Trump Will Have Blood On His Hands!

sgtrock21

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-will-have-blood-on-his-hands/ar-BBLsP20?li=BBnb7Kz

Wow! Don't mess with the press! I support equal rights 100%. Threats by one angry individual justifies vilification and oppression of the evil white conservatives whose only crime is the ability to recognize BS when they see it. History of the Confederates must be erased to appease "African Americans" who for the most part don't care as their African born ancestors are many generations removed. Trump is divisive? Perhaps he learned it from Obama. Journalism should be reporting not assuming. Like most fake news the only purpose of this article is to fan the flames of fear. 

zorba

"The crowd at a Make America Great Again rally in Pennsylvania on Thursday, stoked by president Trump's statements, was particularly hostile to the press."

Uh, yea.

I read the linked article. Its complete drivel - it doesn't make any logical sense regardless of how you read it.

sgtrock21

zorba said:

"The crowd at a Make America Great Again rally in Pennsylvania on Thursday, stoked by president Trump's statements, was particularly hostile to the press."

Uh, yea.

I read the linked article. Its complete drivel - it doesn't make any logical sense regardless of how you read it.

Thank you. I was a little afraid I was being a bit harsh. The article is 100% What if/could happen drivel. Unfortunately the socialists will eat this BS up and continue to attack our POTUS. I may not agree with everything Trump says or does but he is still my legally elected POTUS like every one who has preceded him.

zorba

I'm still shaking my head - this article doesn't actually *say* anything. It fails miserably, even as a rant.

coolgunguy

When you start with the assumption that "X" (in this case, Trump supporters) is bad in some way, (racist, misogynist, anti immigration, anti Muslim, on and on and on) then you can safely disregard anything that "X" had to say... this (of course) would include ANYBODY who associates or sides with or in any way defends the "bad" thing.  

sgtrock21

zorba said:

I'm still shaking my head - this article doesn't actually *say* anything. It fails miserably, even as a rant.

I have to agree 100%. Total nonsense.

Jermanator

coolgunguy said:

When you start with the assumption that "X" (in this case, Trump supporters) is bad in some way, (racist, misogynist, anti immigration, anti Muslim, on and on and on) then you can safely disregard anything that "X" had to say... this (of course) would include ANYBODY who associates or sides with or in any way defends the "bad" thing.  

It is a good thing that nobody here does that with liberals.

zorba

Jermanator said:

It is a good thing that nobody here does that with liberals.

Unfortunately, its human nature.

There are certain liberal causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

There are certain conservative causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

Both "sides/parties" are 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong to my mind. The real problem is extremism - on all fronts. There are a lot of good ideas that are good in moderation, but taken to an extreme not so much.

sgtrock21

coolgunguy said:

When you start with the assumption that "X" (in this case, Trump supporters) is bad in some way, (racist, misogynist, anti immigration, anti Muslim, on and on and on) then you can safely disregard anything that "X" had to say... this (of course) would include ANYBODY who associates or sides with or in any way defends the "bad" thing.  

It is what we are "blessed" with. Democrat Progressive Socialist (Communists). Trump is Satan and can do no right! They are still butthurt by Hillary's unimaginable defeat. I would actually have voted for Satan instead of Hitlery!    

zorba

I had some Liberal acquaintances ask me why I wasn't voting for Hillary. I basically said I'd vote a Stalin/Hitler ticket before I'd vote for her - and that's pretty bad even having to think something like that, even in jest!

CaliFFL

I'd bet a C-note there was never a caller. The story was fabricated so Bret could write this "opinion piece". 

tennmike

Editorials are, by their very nature, not news, and certainly have no obligation to speak anything resembling the truth. They are opinion pieces plain and simple. Facts have very little to nothing to do with  an editorial piece; they are the machinations of the mind of someone with an axe to grind and hopefully sway the minds of the low information people that take such drivel as the truth.

Watch Morning Joe on MSNBC sometime and see how far gone they are. Joe Scarborough, Mika Brezezinski, and Willie Geist are way off the beaten path and into full blown Trump Derangement Syndrome. Mika is absolutely certain that Trump is mentally ill and needs to be hospitalized and impeached. They're like some strange socialist version of the three stooges.

earlyagain

Fake news, no collusion.

If we can put it to music we could all sing along.

Americans have been assaulting the POTUS with derogatory rhetoric since George Washington.

A free press makes a free country, malicious editorial and all.

knitepoet

But "Mad Max(ine)" can call on her supporters to harass/attack Trump's staff and supporters and not face ANY of the blame if they actually do it???

Naaaaaaa, there's no bias or double standards in play here

sgtrock21

CaliFFL said:

I'd bet a C-note there was never a caller. The story was fabricated so Bret could write this "opinion piece". 

The "caller" did seem a bit over the top and of course the New York Times had a disclaimer but they still published it!

sgtrock21

zorba said:

Jermanator said:

It is a good thing that nobody here does that with liberals.

Unfortunately, its human nature.

There are certain liberal causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

There are certain conservative causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

Both "sides/parties" are 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong to my mind. The real problem is extremism - on all fronts. There are a lot of good ideas that are good in moderation, but taken to an extreme not so much.

We are so much alike politically it's scary! Are there still more like us? My parents were rural Roosevelt Democrats married in 1927. They survived the great depression raising my 2 much older brothers by working hard and taking care of themselves. They would now be considered to be conservatives. They voted for Roosevelt and Truman. I would have voted for Truman but I was only 7 months old when he left office. They voted for Eisenhower twice and loved JFK even though he was Catholic and they were Protestant. They were the most non-discriminatory people I have ever known. People were people to them and were evaluated (not judged) individually regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. That is the way I was raised and that is the way I am.  

bisley

zorba said:

Jermanator said:

It is a good thing that nobody here does that with liberals.

Unfortunately, its human nature.

There are certain liberal causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

There are certain conservative causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

Both "sides/parties" are 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong to my mind. The real problem is extremism - on all fronts. There are a lot of good ideas that are good in moderation, but taken to an extreme not so much.

Obviously, moderation is the ideal...if both sides start from the same place. Moderation = calmness...if both sides begin with a statement of who they are, what they believe in, and what their goals are. Two opposing statesmen can begin a negotiation discussing which issues they agree on, progress through the areas they have minor disagreements on, and finish with the issues that they are viscerally in opposition to each other on. In this way, it is possible to establish a rapport, in which they can respectfully disagree, and find a compromise that both sides dislike equally. This is called statesmanship.

Statesmanship on one side and radicalism on the other side, however, is nothing but surrender to the side that screeches loudest. It is the group embodiment of the old maxim that when a sensible person argues with a fool, the mostly ignorant bystanders only see two fools arguing. Of course, both sides will disagree on which is the fool, so statesmanship cannot gain a single foothold.

The old definition of statesmanship stresses the idea of wisdom in dealing with the well-being of the whole, but the rules are re-written daily, now, so nobody can even agree on what the definitions of wisdom, well-being, or the whole are. With the radical elements in one party rapidly achieving dominance over the less radical elements, and the opposition being split between appeasers and willing combatants, the final determination rests with the 'sleepers' in the electorate, on both sides. One side will win the next election, and the other side will claim fraud, because they will never admit abject failure of their ideas...and it all begins again. In the end, the radicals will escalate to violence, and be squashed, but even that won't end it, because it will return, like any other cancer. This is called 'civilization,' and civilization is nothing but repeating cycles of destruction, punctuated by brief periods of social progress.

America is a social experiment that is attempting to prove that social progress can become the norm, with a constitution providing the template. Our grandchildren may not even still be around when the question is finally resolved, with the template either being confirmed or discarded. It was working well, as long as there was a frontier for the freedom-seekers to escape to. The frontier is being 'civilized,' now, and when it is gone, the experiment may be over, unless hopeful people can find another one.

Jermanator

I have been reading Carl Cannon lately. He comes across to me as a reasonable voice of moderation in his opinion pieces.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/04/we-the-enemies-of-the-people/

CaliFFL

Jermanator said:

I have been reading Carl Cannon lately. He comes across to me as a reasonable voice of moderation in his opinion pieces.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/04/we-the-enemies-of-the-people/

Care to post the text of the article? OCR will not let me view without a subscription.

earlyagain

Jermanator said:

I have been reading Carl Cannon lately. He comes across to me as a reasonable voice of moderation in his opinion pieces.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/04/we-the-enemies-of-the-people/

Ratcheting down the vitriol is surely sorely needed. There's honor in civil argument.

Jermanator

Odd. I got there through the RCP website. Try this here....

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

At about the center of the links for today will be "White House and Media Both Need to Tone it Down" by Carl Cannon. It should get you through the paywall. If that doesn't work, I will post the text, but I would rather not.

sgtrock21

Wambli Ska said:

CaliFFL said:

I'd bet a C-note there was never a caller. The story was fabricated so Bret could write this "opinion piece". 

Oh come on.  A journalist making crap up? That would never happen...

Actually first thing that occurred to me.  During the election I had 3 “friends” that basically took a BS story (the same one that was later proven a hoax) and personalized it saying it had happened to their own kids in school...

There appears to be a current epidemic of parents and others fabricating stories of rescuing children for the sole purpose of being pretend heroes. Also busybodies wasting Law Enforcement Officer's time by calling 911 for unattended children or even teenagers who are in no danger. 

CaliFFL

Jermanator said:

Odd. I got there through the RCP website. Try this here....

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

At about the center of the links for today will be "White House and Media Both Need to Tone it Down" by Carl Cannon. It should get you through the paywall. If that doesn't work, I will post the text, but I would rather not.

Thanks. The lap top says "you've used your 30 day limit". The phone let me in. :up:

Nomadac

This Writer for the NYT that wrote this article should look at the Racist Writer just hied by his paper.

New York Times by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s coverage of President Trump is negative.

The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards

https://gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/

Nomadac

How do you correct something you posted ie spelling?

zorba

"Moderation in all things".

Jermanator

Nomadac said:

How do you correct something you posted ie spelling?

Click the gear looking thing just to the left of your avatar within 4 hours of the initial post.

mitdr774

sgtrock21 said:

zorba said:

Jermanator said:

It is a good thing that nobody here does that with liberals.

Unfortunately, its human nature.

There are certain liberal causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

There are certain conservative causes I support - some wholeheartedly, some partially.

Both "sides/parties" are 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds wrong to my mind. The real problem is extremism - on all fronts. There are a lot of good ideas that are good in moderation, but taken to an extreme not so much.

We are so much alike politically it's scary! Are there still more like us? 

You would probably be surprised at the number of people that are really somewhat right in the middle.  However the parties have gotten so far to the extremes that we dont really have any middle ground options.  I laugh when I get the "approved candidate" list from my local.  Usually they will support the candidate that "will help us the most" even though that candidate will do or has done a lot hat has harmed us anyways.  Usually they go to the extreme left and ignore anyone moderate.

If politicians would just do their jobs and actually work together, we might see some real progress.  Sadly that doesnt happen much.   Too much pandering to constituent bases with promises that cant be fulfilled from both sides.  

tennmike

Speaking of unions and the candidates they support, my local IBEW union I had to join NEVER endorsed any Republican candidate, and the further left the Democratic candidate was, the better. The last few years I was working, the IBEW local president was also a Unit Operator on my group. That caused a LOT of friction between him and most of us that worked with him. He was an overbearing know it all. I was a little angel though, and never stirred the pot.........................but I DO know who put the big hammer and sickle sticker on the trunk lid of his silver Lincoln Continental!

Jermanator

Nomadac said:

This Writer for the NYT that wrote this article should look at the Racist Writer just hired by his paper.

New York Times by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

A tech writer, eh? I am sure her next cell phone review will be really awkward.