Trump Allies Target Journalists Over Coverage Deemed Hostile to White House

The "wars" began when public support for blacks and women reached levels to overturn established norms.

What a croc. Students in the 1960s opposed the Vietnam War and the police were used to repress the students. The "war" was waged against students.

Can you think of words overused by rightwingers? How about "traitor?" How about "hate America?"

Yeah, all of our problems can be set at the doorstep of the left.

 

You misunderstand 'Conservatism' and should read more on it if the subject interests you. It was the Democrats who wanted to maintain slavery and who established Jim Crow Laws. Democrats also treat Blacks as second class citizens today while "Conservatives", genuine Conservatives, want them treated equally. They want to conserve the rights based on the Constitution, which Democrats want to change. This is typical of the "Change" Leftists desire.

The Women's Rights movement was actually political, and we can still see that today. The professional women's movements did not, for example, praise Margaret Thatcher when she became Britain's first female PM. And of course we know how Black and White Conservative women have always been treated by Democrats.

What happened was that the 'Women's Movement' freed men from their traditional responsibilities. Now men can have all the sex they want and just tell the woman to have an abortion. Why should a man pay for a baby he doesn't want? It's his choice, according to Dave Chappel.And women are free to pursue their 'careers' which often involve lower paid positions. But they're liberated and everyone is happy, despite more women than ever, of a certain age, still looking for a 'soulmate'.

You should be looking at the Democrats for this terrible period and not 'Conservatives'. It was 'Conservatives', mostly religious, who sought to end slavery and support equal rights. You seem willing to be misled.

Right. And they were all Democrats.

Again you're using the term 'Conservative" when you should be using "Democrat". Try to understand the difference. It was the Republicans who fought against these laws and why the Republican Party, at the time true Conservatives, were formed.

What status quo are you referring to?

Yep, and they're still carrying that cop hating tradition on today in order to divide the country.

In point of fact it was White Liberals who first began calling the police 'pigs'.

And the babies being aborted are overwhelming Black. I'm not sure how this makes women more free.

I didn't know that. How and where did you get that information?

I'm not sure what good boat rocking ever did. Seems to me everyone can get along, treat each other with respect, and have as smooth a ride as possible.

 

Reminder: You are going to tell us WHO your source is for this remarkable claim.

HOW THE MEDIA TURNED A TRUMP APPOINTEE WHO MOCKED ALT-RIGHT ANTI-SEMITES INTO AN ANTI-SEMITE:

On August 12, conservative lawyer Leif Olson began work in the Trump administration’s Department of Labor. On September 3, he resigned, after Bloomberg Law published what seemed to be a shocking expose of his anti-Semitism. The only problem: the entire allegation was false. Simply put, poor reporting took Olson’s clear mockery of Breitbart and the alt-right and recast it as support.

Further:

I assume Olson’s resignation will be belatedly unaccepted as this becomes a conservative cause celebre online today. Maybe even you-know-who will weigh in with a tweet or two; a case of the media falsely accusing someone on his side as bigoted to serve its own agenda is political gold for him, a smoking gun that they’re cutthroat and can’t be trusted in their commentary on Trump himself. Coincidentally, this episode is playing out on the same day that Axios is reporting that allies of Trump are raising money to investigate the social-media (and personal?) histories of members of the media, a process that’s already resulted in embarrassment for the New York Times.

“Good luck finding anyone in conservative activism who has a problem with those tactics after episodes like this. Turnabout is fair play."

 

In the end, they were led by Democrats like Eugene McCarthy, RFK, and others. Liberals rejected the leadership of radicals, communists, etc.

Liberals don't like the authoritarian character of revolutionary socialists and won't make common cause with them for that reason.

Liberals don't blame every black problem on white racism. They put a lot of the blame on the economic system.

Trump deliberately stirs up racist attitudes in whites by the way he talks about minorities.

 

Non sequitur. Do you think what happened in WW1 or WW2 is relevant? Why?

I can see the exchange...

Conservative: "Well, at least they didn't throw them in jail like the Democrat Wilson did. Or throw those of certain nationalities into camps like the Democrat FDR did."

Liberal: "My bad. It's okay for you to call me a traitor because Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt attacked folks' civil liberties."

Yeah, sure.

As I said, they gave your version of it a bad name. I think they rejected blind obedience to the government that developed during WW2.

 

Just because you think something is true, it doesn't mean it is.

 

Just because you think something is false doesn't mean it is.

 

You Trumpites aren't serious about stopping illegal immigration. You have to have your damn wall even if something else might work better in places. You also aren't going after people hiring illegals, or setting up a system where we can hold employers to account.

 

How about providing evidence for your opinion?

 

I think you're speaking for yourself there, and, no doubt, for many liberals as individuals. But ... organizing a demonstration, campaigning against an unfair trial, organizing a union -- takes dedicated people. People who will spend 15 hours a day handing out leaflets, making phone calls, going door-to-door, giving money ... if you believe you're fighting for a whole new world, a complete transformation of the human condition -- which is what communists believe -- then you'll do those things. You become what Lenin called a 'professional revolutionist'. You naturally -- your organization -- ends up in the leadership of struggles. Liberals are fighting for small improvements in the existing system -- it's not something most of them get inspired to dedicate their whole lives to.

That's how communists led three city-wide general strikes in the US in 1934 -- the CPUSA led the San Francisco longshoremen's strike that established the ILWU, the American Workers Party led the rubber workers strike in Toledo Ohio, and the Communist League of America led the Teamsters' strike in Minneapolis. Together they only had a few thousand members, but they were fanatically dedicated. The CPUSA ended up leading 11 national unions, 1/3 of the CIO. They did the heavy lifting in organizing in support of Republican Spain against the fascists. They ended up in de facto control of Henr Wallace's Progressive Party in 1948. I could give many more examples.

The anti-war movement -- the actual demonstrations -- was led in large part by communists and sympathyzers. I'm not criticizing this. They did what liberals could not do. For an account by an insider, read Out Now! by Fred Halstead.

I'm not criticizing liberals for working with hard-core communists ... in a battle you can't always choose your allies. I'm just making the point that highly dedicated people, people who are trained to know how to write a leaflet, get it distributed, ... how to organize ... will come to the leadership of mass struggles. There are all kinds of techniques for allowing five or ten people to steer a mass meeting in the way they want it to go, and to end up in the leadership. You volunteer to do the unglamorous work. You are the 'best builders'. At mass meetings you seat yourselves in a 'diamond formation ' in the audience, and speak in support of each other so it looks like a lot of people support the line the Party is pushing at that moment. There are techniques for public speaking and holding the attention of an audience -- the voice-drop, the emotional appeal .at the end of your talk... you get trained to do these things.

You become a professional revolutionist. (Ask me how I know.) I wish conservatives had the same spirit, and could sustain the same sort of highly dedicated professional organization but we're like liberals in that respect, even worse because we're usually defending the status quo or if we are trying to change it, the changes are even less dramatic than those that liberals want. I mean, who's going to go to six meetings a week and spend all Saturday and Sunday going door to door in housing projects talking to people, in order to get lower taxes on businesses?

 

And the facts support your 'common sense and logic'. https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

 

It's simple cause and effect.

Let people know all they have to do is make it to a sanctuary city, then they flood across the border any way they can.

 

Those look just like the blue areas on other maps.

 

Even though I disagree with your premise that the investigations were unnecessary, I'll set that aside & simply respond that even if your theory held water (which I dispute), "two wrongs still don't make a right"

 

Yup, but, Trump's President!


NEW: President Trump to Divert $3.6 Billion From Pentagon For Border Wall Funding

 

Clearly the Press approves of these tactics, they are the ones that deployed them, so giddy up!

 

There may be more voters than there are people.

 

That the investigations were unnecessary is evidenced by the results, despite a loaded and one-sided investigative probe into 'Russian interference'.

Now it's important, very important in fact, to investigate how this scam came into being, that those responsible be held accountable, and that this sort of attempt at overturning an election result by an unfettered and powerful bureaucracy is never repeated. This goes way beyond party politics.

 

You don't see the similarities? You claim conservatives gave patriotism a bad name by calling war protesters unpatriotic and yet don't think Democrats give patriotism a bad name when they throw war protesters in jail? Unbelievable.

 

The charge of "lack of patriotism" is a very bad one because it implies that one should be automatically unthinkingly obedient to the state, which is the very opposite of the attitude that conservatives believe you should have towards the state.

It's fair enough to say, "My country, may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, my country" if we're talking about a border dispute with Canada.

Americans have had 250 years of steadily-improving liberal democracy and expanding liberty, so they just automatically assume without thinking that in any dispute with another country, the dispute will be between a liberal democracy (their country) and a country which is not one. And for a century, that has been the case. So even if, as in Iraq, you thought your country's government had made an unwise decision, you wanted your country to win, because its defeat would mean the defeat of a liberal democracy by undemocratic forces.

In other words, "patriotism" for Americans was not just an emotional attachment to their homeland, but implied "love and loyalty to liberal democracy and liberty". And in that sense, someone who believed in democracy and liberty would want the US to be victorious in its wars, even if they were not an American, and even if they were citizens of a country America was in conflict with.

So a German patriot would find himself torn between the natural esteem he held for his own country and his countrymen -- the essence of 'patriotism' -- and his 'higher patriotism', his love and esteem for liberal democracy. A tragic situation to be in.

The famous English patriot Enoch Powell once said that, even if England were ruled by Communists, he would automatically take her side in any war, no matter whom she was fighting. But then it was said of him that he was man who had been driven mad by the remorseless of his own logic. As in this case, in my opinion.

It's laughable to see people who yesterday were yawning and rolling their eyes at the National Anthem or the Pledge, suddenly became "patriots" shouting about "treason" when their attention is turned to the statues of Confederate soldiers. Their "patriotic"indignation is utterly false.

Conservatives who get angy when Americans criticize the actions of our government are genuine in their anger, but they should argue the case for or against those actions on their merits, and not try to invoke "patriotism" against their Leftist opponents.

 

We have lefties in our Congress that would toss the Constitution if given an opening.

 

Thats a very dishonest or uninformed statement

Trump voters have never demanded or wanted a 2,300 mile wall

Everyone knows a wall is not needed along most parts of the border as long as we have electronic monitoring

 

Not needed for any parts of it. Walls are for the paranoid, the cowardly or the unimaginative. Defeated by a simple ladder

 

@Fred C Dobbs and his fellow travelers are peddling the latest rightwing echo chamber BS about liberals' motives for supporting illegal immigrants. Apparently, it's beyond their comprehending the motive for most liberals is compassion.

 

Playing dumb?