they did not. Talk about no remembery. Geez....

No need to be all flustered with me. Tell Hillary!

Hillary Clinton opened up on Wednesday about President Donald Trump's firing of James Comey, saying she would have won the election had it not been for the former FBI director's letter about his investigation of her private email account.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/hillary-clinton-without-comey-letter-i-would-have-won.html

Give that one up already.

Bricktop wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Meaning: when we did it, it was patriotic and just and freedom of speech. When you guys do it, it is hurtful and hateful and stop doing it because you hate freedom.

Speaks volumes on what you think is acceptable.....

Oh the irony! Physician, heal thyself.

trpmb6 wrote:

This is a bombshell. The left will be all over this I'm sure.

Kavanaugh caught on camera just hours after nomination doing the unthinkable

A fellow volunteer confirmed that the judge signed up for the event some time ago and chose to keep the date, developments in his professional life notwithstanding.

Bricktop wrote:

And as an aside can you stop the misspelling of Trump? It's as pathetic and childish as all those dopes who could never mention Barack Obama without throwing in Hussein. It makes it very easy to dismiss your arguments as just regurgitated talking points.

seb146 wrote:

No. No, I will not stop doing what righties did to Obama for eight years. Righties sat back and did NOTHING and did not say "maybe we should treat him with respect" when Obama was disrespected over and over and over and over every hour of every day.

You are offended when I type tRump? tough. get over it.

seb146 wrote:

Let me rephrase this:

Your side can do it but when anyone else does THE EXACT SAME THING they are wrong and bad and need to be quiet. That sum it up? Only your side can be mean? Only your side can go low?

When you have one finger pointing out in blame, there are three other fingers pointing back....

Bricktop wrote:

I know it’s tough to keep all your crazy straight, but this started with

Bricktop wrote:

And as an aside can you stop the misspelling of Trump? It's as pathetic and childish as all those dopes who could never mention Barack Obama without throwing in Hussein. It makes it very easy to dismiss your arguments as just regurgitated talking points.

And your eloquent response was

seb146 wrote:

No. No, I will not stop doing what righties did to Obama for eight years. Righties sat back and did NOTHING and did not say "maybe we should treat him with respect" when Obama was disrespected over and over and over and over every hour of every day.

You are offended when I type tRump? tough. get over it.

But then we get this…

seb146 wrote:

Let me rephrase this:

Your side can do it but when anyone else does THE EXACT SAME THING they are wrong and bad and need to be quiet. That sum it up? Only your side can be mean? Only your side can go low?

When you have one finger pointing out in blame, there are three other fingers pointing back....

I naturally was very balanced and inclusive in my comment. But the reader will notice a sharp contrast between your posts. Turns out all you do is point the finger and blame. That’s your entire schtick. But who needs to be consistent and logical when you can throw tantrums and pout?

VTKillarney wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

This is a bombshell. The left will be all over this I'm sure.

Kavanaugh caught on camera just hours after nomination doing the unthinkable

I just looked at the original tweets that prompted this article.

The left just can't be thankful that someone is committed to serving the poor. Take a look at this response on twitter:
I'd love to give him credit, but as his nomination was secretly brokered in advance with Kennedy, it's possible he knew in advance and so we can't say for sure it's not for PR purposes.

This is why most presidents go out of their way to avoid even the *appearance* of corruption.


That tin foil hat must be a little tight.

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

This is a bombshell. The left will be all over this I'm sure.

Kavanaugh caught on camera just hours after nomination doing the unthinkable

I just looked at the original tweets that prompted this article.

The left just can't be thankful that someone is committed to serving the poor. Take a look at this response on twitter:
I'd love to give him credit, but as his nomination was secretly brokered in advance with Kennedy, it's possible he knew in advance and so we can't say for sure it's not for PR purposes.

This is why most presidents go out of their way to avoid even the *appearance* of corruption.


That tin foil hat must be a little tight.

By this line of thought, Jimmy Carter is the greatest president ever.

Just because one person makes one appointment for one soup kitchen does not mean he is a good or moral person. Maybe he did it because it is a charity he honestly believes in. Maybe he did it for a campaign contribution. Maybe he did it because his wife made him. Or his staffers. Does not make him a good person.

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

I just looked at the original tweets that prompted this article.

The left just can't be thankful that someone is committed to serving the poor. Take a look at this response on twitter:
I'd love to give him credit, but as his nomination was secretly brokered in advance with Kennedy, it's possible he knew in advance and so we can't say for sure it's not for PR purposes.

This is why most presidents go out of their way to avoid even the *appearance* of corruption.


That tin foil hat must be a little tight.

By this line of thought, Jimmy Carter is the greatest president ever.

Just because one person makes one appointment for one soup kitchen does not mean he is a good or moral person. Maybe he did it because it is a charity he honestly believes in. Maybe he did it for a campaign contribution. Maybe he did it because his wife made him. Or his staffers. Does not make him a good person.

Such machinations to be negative. What partisan hackery.

seb146 wrote:

Oh, I forgot: the right and Russians hate dissent and different opinions. My bad.