Jump to content

The Dem's Next Presidential Candidate


Gregmal
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://nypost.com/2018/12/29/are-two-democratic-senators-waging-a-bigoted-campaign-against-catholics/

 

For all the whining about the constitution and Trump, Ms Harris, a complete pig, and many of her cronies, regularly do things like the above, without the widespread mainstream media blowback, or dozens of articles from Dougie, Liberty, LC, or Sanjeev....

 

I also found this to hilariously highlight the hypcrisy:

 

“Extremism” is a fast-moving target. As evidence of its extremism, the Democrats cite KOC’s support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman for the purposes of state law. The measure easily won a majority — a majority of California voters. That was in 2008, when young Sen. Barack Obama was running for president as a candidate opposed to same-sex marriage, as indeed was his major Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Somehow, a political view held by Barack Obama and the majority of California voters in 2008 has become the equivalent of al-Qaeda’s program 10 years later — if we are to take Sens. Harris and Hirono seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL give me a break. The reason nobody posts articles like this is because, on the scale of importance, this is a blip on the radar. It's barely above the IQ of whoever wrote your charming NY Post article, which includes gems such as:

 

One of the ironies here is that the Knights of Columbus was founded in part to counter such anti-Catholic bigotry, which traditionally has been associated with the Democratic Party and its military arm, the Ku Klux Klan

 

And you wonder why nobody posts this stuff  ;D ;D ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad as always you find the one stupid/tertiary debate point to excuse otherwise valid criticism. Harris is probably the biggest proponent of identity politics. She has made a career out of playing the race card, and will run for president on the same grounds. Being anti-Catholic has become very cool in the liberal circles.

 

Here's a sneak peak of the "power" she has with her playbook.

 

On June 7, 2017, Harris garnered media attention for her questioning of Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, over the role he played in the May 2017 firing of James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[144] The prosecutorial nature of her questioning caused Senator John McCain, an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee, and Senator Richard Burr, the committee chairman, to interrupt Harris and request that she be more respectful of the witness;[145] other Democrats on the committee pointed out that they had asked similarly tough questions, but had not been interrupted.[145] On June 13, Harris questioned Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, on the same topic;[146] Harris was again interrupted by McCain and Burr.[147] Sessions stated that Harris's mode of questioning "makes me nervous";[147] other Democratic members of the committee again pointed out that Harris was the only senator whose questioning was interrupted with an admonishment from the chairman.[147] Burr's singling out of Harris sparked suggestion in the news media that his behavior was sexist, with commentators arguing that Burr would not treat a male Senate colleague in a similar manner.[148] The website True Pundit suggested that treating Harris differently than other members of the Intelligence Committee is evidence of racism.[149] In addition, when CNN pundit Jason Miller described Harris as "hysterical", Kirsten Powers, who was taking part in the same on-air segment, told Miller that his use of the term to describe Harris was sexist, and that he would not describe male senators in the same manner.[150]

 

Question her? You're sexist, racist, etc.... la dee da da...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I am equally glad over your calls of hypocrisy over such "high impact" events: someone making a call for a resignation, and asking questions "hysterically". All the meanwhile glossing over our President's similar behavior. One might even characterize your behavior as...hypocritical  ::) ::)

 

No mention of our President's promise to "MAGA", while his administration auctions off federal wilderness, un-democratizes internet access, blows up the budget to enrich his crony friends, slashes the IRS budget so they can't be caught, shuts down the government because he can't build a wall, isolates our international allies, can't manage to hire a competent employee who won't either quit or be federally indicted, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

No hypocrisy there, right Greg!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC

 

Although I'm not sure that I would argue that the KKK was the military branch the Democratic Party, there is a long history between the KKK and the Democratic Party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC

 

Although I'm not sure that I would argue that the KKK was the military branch the Democratic Party, there is a long history between the KKK and the Democratic Party.

And as I am sure you are aware, that "Democratic Party" is akin to the modern day Republican Party

 

The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated,"

 

By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

Now which modern day party does this most closely resemble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point or the point of the article.  The KKK was against Blacks, Jews and Catholics.  The article Imho was pointing out that it's risky for a democrate to associate herself with an anti-catholic movement when the democrats have clear ties historically to the KKK.  I don't believe the article was well written  - but that's my interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's a hair to split, they'll do it. Anything to avoid reality. Is the article of scholar quality? Nope. Does it highlight exactly what Koomala & Co bring to the table? Yup. It's the same crap Trump does, just on the other side. Yet all the libs want to do is bitch and moan about Trump...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point or the point of the article.  The KKK was against Blacks, Jews and Catholics.  The article Imho was pointing out that it's risky for a democrate to associate herself with an anti-catholic movement when the democrats have clear ties historically to the KKK.  I don't believe the article was well written  - but that's my interpretation.

 

The change of the democratic/republican parties (basically, flipping into each other) around the 1900s is well documented.

 

Anyways, I only point out the poorly written and historical inaccuracy of the article as a metaphor for the insignificance of the article's content. You chose to harp on this point.

 

To the article's main point, I still have the same view: She called for a dude to resign from a subset of cases, which to my knowledge he has not. I think her logic is faulty, that is pretty obvious. But during this type of hearing it should be expected to interrogate appointees for potential judicial biases. So it's not out of the realm of ordinary. And at the end of the day...nothing happened. So relatively inconsequential.

 

Unless of course you so naive to think the Democratic Party is now adopting some anti-Catholic attitude? I doubt you are saying that, because if so, talk about jumping to conclusions...

 

It's the same crap Trump does, just on the other side. Yet all the libs want to do is bitch and moan about Trump...

Right? If only we could just shut up about the President of the entire country, and instead focus our attention on Senate comments made during the hearing for judicial appointment to the District Court of Nebraska!

 

I wish I could equate Trump's actions to comments during a Senate hearing. Believe me, I wish his policies and actions were that inconsequential!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that there is some friction between the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church. They have some big differences of opinion in a number of areas.

 

+1

I would also add that the Democratic Party has become much more secular in nature and more anti-religious in general.

See https://www.crisismagazine.com/2007/have-the-democrats-lost-their-faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, IDK, when the party facade claims to advocate against discrimination, demonizing people because of their religious affiliation or beliefs kind of makes you a fraudulent pos... If you are Russian, you are the enemy, if you are Catholic, you are an extremist, if you rally in support of white people, its racist, if you support Trump, you are deplorable... but we want to end discrimination, oppression, and make sure everyone is treated equally. Interesting how that works....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it seem like members of a "privileged group" want to be treated as individuals while members of "less privileged groups" also want to be treated as individuals but feel like the current system doesn't give them the chance to be treated that way?

 

So certain members of a "less privileged group" band together because there is strength in numbers to push for group rights until they are the same of a "privileged group". Ironically, the more success they have in getting more rights, the more outspoken they become because the lives of the members of the "less privileged group" are actually improving and they are gaining more privilege.

 

Meanwhile, the members of a "privileged group" have their backs up. They have always been treated as individuals. Always judged on their merits. Now, because they are a member of a group, they are being identified as having certain negative characteristics that don't describe them at all. They believe in individuals all being equal and everyone getting a fair shake. To them this now isn't fair.

 

Both sides are acting emotionally and logically based on their incentives. What seems to be lacking is empathy on both sides of the debate. Can each side honestly put themselves in the shoes of their counterpart? Can they be honest how they would act?

 

I never post stuff like this and I don't know if it makes any sense or if it's pretty common discourse. I haven't searched out the topic but have been thinking about it a lot lately.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi safetyinnumbers

 

I agree that the lack of  empathy and the lack of compassion are problems.  But identity politics is a political methodology of gaining and maintaining political power. Identity politics isn't meant to be a solution.  The lack of empathy and compassion in identity politics  is a design choice and not a design flaw to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi safetyinnumbers

 

I agree that the lack of  empathy and the lack of compassion are problems.  But identity politics is a political methodology of gaining and maintaining political power. Identity politics isn't meant to be a solution.  The lack of empathy and compassion in identity politics  is a design choice and not a design flaw to be fixed.

 

But isn't "gaining and maintaining political power" simply achieving more privilege and continuing to press on with getting more? I agree that it has to be checked because chaos can ensure when one group gets too much power. Do you think any "identity" has any disadvantages based on their "identity"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poiltical power isn't 'transitioned', it's taken. By whatever means possible.

But 'peaceful exchange' only prevails when the economic pie is growing. When it's static (or declining); for you to 'win', someone else has to 'lose', and you can't afford survivors. Strength prevails, you're 'president for life', and 'life' tends to be short.

 

Identity politics is just another tool, to sell a 'political brand', and the most ruthless wins.

The traditional defense is decapitation, via the targeting of operators for smearing and elimination; and the systematic 'take out' of advisors and strategists to collapse the 'brand'. In most places it's permanent removal, and by people who are very good at it (ie: Russia, China, and the removal of 'dissidents')

 

Wars occurr because a 'political solution' could not be reached; the objective is to eliminate your opponent, with other people doing the dying for you. The traditional 'other people' defense is the elimination and replacement of the opposing 'personalities' as soon as practical.

 

The US and Canada doesn't do public elimination, it's behind the door smearing instead.

So expect the nasty, the ruthless, and people 'fundraising' by selling tickets to 'cage matches'. Politics is a 'blood sport' and at about the same level as dog fighting.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_fighting

 

SD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why anyone would be surprised that there is some friction between the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church. They have some big differences of opinion in a number of areas.

 

+1

I would also add that the Democratic Party has become much more secular in nature and more anti-religious in general.

See https://www.crisismagazine.com/2007/have-the-democrats-lost-their-faith

 

I think it’s a good thing. Politics and Religion don’t mix well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...