liz Chaney canceled by the GOP

What would make dems a much stronger party is if they focused on cleaning their own house rather than obsessing over what reps are doing.

K: here, fixed it for you…

Kropotkin

you should read this again and ask yourself if this is really a valid thing to say or if you are deflecting because you don’t want to talk about the subject at hand.

All corporate dems did for over 4 years was obsess over Trump.
Even several months after he’s gone they’re still obsessing over him.
Trump, Trump, Trump, 24/7/365.
Clearly they’re in love with him.
And now they’re obsessing over Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene (admittedly she may be a bit batshit) and the expulsion of Liz Cheney (good riddance) too.
Corporate dems have nothing constructive to offer, no real positive message of their own, all they have is deflection, fear, hate and stagnation, the same failed policies they’ve had for decades.

K: and IQ45 was a and still is, an existential threat to both America and the
world…he is easily the most dangerous president we have ever had…
and we were right to focus on something that is so dangerous as to threaten
our way of life and the democratic system…and I have offered you many, many
constructive options… you just choose to ignore them… at your own peril…

what is great about conservatives is that they always, always accuse others of
doing what they themselves do… if a conservative is fixated on Homosexuals,
then I can guarantee that they are “guilty feeling homosexuals”…

if they accuse others of voting rights violations, then I can guarantee that they are
doing just that… voting rights violations…conservatives have all the insight
and imagination of a rock… they couldn’t come up with something new to save
their own lives… hence they always accuse others of doing what they themselves are
doing…a serious lack of imagination…

Kropotkin

The Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden regimes started multiple wars.

Trump started 0 wars, even tho he was pressured to by the deep state.

Who’s an existential threat?

Is that what dems are gonna run on from now on?

‘Dems; not an existential threat, unlike those reps’.

That’s setting the bar pretty low.

Maybe if dems had something to run on besides fear, regardless of whether it’s justified or not, they wouldn’t have to harp on about reps so much, but corporate dems and lib hawks can’t have that, cause they’d lose some of their power, and profits.

:laughing: :laughing: - the irony. :laughing:

Hope you’re not still holding your breath for tangible evidence of ‘Russian Collusion’.

I would hope they hold it more tightly.

Existential threat much?

[b]"Do Democrats really believe in open borders? It’s starting to look that way

Opinion: Republicans have long falsely claimed that Democrats believe in open borders. But lately, that’s starting to have the ring of truth.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/robertrobb/2019/07/17/democrats-believe-open-borders-which-immigration-laws-enforce/1745744001/

For years, Republicans have claimed that Democrats favor “open borders” when it comes to immigration. Democrats have protested that this is an inaccurate depiction of their position.

Historically, Democrats were on sound ground rejecting Republican hyperbole about their views. These days, however, “open borders” is starting to have the ring of truth about what Democrats favor.

While there has been a slight slowdown of late, the border has been overrun with immigrants from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras traveling with children. They turn themselves in to border patrol agents, saying they are seeking asylum.

The courts have established an inescapable box regarding what the U.S. can do with such immigrants. The courts have held that children can be held for no more than 20 days. And that families cannot be separated.

Show up with a child, get a pass

So, after a brief detention, they are released into the country with a court appearance scheduled for some distant time in future. The word has gotten out: Show up at the U.S. border with a child, claim asylum and you will be admitted into the country.

But people fleeing conditions in these Central American countries aren’t legally eligible for asylum. That requires a fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Fleeing because of a fear of violence, irrespective of how valid, or due to a lack of economic opportunity, doesn’t qualify for refugee status, unless it is because of one of the enumerated group identities.

That’s not what’s happening in these countries. They are violent and lack economic opportunity. But people aren’t singled out for the misery because of their group identity. The misery is a general condition for a substantial portion of the population.

Republicans want to change policy so that showing up at the border with a child and claiming asylum doesn’t automatically result in admission, in the belief that would staunch the flow overwhelming border resources.

Democratic position: Let them all in

What do Democrats want to do about this true crisis at the border?

The implication of their assorted positions and assertions is: Let them all in.

While decrying conditions in existing detention facilities, they oppose adding any detention beds or building new facilities. If existing conditions are intolerable, but no additional capacity is to be added, then the only other alternative is to let everyone who shows up at the border into the country.

The only concrete proposal Democrats have offered to staunch the flow of immigrants from these Central American countries is to restore and increase foreign aid to them. Democrats’ belief in the ameliorative powers of American foreign aid is, to borrow a Samuel Johnson phrase from an entirely different context, a triumph of hope over experience. In the meantime, the Democratic position seems to be: Let them all in.

Which immigration laws will they enforce?

Democrats denounced them. But if we aren’t going to deport those who have had their day in court and have been ordered out of the country, who are we going to deport? And without deportation, what are the consequences for violating American immigration laws?

If there are no consequences for violating American immigration laws, how is that different from having an open border? At this point, what immigration laws would Democrats be willing to enforce?

Democrats support amnesty for most of those currently in the country illegally. I agree with them. But should our immigration laws be ignored until Congress so acts?

In the past, in exchange for amnesty, Democrats have been willing to support tougher enforcement of immigration laws in the future. As well as changing legal immigration from an emphasis on family unification to merit admissions based upon education and skills. At this point, it is no longer clear that Democrats would be willing to make that bargain.

Lambasting Trump is not enough

For the most part, Democrats spend their days lambasting the Trump administration’s immigration policies. They should spend some time formulating an alternative.

Right now, their rhetoric sounds an awful lot like the advocacy of open borders".[/b]

Did Trump’s covid response constitute an existential threat?

California took a draconian approach to covid, Florida took a laissez-faire approach.

Insofar as they can be trusted, let’s look at the numbers, bearing in mind California has about double the population but Florida has a higher % of old people.

Other than that, the states are similar in many respects.

[b]California

Coronavirus Cases: 3,767,083

Deaths: 62,629

Recovered: 2,010,237[/b]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/

[b]Florida

Coronavirus Cases: 2,286,203

Deaths: 36,007

Recovered: 1,876,464[/b]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

And both California and Florida’s case and death rates have plummeted in the last few months.

Where is Florida’s existential threat?

Where is laissez-faire Belarus and Sweden’s?

Where is the bubonic plague or Spanish flu comparable death toll they told us would happen if we didn’t lockdown?

The socialist authoritarian global regime is the only “Existential Threat” - and to every nation and all peasants.

war is a part of nature bruh

While I’m not against any and all socialism, FTMP I agree.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/05/08/department-of-social-justice-brings-federal-criminal-charges-against-derek-chauvin-and-three-other-cops/

[b]Welcome to the new progressive era.

Among other things, the definition of progress is erasing our national borders, abolishing the police, censoring the internet, dismantling the gender binary, teaching White children to hate themselves and their country in public schools and redefining equal justice as social justice. The way this works is that the media cherry picks which incidents to elevate to national attention to push the anti-police narrative, “journalists” convict police officers of “white supremacy” and systematic racism and the DOSJ follows up by launching investigations and bringing federal charges to punish the evil doers.

NPR:

“The Justice Department has filed federal criminal charges against Derek Chauvin, accusing the former police officer of using excessive force and violating the civil rights of George Floyd. Floyd died after Chauvin pressed on his neck for more than nine minutes on the pavement outside a convenience store last year in Minneapolis.

Three other former officers on the scene that day — Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao — have been charged federally in connection with Floyd’s death. Two of the men, Kueng and Thao, are accused of failing to intervene to stop Chauvin. All three face a charge of failing to provide medical care with “deliberate indifference” to Floyd’s suffering. They already are preparing for a state trial in August. …”

If Derek Chauvin had been found innocent by a jury, DOSJ’s plan was to arrest him on the spot on the basis of these federal charges, which were announced yesterday

National Review:

“At best, the Justice Department’s indictment of Derek Chauvin and the three other former Minneapolis cops involved in George Floyd’s killing nearly a year ago is overkill. At worst, it is an exercise in political zeal that could undermine the accountability being achieved by state prosecutions. In the meantime, it is abusive — ironically so given that the charges are brought under the guise of upholding civil rights, though it obviously has not dawned on the Civil Rights Division’s social-justice warriors that police have civil rights, too. …

The other three former cops charged by the Justice Department are Chauvin’s partner, Tou Thao, a 35-year-old veteran of the force, and a pair of rookies, Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng, 38 and 27 respectively, who were brand new to the job when they encountered Floyd last Memorial Day. The three are scheduled to be tried jointly in state court, starting August 23, on charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter. Furthermore, prosecutors are pushing to add a third-degree “depraved indifference” murder charge, just as they controversially did in Chauvin’s case. In less than two weeks (May 20), a state appellate court will hear arguments on whether that should be permitted. …”

Essentially, these Democratic-controlled power centers all act as one cabal now – the corporate media, the Department of Social Justice, the FBI, Big Tech, Big Business and Antifa and Black Lives Matter which are their state sponsored party militias – and they work to inflict “justice” on their enemies. This is why DOSJ looks the other way when Black Lives Matter riots or when mobs intimidate witnesses in their show trials. Those people have permission from their party to break the law.[/b]

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/05/11/new-york-times-efforts-to-weed-out-extremists-in-law-enforcement-meet-resistance/

[b]Woke progressives are full of demands these days:

In order to fight climate change, they need the power to tackle our meat obsession.
In order to fight gun violence, they need a national red flag law.
In order to fight off “domestic extremists,” they need the National Guard to occupy Washington.
In order to maintain and expand their grip on power, they need federal control of state elections and to pack the Senate with new states and the Supreme Court with new justices.
In order to feel safe after the “trauma” of the Capitol Siege, they need the power to impose a political litmus test on the military and to purge “extremists.”
In order to protect themselves from “trauma” and “misinformation,” they need the power to censor the internet to silence their domestic political opposition.
In order to fight “domestic extremism,” they need to vastly expand the surveillance state to get around the Constitution and a new domestic terrorism law.
In order to brainwash your children into hating themselves for being White, they need the power to push critical race theory in public schools.
In order to get their way in states where progressive activists are a tiny minority, they want to weaponize the power of multinational corporations to veto legislation passed by state legislatures.
In order to demographically replace Republican voters in the Sunbelt, they need open borders and to resettle refugees from war zones
In order to fight systematic racism, the Department of Social Justice is putting the police on trial and investigating local police departments
In order to fight white supremacy, some progressive activists want to dismantle the National Park System and return the National Parks to Native Americans
In order to dominate cable television, they have floated the possibility of having the cable companies deplatform their rivals because going after advertisers hasn’t worked
In order to abolish gender, they need to neuter Mr. Potato Head
In order to cleanse the public square of racism, they need to topple hundreds of public monuments and any monument will do
Is there anything else?

What else do woke progressive activists need from us to bring on their utopia? In addition to the power to determine who can hold a job in this country or fly on a plane or open a bank account or whether the president of the United States can use social media, they also need the power to determine who can be a police officer based on their political affiliations to weed out “extremists.”

New York Times:

“In the battle to stamp out extremism from the ranks of the police, lawmakers from California to Minnesota have proposed solutions they thought were straightforward.

Some laws would empower the police to do more robust background checks of recruits, letting them vet social media to make sure new officers were not members of hate groups. Other laws would make it easier for departments to fire officers with ties to extremists. …

Police officers, like everybody else, enjoy First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly, so the challenge for lawmakers is figuring out how to preserve those rights while barring extremists from infiltrating the ranks.

California is one of four states, including Oregon, Minnesota and Tennessee, along with Washington, D.C., that have proposed new laws to give law enforcement agencies more power to exclude officers with ties to extremism. …

There is little hard data on the number of American police officers with explicit ties to extremism, although senior officials have repeatedly characterized domestic extremism as an accelerating threat. “We have a growing fear of domestic violent extremism and domestic terrorism,” Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said during a hearing on Capitol Hill last week. …

For Ms. Bynum, getting a statement of principle against extremism set into law would be an important first step. “Essentially, you have to move the ball,” she said. …”

Unfortunately, there is a “thicket of obstacles” standing in the way of this.

The First Amendment protects the rights of everyone to free speech and free assembly. The Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizures. The Tenth Amendment protects the reserved rights of the states.[/b]

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/05/15/msnbc-former-fbi-director-on-domestic-extremists-and-connection-to-trump/

[b]What is going on with the libs?

Can someone do a welfare check? I’m concerned.

They love George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney now. They love John McCain and Mitt Romney now. They love neocons like Bill Kristol now. They love the Republican establishment and Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now. They love rich people and corporations now.

Nicolle Wallace has her own MSNBC show. The libs love the FBI now. They love the War on Terror so much now that they want to bring it home. They love censorship and the government invading your privacy and trampling on civil liberties now. They hate free speech, due process and non-violence now. They’re saying that they hate tolerance and colorblindness and love racial discrimination now. They hate science now and believe that men can become women on a whim or that it makes sense to wear a mask outdoors in high temperatures after being vaccinated. They hate Richard Dawkins and J.K. Rowling now. They hate Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who were the founders of the Democratic Party now. In the Land of Lincoln, the libs are saying that they also hate Abraham Lincoln now who freed the slaves. The transformation has been so swift in recent years that libs say they don’t even believe in equality now.

What happened to Stephen Colbert? He used to be funny like 15 years ago. Now he only has progressive dad jokes about “hate speech” and the government using facial recognition software to hunt down people who were inside the Capitol on January 6th. The libs love snitches, tattletales and hall monitors now. The libs love it and stand up and applaud when powerful institutions bully powerless people now. The libs never let the truth or the facts get in the way of pushing a good woke narrative now.[/b]

Gloominary:
[b]Woke progressives are full of demands these days:

In order to fight climate change, they need the power to tackle our meat obsession.
In order to fight gun violence, they need a national red flag law.
In order to fight off “domestic extremists,” they need the National Guard to occupy Washington.
In order to maintain and expand their grip on power, they need federal control of state elections and to pack the Senate with new states and the Supreme Court with new justices.
In order to feel safe after the “trauma” of the Capitol Siege, they need the power to impose a political litmus test on the military and to purge “extremists.”
In order to protect themselves from “trauma” and “misinformation,” they need the power to censor the internet to silence their domestic political opposition.
In order to fight “domestic extremism,” they need to vastly expand the surveillance state to get around the Constitution and a new domestic terrorism law.
In order to brainwash your children into hating themselves for being White, they need the power to push critical race theory in public schools.
In order to get their way in states where progressive activists are a tiny minority, they want to weaponize the power of multinational corporations to veto legislation passed by state legislatures.
In order to demographically replace Republican voters in the Sunbelt, they need open borders and to resettle refugees from war zones
In order to fight systematic racism, the Department of Social Justice is putting the police on trial and investigating local police departments
In order to fight white supremacy, some progressive activists want to dismantle the National Park System and return the National Parks to Native Americans
In order to dominate cable television, they have floated the possibility of having the cable companies deplatform their rivals because going after advertisers hasn’t worked
In order to abolish gender, they need to neuter Mr. Potato Head
In order to cleanse the public square of racism, they need to topple hundreds of public monuments and any monument will do
Is there anything else?

What else do woke progressive activists need from us to bring on their utopia? In addition to the power to determine who can hold a job in this country or fly on a plane or open a bank account or whether the president of the United States can use social media, they also need the power to determine who can be a police officer based on their political affiliations to weed out “extremists.”

They love George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney now. They love John McCain and Mitt Romney now. They love neocons like Bill Kristol now. They love the Republican establishment and Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce now. They love rich people and corporations now.

Nicolle Wallace has her own MSNBC show. The libs love the FBI now. They love the War on Terror so much now that they want to bring it home. They love censorship and the government invading your privacy and trampling on civil liberties now. They hate free speech, due process and non-violence now. They’re saying that they hate tolerance and colorblindness and love racial discrimination now. They hate science now and believe that men can become women on a whim or that it makes sense to wear a mask outdoors in high temperatures after being vaccinated. They hate Richard Dawkins and J.K. Rowling now. They hate Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who were the founders of the Democratic Party now. In the Land of Lincoln, the libs are saying that they also hate Abraham Lincoln now who freed the slaves. The transformation has been so swift in recent years that libs say they don’t even believe in equality now.

What happened to Stephen Colbert? He used to be funny like 15 years ago. Now he only has progressive dad jokes about “hate speech” and the government using facial recognition software to hunt down people who were inside the Capitol on January 6th. The libs love snitches, tattletales and hall monitors now. The libs love it and stand up and applaud when powerful institutions bully powerless people now. The libs never let the truth or the facts get in the way of pushing a good woke narrative now.[/b]
[/quote]
K: I request that this part be moved into the “creative writing” Forum…
since it has little to do with reality and everything to do with conspiracies…
Gloom has been apparently been inducted into the TFH party…
whose motto is,

“never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy”

Kropotkin

Did DJT’s policies on trade constitute an existential threat?

Funny Bernie was also a protectionist and Biden has adopted many of Trump’s policies on trade.

No allowing millions of good jobs, many of them union to be shipped overseas to authoritarian dictatorships like China who trade unfairly is the existential threat, to be dependent on them for essential goods, to allow them to buy our homes inflating prices, our land and critical resources.

Free trade is a Reaganite/Thatcherite/Mulroney idea, and it has been disastrous for America, Britain and Canada alike.

We need fair and balanced trade, not free on the one hand, nor isolationism on the other.

K: and missing the point as to WHO shipped those jobs overseas? it certainly wasn’t the
unions, and it wasn’t the government… so who is left? clearly, it was businesses
and CEO’s trying to amp up their bonus checks… and that is the bottom line…
managers managing to their bonus checks…

the second point is this, yes, IQ45 trade policies were a disaster for America…
and the part of being an existential threat is not the specific policy, but
the idea behind it… isolationism is the path to failure in this modern age…
and everything IQ45 did was to encourage and promote isolation… trade is not
a zero sum game…to truly have a benefit from trade, everyone must win or no one wins…

one can quibble about the specific policy, but the general idea is what matters…
and IQ45 trade policy, just as one example, was a disaster because it failed to see
that trade between countries is a plus for a country as long, as long, as every one wins…
the fact of the matter is one of the failed economic policies of the last 500 years
was Mercantilism…and IQ45 policy was a riffed off of Mercantilism…and here we
are rebuilding our trade policies…and the third thing is, I am not a bernie guy…

Kropotkin

This is a smear, Trump was all for win/win trade.

Sometimes you have to play hardball to avoid losing.

G: This is a smear, Trump was all for win/win trade…

K: simply not true…IQ45 believed in a zero sum game where there were winners
and there were losers…at no point in his presidency did he ever tried to
create a win/win with anybody, any trade partner or ally…

on March 1, 2018 IQ45 said this: “Trade wars are good, and easy to win”

that doesn’t sound like a “win/win” for everybody…

it was always America first and screw everybody else… and the fact is that
this policy of putting America first failed…in any group situation, we have to
work out the policies so that everyone wins…for example, in a family, if you try
to work out a policy where only member wins, that family is or will become dysfunctional
there is no reason to work with someone unless you can get something out of it…
and a zero sum game where there is only one winner discourages anyone else to play…
like in trading or in treaties…(sports is different) try to play a game where you
have no chance to win… not much fun and very few play very long…

Kropotkin