L.A.'s mayoral race pits a black congresswoman endorsed by Obama against a billionaire developer. "I can’t tell you the number of people who tell me, 'I’m voting for him, but I'm not telling anyone.'"
Well, well, well ... some folks are just now figuring out what the great unwashed masses in Flyover Country knew many generations ago: you select your leaders based on ability - not race, not sex, not ideology. Doing otherwise - electing officials whose driving force is trying to engineer equality of outcome (what they call "equity") instead of providing equality of opportunity - leads down a long, winding rabbit hole where you really don't want to go.
But of course, if they had read a little history they would know that those dead white men who bolted this Nation together told us all this a right good while ago.
It’s hard to have sympathy for some of the people cited in this article. When someone says “tribal” I don’t think of the MAGA crowd, the Democrats with abortion as their Polaris--I think of hive-minded Hollywood. Most people who live there are in lockstep about any given issue, and I know a few people who live and work there. Their whole raison d’etre centers around their identity, their brand, so of course they’re going to vote for short-sighted flashy slogans that get a lot of coverage. Unpopularity is anathema to them. When one of the people said she was independent thinker I had to laugh. I hope in her case it is true and will continue to be. But for the majority of people who live there? The guy had to switch to Democrat at the last minute for people to even think about voting for him.
A serious fraction of the country doesn’t pay taxes, and many rely on those taxes for their income. There’s another fraction (I’m told a half) who pay taxes. They all can vote.
A good part of the taxpaying class sympathize sufficiently with the non-taxpaying class to vote with them, and that’s a huge hurdle.
As few political ads I’ve seen all say that one side wants to take away a woman’s right to choose AND to kill democracy. If feces in the street, rioting, and crime is what we call democracy, I’m in favor of taking it away.
I have spent my entire life in Los Angeles, and I was born in 1947. We live in our dream home in a very exclusive guard gated community. In 2020, watching the trashing of 2 Beverly Hills police cruisers by rioters in the heart of BH, I knew no one in the LA area was safe anymore and we bought a second home in another state as a plan B.
Many friends have left entirely. This dystopian spiral was set in motion a long time ago. LA's leadership are these A listers - they simply live in a play world and tell themselves lies to feel even more status. I invest zero in California ever since Larry Elder, a great gentleman, lost. I only invest in my plan B state.
Those interviewed for this article are wrong that say LA is reaching a breaking point, it is long past broken. I tell everyone to get out, and work to save your new, more sane state from a similar outcome.
I upgraded to paid just to reply to this post. If you have the means and feel you must leave California for another state, please *do not vote* there. Californians are like goddamn cancer.
All of my friends as I, are MAGA people. We ignore tweets and personality, we vote and advocate for sanity above "A listers' compassionate manners." Their compassion is killing residents and homeless alike.
Same here in Northern California. We will leave here as well hopefully soon. It isn't just LA that is broken it is the whole state. For all the complaining people in the article they may vote for this guy in LA but then they will vote for that current moron in the governors mansion just giving the rest of the state more of the same.
Too many of those who run for local office forget the reason they were elected: to govern. Not to wage culture wars left or right, but to fill potholes, balance budgets, and protect prey from predators. If that's too "boring," then go do something else for a living. I elected local and state politicians to run the day-to-day so I don't have to. Fuck the culture wars; fix my sidewalk.
L.A.'s progressives forgot that and should lose this election.
This ‘ability’ you mention, Jim - I applaud the theory. I really do.
But would this include the man elected President in 2016? A TV personality who in a prior life stiffed hundreds of contractors, was quite cavalier in paying taxes, went bankrupt multiple times, thought telling the truth was just an option, didn’t understand what the nuclear triad meant, didn’t understand the workings of government, and treated women.. .well, is it all that necessary to go on? And this was all known during the primaries?
I'm referring to his ability to govern. That's why we hired him, not to drink beer with. How do you like the New Guy? How's he governing? Are you better off than you were two years ago? How about your family? Your other relatives? People you know? How much is gas where you live? Eggs? Your kids enjoying stuffing dollar bills into grown men's g-strings at elementary school?
No, unless they cheat, come Tuesday there is going to be a bloodbath. A well-deserved one.
My reply to you was on the perceived ability of Trump to govern when he was running for office. He was never a politician, so all we had to go by was his character and history. I think Americans knew of his failures, accepted them and voted for him anyway. It was not necessarily his ability. He recognized grievance and that was enough.
And as for the higher prices, be happy you don’t live in any other G20 nation other than Canada - our inflation rate is lower than everyone else.
re: perceived ability. Understood. I looked at him vis à vis Hillary Ramrod Clinton, since that was the choice - the only choice. My wife asked me that very question you imply, "How can you vote for the Orange Man when you know absolutely nothing about his ability to govern, since he has never held public office?" My response? "True. But I have followed Hillary Clinton for more than twenty years, and one thing is for certain: I do NOT want her. Unlike the old saying, I am willing to take the chance on the devil I DON'T know because the devil I DO, I know very well."
Turned out to be the best gamble ever. Energy independence. $2 buck a gallon gasoline. First real wage increase for the middle class in over forty years. Lowest female unemployment in fifty years. Lowest minority unemployment in history. My retirement doubled in four years. North Korea, what Hussein referred to as the world's greatest threat, subdued. On and on and on and on. I just paid $150 to fill up the tank on my diesel pickup, and it looks likely that diesel will become unavailable shortly. Do you know the extent to which diesel is used in America, and who uses it? All your food is grown with diesel farm tractors. Every freight train that carries that food. Every truck that carries everything you need to survive. As for higher prices elsewhere, I take little solace that my fellow citizens will probably starve or freeze less often than those in other countries.
No, the 2020 Cheat has sewn the wind, and it is very likely we will all reap the result. That's what happens when you vote based on personality rather than the demonstrated ability to get things done. As you say, good luck with the election.
Well put. For me, the reasons for supporting Trump were obvious and totally rational. He gets real things done. Things that help all of us, regardless of race/religion/gender blah blah blah. I don’t want a culture warrior/lecturer-in-chief.
I have heard that argument from other Progressives - we only have the third highest rate of inflation, it could be worse. Why not say other idiot leaders like Biden are forcing policies like a “much needed transition away from fossil fuels” that are driving up prices on fuel and heating, food, etc. too. All I know is that crime is skyrocketing, 401k’s are tanking, credit card and housing interest rates have gone through the roof and the Biden Administration is doing everything they can do to ignore it.
This idea that we need to deep-six fossil fuels is, IMHO, nonsense. Look at a profile view of the earth sometime. The atmosphere is the thinnest sliver - half of it below 3-1/2 miles altitude on a planet that is 8,000 miles diameter. Of that, CO2 constitutes 400 ppm - four parts per ten-thousand. As an analogy, ten-thousand steps is about 5-1/2 miles for an adult man. Of that two-hour hike, CO2 would represent your first four steps. Lunacy. And thank God for the CO2 we have. 400 ppm is a geological near-low; at 150 ppm, plant die-off begins - plants that supply every molecule of oxygen that keeps animals - like, say, oh, humans - alive.
Now they're going after nitrogen - which in its elemental form makes up about 80% of the atmosphere already. Make no mistake, it's not in any way about "saving the planet" (except in the minds of the Useful Idiots like Greta Thunberg, King Charles, and Lurch Kerry, perhaps, and I'm far from certain about Kerry.). It's about power.
Churchill said that the Hun was either at your boots or at your throat. Herr Schwab with his Great Reset plan for global domination has done very little to disabuse me of that notion. (edited to correct my math)
It doesn’t much matter who wins anything anymore. Nothing will result.
You’re right - Dems probably need to get destroyed.
But then when all eyes are on a Republican House populated by intellectual stars such as Greene, Gaetz, Jordan, Boebert et al, with a harried McCarthy trying to corral the wayward conspiracy laden cats, well then we’ll let the cycle begin anew..
No one will cheat, Jim. The Congress will probably go GOP. Don’t worry.
But then they own it. Let’s see what they do with their power for two years. They did nothing when Trump was in charge. Do you think anything will change?
I understand and concur with you, although disagree on the cheating. I believe there will be as much fraud as can be got away with because of the understanding that if you get caught, nothing will be done to you.
Vote integrity has been my top priority since 2020. After that U.S. election, France immediately went to paper ballots; we should do that, too. Until there is an ironclad voting mechanism, enforced viciously, with a secure chain of custody for ballots and the severest of penalties for vote fraud, then the elections from here out will be filled with cries of, "Foul!" To my eye, top priority in that arena should be that the voting computers be outlawed; once your vote is scanned, you have absolutely no idea what happens. None.
My only hope is that, in the same way the progressives hijacked the Democrat party, the nationalists are able to crush the Republican cabal of losers now in charge of the party. It's wishful thinking, probably, but I still have hope. When you lose hope, it's all over.
Our Constitution stated the fundamental principle that the role of government is to protect us from foreign enemies and to ensure domestic tranquility. If it cannot or will not do that, it loses all claims to legitimacy.
It's 'will not,' deliberate. They side with the people who steal your car, break into your house, car jack your car, assault you on the street, break your ribs, clean out entire stores or live, defecate and pee in your parks. The Short Hills Mall is an armed camp. In New York, the current governor says increased crime is a conspiracy theory. That's outright contempt for law abiding citizens. In my town, it is unlawful to leave a car on the street overnight. No one does.
New York is not my circus . . .. But I am stunned at Hochul's "I don't know why that's so important to you[.]" crack. But she was being honest. Says it all, does it not?
Hochul's "I don't know why that's so important to you" comment is equivalent to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin calling the CHOP/CHAZE zone nothing more than the "Summer of Love". If New Yorkers give Hochul a pass then they'll get what's coming
“Public spaces are overrun with graffiti and needles and human feces. In the first year of the pandemic, an estimated 160,000 people left Los Angeles County”
And yet…” recent polls show that the race is a dead heat”.
Personally, I think the polls are once again skewed at least 2-3 points in the Dems favor. But… if I’m wrong, the end of civilization as we’ve known it is nigh.
Did you guys see the part of the governor's debate in Oklahoma where the Democrat Ms. Hofmeister put it to incumbent Gov. Stitt regarding crime in OK? https://finance.yahoo.com/video/democrat-candidate-points-crime-oklahoma-071531960.html worth a look. It was fact checked by the moderators https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/we-fact-checked-the-oklahoma-governors-debate-between-kevin-stitt-and-joy-hofmeister/ Crime is up everywhere -- blue states, red states, rural areas, cities. But, statistically, violent crime is higher per capita among red states. I thought this was a good point she made. Problem is, the video was only reported in left leaning publications. For example, Washington Examiner covered the debate, and not surprisingly, it did not even make it into their lengthy summary. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/five-takeaways-from-oklahoma-gubernatorial-debate Nothing to see here in the right leaning press. I bring this up because last month in OK 4 guys went for a bike ride, a week later their body parts are found floating in a river. Now, picture this in NYC -- 4 cyclists go missing in Central Park and their body parts found floating in the Hudson? It would be in every Fox news show for weeks, it would be mentioned by every GOP candidate around the country even if running for the town's dog catcher. The crime stuff, the FEAR, works. No doubt. But, as the stats prove, the GOP OK governor, the GOP OK city mayors, etc. have a lot to answer for regarding crime as well. I know a lot of "theys" and they would never " side with the people who steal your car, break into your house, car jack your car, assault you on the street, break your ribs, clean out entire stores or live, defecate and pee in your parks." C'mon people, we can do better in our discourse.
look at the city where crime is high and murder is high... The top ten crime ridden cities are run by democratic mayors. The democrats spin it by ignoring that fact, and calling it a red state.... They are sick and pathetic!
It was Governor Stitt who acted incredulous when comparing the state of New York or the state of California with the state of Oklahoma's crime rates. As for comparing cities, have to be careful with correlation vs. causation. Most large US cities have majority Democratic voters, so not surprising they have democratic mayors. Most studies that looked at the issue recognize the correlation -- Mayors of large cities are Democrats, therefore cities with high crime rates have Democratic mayors. Causation (crime) as to political affiliation of mayors, etc. has not been easy to pin down. Further on the OK example, the two largest cities in OK, Oklahoma City and Tulsa have GOP mayors. To the extent these cities contribute to the higher state crime rate, still cannot blame the Dems in OK (and I don't blame either party for crime, just saying the propaganda that the Dems want/support/cause/excuse crime, and the GOP will be somehow magically eliminate crime if elected (isn't that what they are implying?), is totally BS. I won't call anyone involved sick or pathetic though.... I don't like calling people names, too easy and not useful toward a meaningful discussion ....
Clearly, crime is a problem across the country. You've made a solid point there. Where Democrats have been particularly insidious is in the role of prosecutor and judge. Obviously, high profile examples like Chesa Boudin and George Gascón highlight a real problem where leniency (or call it compassion or whatever, but it is what it is) toward criminals has added stress to the system and emboldened people to commit crimes. A Governor or a Mayor can only do so much; a Police force that arrests someone who is let off by a progressive DA or judge on signature bond/no bail/parole might as well not have made the arrest in the first place. In Oklahoma, the DA in the largest county of the State happens to be a Democrat. That's where the power and the problem most centrally exists. Electing Republicans to other offices will not have a significant impact on crime statistics, but it may serve as a wake up call to Democrats that the country has had enough of that progressive bullshit.
Joe Biden was Clinton's lead attack dog in the Senate for the Crime bill. Now he's the face of failure when it comes to crime in America. Democrats don't have to serve the socialist whims of their Party fringe. Take back the legal system from the progressives and don't apologize for taking crime seriously and we'll see results. Tell Gen Z to sit down and shut the hell up.
Thank you for your post. While I'm not sure if it is accurate, and it probably is, I really appreciate your post because it helps prevent this substack from becoming an echo chamber. It is essential to evaluate the facts, and not simply repeat talking points.
When I looked into the huge reduction in crime in the U.S. over the decades after the '70s, I could not reach a conclusion about the cause of the decrease. The time when the decrease started did not correlate well with the timing of, for example, implementation of "broken windows" policing. I believe the book Freakenomics, or its sequel, discussed some other associations between when crime started to decrease and when various policies were enacted, but the book pointed only to association and not causation.
Thank you. I believe it was the Freakenomics team that associated legalized abortions with reduced crime, by way of example. It is a struggle to dismantle correlation and causation, especially when politically charged. Almost every major issue is super complicated, and when you try to boil it down to one political talking point or cause or a simplified sounding solution — (here, Democrats cause crime, or Democrats are in favor of crime, or Democrats support criminals over you — you law abiding citizen), and most people don’t have the time to give it a deep think, then the echo chamber swells, and off we go…. The only fix to crime is to eliminate the Democrats. The only solution to the immigration is to build the wall. And on and on….
Wait… the “fact checkers” found that red states had more crime than blue states? Let’s see if the “fact checkers” predict the election by the people that live in those states holds true… We’ll see next Tuesday… surely those living with more crime will vote the opposite way of their manipulators…we shall see…litmus test we will call it…😂
Four criminals left on bicycles to commit a crime because they were too down and out to own a car. They were caught by other criminals and were killed in a violent manner. Unfortunately, not an uncommon occurrence in that world. That’s why it received so little coverage. Why try to make it appear like they were a group of guys in spandex on their skinny tire road bikes logging in miles?
It’s that dishonesty that so many find off-putting. Don’t believe our eyes;
Y ou’ll school us in crime stats.
The below, random articles, about thieves breaking into the house next to Phil Murphy,3 car chases in leafy, rich Short Hills in one day, belie your spin.
My spin? I did say crime is up everywhere, and I will add anywhere, to your point. Statistics are helpful to analyze problems, starting with some basic facts, and to avoid trusting the noise that our eyes perceive. It is the GOP spin on crime that is often meant to scare rather than inform. And Governor Stitt got called out on it and had no defense for the data.
I'm trying to remember if there ever has been a president who truly understood that he represented all people. That part of his job was to unite the country rather than divide it. In essence, to ensure domestic tranquility. Not sure it has ever happened, at least in my lifetime.
Obama ramped up the divisiveness, Trump pushed it up even higher, and now we have a president who has gone to new heights (or lows, I guess) by saying those that do not adhere to his dictates are domestic terrorists.
Dear God, he is ensuring domestic chaos. I am not feeling good about what will happen after the coming elections - no matter who wins.
Rod: I agree that we’ve had a long string of divisive presidents. The Bushes are a good-hearted clan, but the younger’s tenure was divisive despite his good intentions. Jimmy Carter is a fine man, but was an inept president. JFK meant to be a uniter but was tainted by personal flaws and the shady circumstances of his election. Ike might be the most recent example of a president who tried to serve the entire country and did so successfully. Different times then, for sure ...
Anyway, I share your hope that this election will kick-start the job of turning around our ship of state.
Regarding Ike, when they both lived in Princeton Einstein took daily talks with the great Kurt Gödel (the only guy who could follow his thinking). Despite their close friendship Einstein was apoplectic that Gödel supported Eisenhower. I shook my head when I read that. The Left—including its highest saints—have demonized those with traditional American values for a long time.
Well, name one republican president that the left liked. In my life there were Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Old Bush, Younger Bush and Trump. No one there for a democrat to love. However, I would say that when republicans are in power, there are grown-ups in charge and democrats act like spoiled brats, albeit very intelligent and devious brats.
Who's ensuring domestic chaos? The most recent domestic terrorist is the man who, for political reasons, broke into Nancy Pelosi's house and attacked her husband with a hammer fracturing his skull established by the assailant's confession, videotape of breaking and entering, and police who witnessed the attack. Those who lie about these irrefutable facts claiming it was a homosexual encounter gone bad or the Pelosi's house window was broken from the inside (implying the assailant was trying to get out of the house) are creating divisiveness. When the former president and some leading Republicans (not Mike Pence) are joining in this alternate reality where irrefutable facts are ignored for political gain and hammer memes are posted on social media for giggles at the expense of an 82 year old man with a fractured skull (for instance Donald Trump Jr's twitter account) that's sociopathic and/or sadistic behavior. It's similar to lying about the results of the 2020 election and condoning an insurrection by extremists on Jan 6th. President Biden is correct to call out the lies and sociopathic behavior in an attempt to tamp down on domestic chaos created by those who care more about winning elections than domestic tranquility, truth or democracy. The President's motivation for speaking last night is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. While this article makes many good points about the effect of crime, addiction, untreated mental illness and homelessness on politics in LA, I cannot follow your reasoning with regard to national politics when it omits any reference to these recent alarming events and overlooks what they portend for the mid term election and beyond.
Your argument about the current President's motivation is only true if a you see is a snapshot of today. What you fail to take into account is that at this point it is both sides. Plus saying posting memes is is sociopathic and/or sadistic is the height of hyperbole. It is humor. Maybe in poor taste but humor nevertheless. You make a few other leaps as well but highly emotional people do. Which brings me to my real point here. In my estimation shocking and scandalous behavior and statements ("desperately clinging to guns and Bibles", "basket of deplorables", "get up in their faces", "if abortion is not safe, neither are you" and a host of others) are routinely overlooked and accepted as justified. If your argument is valid this lead to Congressman Scalia and others being shot, Senator Paul being assaulted, pregnancy centers are burned, and other crimes committed against those of a certain political persuasion. Had the current president truly been interested in quashing the chaos he would have said "[L]isten folks we have ALL got to tone down the rhetoric. You, me, and everybody else." But he didn't. He just continued the Gaslighting Tour. So I am asking you to please tone down yours. The snarkiness, name-calling, insults, and derogation played against us is causing a strengthening of resolve and hardening of the heart that does not bode well.
I respectfully disagree, Lynne, that memes and jokes about the attack on Paul Pelosi are only "tasteless humor." Criminal violence must be taken seriously or it will continue. Nobody should make fun of an elderly man being hammer-struck by a psychopath in his own home because his wife is speaker of the House. Many in the GOP did right by the Pelosis--Mitch McConnell chief among those condemning the attacker. I applaud them for standing up.
But Donald Trump Jr., Kari Lake, and others making fun of Paul and Nancy Pelosi while surgeons put his skull back together? And President Trump out-and-out lying about the glass broken during the home invasion? Despicable. It's not poor taste, it's politically psychopathic.
Culture wars are all fun and games until someone gets hurt, and Congressman Scalise and Mr. Pelosi were badly hurt. It's time for both sides to end the "joking" that harms and kills actual people.
I do not follow the Trumps so am unfamiliar with their posts or comments. I have moved on and wish others would as well. I did see a meme of a hammer in a holster captioned "California open carry". I scrolled on by. I have no idea what politically psychopathic means. That seems to be a mish-mash of two fields of study to me. But neither you, Scott, PXL or me are the humor police. There is much that passes for comedy these days that I find no humor in. I have 4 comedy channels on my Sirius subscription and rarely hear anything funny. Some of that stuff is incredibly racist and very angry. But I figure it is not my place to jusge as it involves experiences different than mine. I just change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to listen or participate in humor you find objectionable. I do think what those of you find objectionable is a perception that those on my side of the equation think the attack on Paul Pelosi was justified or deserved. I nor anyone I know think that. I do think that Democrats initiated this bullshit (Obama's desperately clinging to guns and Bibles; HRCs "basket of deplorables"; Maxine Waters "get up in their faces"; Jane's Revenge's "if abortion is not safe you are not safe" and more but you get my dtift) with dismissive emotionally charged language. My side has heard it for more than a dozen years and no longer labor under any illusion that it is not meant and is not unkind. That side keeps talking about "fear" but fail to understand we do not live in fear. We conquer our fear. What we are is pissed. We are tired of it and will not sit quietly anymore. We do not support violence. We do not support insurrection. We will not be silenced. Not by the FBI, not by Zuckerburg. Not by Twitter. There are millions of us. We vote.
Edited to note that criminal violence is taken seriously. The Scalise shooter, Rand assailant, Kavanaugh would-be assassin and Pelosi assailants are all being prosecuted. Criminal court is where criminal violence is taken seriously.
This is not a both sides issue. When Republican Congressman "Scalise" was shot by an unhinged leftist, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi publicly condemned the "despicable and cowardly attack" and expressed thoughts and prayers to him. No current high ranking Republican leader has condemned the attack on Paul Pelosi last week, rather some have furthered lies about it. Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor over property issues having nothing to do with politics so it is not analogous. Your reasoning is flawed and you've made several leaps as highly emotional people do. I suggest you tone down your gaslighting.
Actually, you're wrong. Mitch McConnell, "Horrified and disgusted by the reports that Paul Pelosi was assaulted in his and Speaker Pelosi's home last night. Grateful to hear that Paul is on track to make a full recovery and that law enforcement including our stellar Capitol Police are on the case.
Ted Cruz, "What happened to Paul Pelosi last night is horrific. Heidi & I are praying for him & Nancy & the entire Pelosi family. May God’s protection be upon them. We can have our political differences, but violence is always wrong & unacceptable.
Steve Scalisi, "Disgusted to hear about the horrific assault on Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul. Grateful for law enforcement’s actions to respond. Let’s be clear: Violence has no place in this country. I’m praying for Paul Pelosi’s full recovery.
I do volunteer work sometimes involving people who have been seriously injured. Everyone taking care of them does the best job they can. Almost all of them, out of earshot of the victim, makes some sort of morbid jokes from time to time as a way of dealing with the stress and psychological effects of this type of work.
The problem, however, is that people like Donald Trump Jr. are doing this in public trying to reach as many people as possible when this type of humor used to be confined to to your own small, trusted circle of people who went through the same experience as you.
Morbid jokes about a hammer attack, dead babies, Helen Keller, etc. are not an indicator of bad character. Sharing them with the entire world, though, is.
If I got this right, Lynne - in your retort you labelled PXL as 'highly emotional.' Where exactly does he display that? And how do you know he's highly emotional? He's only illustrating a point of view different than yours. Your last sentence was more 'emotional' than anything I could find in his post..
Well first off "retort" is itself emotionally charged as it is not being used in wittily incisive way. And I could have responded with a vitriolic retort but chose not to do so. But to actually answer your question (a rare thing on CS these days) he said someone who posted a meme was sociopathic and sadistic. That is very emotionally charged language without any basis in fact. Then he goes on to calling people names. Hurling insults, is an emotional response. Even if done by a troll as they are motivated by an emotional need for a reaction. All are welcome to dispute my position but it needs to be done with facts not insults and other vitriol, and it needs to be done civilly. I have a few vitriolic retorts but I am.going to refrain. Like a lot of other people on here I found myself in an echo chamber. I was not only cognizant of the fact, I was cognizant of the dangers thereof so I looked around . Here and elsewhere. I have even engaged in civil discourse with several who are political opposites. I appreciate their viewpoint. It helped tone down my rhetoric. If what we want is unity it is imperative to do so. And this nation needs unity.
Biden condemned the racist attack on Jesse Smollett too soon (later proven to be a premeditated fabrication). And Nicholas Sandmann was a racist (until it was PROVEN that he wasn't). And calling half of the voters semi-fascist (a good one for unity). Biden is screwing up everything, especially what he has time to think about. How many parents are domestic terrorists for voicing their outrage to school boards about sexually explicit library and course content? Biden's DOJ treats them like they are. The examples of Biden's divisiveness are many.
I don’t think anyone would condone the nutjob’s actions and pretty much any R would want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and would want the same if the V was a political nobody (not sure Dems would feel the same).
However, I understand some of the skepticism of the Rs based upon the timing of the event, and because the media by amd large have been cheerleaders for the Dems….
I am just waiting to read the police reports for myself before I make any judgments
"I understand some of the skepticism of the Rs based upon the timing of the event ..."
No. Way. If Democrats wanted to stage a "fake moon landing," the "attacker" would have made sure to crack Nancy's skull, not her husband's. Democrats did no such thing, just as Republicans did not hire a nut to shoot Congressman Scalise at the softball game to generate sympathy.
To suggest Democrats staged this is QAnon-level conspiracy thinking.
I understand your passion. I would only point out that it's happening on both "sides."
Question, were you just as outraged when Steve Scalise was shot or when Rand Paul was attacked? I hope so. What's truly troubling is that many on the left said they got what they deserved. I'm sure most would not agree, but still, the current trend is to paint all members of a particular group by the worst actions of one individual. Both sides do it. I remember when people used to agree to disagree and still remain supportive and caring friends. Not anymore.
I could be wrong, but you seem very angry. If the "red wave" happens in a few days, what's next? What's the next level for you? Rage? That's my closing point. Regardless of who "wins," I fear many in the country will reach that next level. There are a lot of angry people on both sides. And Biden has not helped that awful possibility in any way, shape, or form. He sees it, as you do, as "us vs. them." For me, there's just "us."
Well, Dr Freud, I guess the diagnosis is in. What could I be upset about? On the unity front, I am upset with the media, both print and video, for finding endless ways to make us different from each other. I am upset with being constantly made the villain - white, male, straight, successful, a boomer, an oppressor. I am upset with obsessive preoccupation with looking for victimhood - race victims, gender victims, sexual preference victims, relatively poor victims and millenials. The red wave cannot happen soon enough, to put reasonable people in a position to make some of Biden's damage, including his divisiveness right. I am also upset with enforced group think, in academe and in corporate America. How many of us have to lose friends over ideological bullshit? Or feel compelled to be quiet when outnumbered? These highly visible elites have invented diversity, finding differences where they are so subtle as to be almost imperceptible, and then they tell us to celebrate the differences as if they are a strength. Diversity has divided us. Let's find a way the celebrate our similarities.
Of course I was outraged when Steve Scalise was attacked. Rand Paul's incident had nothing to do with politics. Yes, you're wrong with your personalizing and projection. Try discussing the facts without attacking another person--about whom you know nothing-- when you disagree.
You may be right that a property dispute motivated Paul's attack, but as I'm sure you know, many on the left cheered that it happened.
As for attacking you, I don't see where I did. I shared my opinion that many people are angry, of which you seem to be one. I hope you are not. I would like to hear your state of mind if a "red wave" occurs.
Rand Paul’s attacker was described in Vanity Fair by Jim Bullington, a former city commission member who knows both men. He told the Post “that the two, who live next to each other in their gated community, often engaged in heated exchanges about politics; Boucher is a vocal anti-Trump socialist, according to Bullington”.
The only evidence that it wasn’t politically motivated is the attacker’s word. We can’t see into his mind so when he says that he was angry about the yard debris, you have too take his word for it.
Vote Dem/Socialist to keep the status quo. Californians must love having to tip toe around human feces in their city streets and that is why they vote for the idiots, I mean Democrats/Communists.
Rick Caruso is a Democrat, perhaps more due to how the CA primaries are structured than loyalty to the party. Hoping that if he wins that this will suggest to the Democratic party that public safety, education, and inflation are important issues and nudge them away from a Biden and Harris policies. Perhaps with an improved Democratic party, the Republican party will be forced to produce better candidates for elections. As a voter, how nice to have candidates on the ballots for their merits and qualifications rather than paying off party debts or celebrity status. What a dream to make a difficult choice rather than holding your nose when voting.
In theory but modern taxpayers are being seriously abused. The taxing entities, particularly the federal one, is like the plant in the Little Shop of Horrors - monster screaming "[F]eed me!!!!". The state and local entities in my jurisdictions still have some accountability but I am not sure that is true in all. The federal government has no accountability. Just look at the fraud in the Covid relief for an example. Green energy involves way too much pocket lining money.
Part of the abuse is the growing number of agencies and employees that are not elected and are not service but "advisory" with great power and little if any accountability.
No, it’s not a theory. It’s reality. Necessary public services like policing and garbage removal cannot be provided without taxation. The reaction to Covid was hysterical and unscientific. As is the reaction to very slight global warming.
You have missed my point. Of course public safety is the basis of taxation and good reason therefor at least as for things you have described. But it is also grossly exploited in the modern environment.
I disagree with everything you said except this is a democratic republic. To be glue to hold the republic together election integrity must exist. But you are entitled to your opinion as are everyone else who comments on CS. But you really need to tone down the rhetoric - the snarling name-calling, insults, and hyperbole are not persuasive.
Nobody is arguing about fair and free elections. That means, unless you have a good excuse, you show up at the polls on election day with a valid ID. It also means that information is not censored by the government, as our FBI did. And that in-kind campaign contributions are counted and comply with our election laws. Which means that where the media is materially helping one party only, as is the case, that massive influx of cash and resources is taken into account and regulated.
Again the insurrection. Seriously? A wild group of crazies dressed like it's Halloween, riot in the Capitol. OK, nobody liked that. What we also really don't like is the well described situation in major democrat-run cities. And what went on during the summer of (2020) love? Everything but the Jan 6 riot which lasted one afternoon, is to be enjoyed, embraced, forgotten. Vote for Democrats and get more of the same insane deterioration of America. How much more can our previously strong country take?
I said the exact same thing to a die hard progressive friend of mine. She agreed, and went right back to her progressive mantras. I started to be very interested in my phone after that
You wouldn't have a dialogue with the meth addled vagrant screaming insanely into the void. Why even bother with a "progressive?" Their idiocy and lunacy is not debatable any longer.
I would agree. My girlfriend has a really nice way of putting it. If you keep banging your head against the wall, sooner or later, you have to stop blaming the wall. That was our second ROUGH night. No longer. We discuss movies and TV and food from now on lol
I just couldn't resist, Bruce. Your antipathy towards Biden is easily matched by mine towards Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'd rather scream into the wind with a 'meth addled vagrant' (love that one, very good..), and get more sense out of it, than listen to the idiocy and conspiracy ravings of Greene. I can't wait until January, when poor McCarthy, now Speaker of the House, has to somehow give this complete imbecile a committee chair. Our national IQ will gone down a notch.
Of course then there's gun packing Boebert, but that's a story for another day..
I'm not sure McCarthy will be speaker if the Republicans take the House. And nobody's giving Greene a chairmanship. But then Greene's nuttiness is more than matched by the Squad, Waters, Raskin and a host of Leftwing Loons.
Let’s see how the GOP does with control of the House, should they take it. Expect a showdown over the debt ceiling as Republicans try to use leverage to extract concessions. Won’t that be fun? Watching the US careen towards non payment of debt?
Enjoy watching your 401k plummet.
We need mature people in there. I know you hate Dems. But do you really think the GOP have the brains to do it? They blew it in Congress when Trump was in control.
I think leftism is attractive to people who don't like having to learn things. Leftism promises them that they will never again have to think about any issue more complex than what to order at Starbucks.
I spoke to a very intelligent, well read and well traveled long time friend yesterday who lives in PA I said how sad it was that the choice she had was Fetterman or Oz never dreaming that she said she had already voted for Fetterman. She and Ihave known each other for 60 years and have never had an arguement about anything but for some reason things have changed not only for her but also for most of my other "liberal" friends. It is far easier to talk about religion these days than politics.
Different snark, same stupidity. Doubtful you know any Trump supporters. And clearly a person who voted for Trump over the corrupt, senile imbecile who now befouls the Oval Office can hardly be termed a crazed zealot for doing so Get a mirror and reflect or stop wasting our time.
Trump's been gone for two years. But the damage done by his replacement in those two short years is incalculable.
RT - Must cause some serious headaches having Trump live in your head rent-free everyday. And that's some original material: Duh, Trump supporters are dumb....I'm smart because I didn't vote for Trump. I mean just try and make a point without insulting people.
I didn't say I argue about religion - I never do.People are free to believe what they want. But, if you can at least have an open mind and be prepared to learn about "inherently irrational and religious beliefs" you just may learn something . Maybe something even logical.
Very illogical of you to insinuate that religious beliefs are irrational. It seems to me that most atheists are not political conservatives, so obviously logic is not your strong suit.
If someone, in a non-religious context, were to rant about a dead guy coming back to life after three days and asking people to gather once a week to eat that dead person's flesh and drink that dead person's blood, you'd think they were insane and irrational. Yet that's the core of one of the world's major religions.
Even a grain of logic suggests it makes MUCH more sense that things changed very slowly over billions of years than to say a magic person waved their hands and everything simply appeared.
And actual scientific studies have been done showing that praying or being prayed for has zero effect on whether or not someone recovers from an illness or surgery.
Religion, like political party, is just another form of tribalism.
I think maybe you don't know many atheists. What if I were to say that most christians are mega-MAGA-white nationalist Neo-Nazis? Wouldn't that be a truly ignorant thing to say? Actually atheists may be more likely to be conservative because we are a bit more rational.
I think it is the fear. They know guns don't fire themselves. They are terrified of the people who do. They just can't distinguish between which ones will fire indiscriminately and which ones will do so with justification. So the solution they see is to prevent anyone from being able to fire for any reason. The same is true for a host of their other beliefs as well - criminal justice reform may help some but the way they have gone about it deprives others, for example. Allowing public camping everywhere may help the campers but at the expense of the nearby housed, for another. It seems to me that they are fear driven and employ knee-jerk reactions to that fear. In short we have become a nation of cowards, hence fools.
Very well state, Lynne: "They're terrified of the people who do." Why they are so terrified when data show their fears are largely only in their minds is the question.
If you are so "terrified" of guns in other hands, why are they safe in yours? Why do you assume anybody but you is competent with guns? Most of us are perfectly safe and competent with them. Perhaps you should give yours up just in case.
Off topic, but I could have used this remark the other day. Was arguing with someone on Twitter (whose pronouns were she/they/cloud - I’m not kidding) over the video of the trans Starbucks barista crying because they had to work an actual 8-hour shift. Apparently I had no empathy because I thought he/she should get back to work or quit if they were so miserable. 🙄
I saw that video too. It was jaw dropping. They were SOBBING because of an 8 hour work day. What must their parent's think? The manager of a UPS store was telling me recently how difficult it is to hire staff. They take the job then quit on the first day or two for exactly the reasons the barista was crying about. Sorting mail is too hard apparently. He said they would rather be Uber or Grubhub drivers so they can be on their phones and work limited hours. Then they complain that society doesn't provide health care or stability. Um...sometimes you have to EARN those things!
And not only sobbing over an 8-hour work day. They were in the back of the store, sobbing on the internet, while their fellow understaffed employees were having to pick up the slack out front. Lots of "pity me" but very little empathy for their co-workers.
Their parents probably told them that if they got that degree in Critical Literature Theory, they'd be guaranteed a mid-six-figure government job for life.
What a f*%#ing baby. In their mid 20's and not qualified to run a lemonade stand. Grateful my kids and their friends give me hope for society. They would be mortified if anyone in their group behaved this way.
This was absolutely priceless, thank you for sharing! What a pathetic generation. Don't all Starbucks employees split the tips from their shift? I'd be THRILLED if it was super busy, more tips == more money. Regardless, suck it up and do the job. Like you said, you don't like it, leave. There are so many jobs out there now.
I suggested maybe he/she could go apply at Chic-Fil-A because they could only be scheduled for Saturdays on weekends and would have Sundays off. 🤣 And maybe, just maybe, their hormone replacement therapy might be contributing to some mental fragility issues.
Yup. If you can't feel safe in your home and community, literally everything else is secondary. At least that's how I feel and I think many others as well
You have captured "The Hollywood Power Brokers Mugged by Reality
PETER SAVODNIK" essay in a nutshell.
The white left votes for black people just to prove to their friends they are not racist. It makes them, the brain dead lemmings, feel good. They really can't think for themselves and they get vicious and call you names if you challenge them. If you don't believe me, just look at how they treat black conservatives.
2. Lack of serious mental health treatment. The inability to commit people who obviously need it (if there is even a place for them to go)
3. Population--220 million in 1980, 330 million now. 100 million more people but not 100 million more housing units
4. Fearlessness--knowing any bad acts committed short or murder are unlikely to be punished
5. Weaker families--due to both liberal (form your own family, change it whenever you like) and conservative (fend for yourself so move thousands of miles from home for a good job and do this multiple times in your life)
A question I raised recently with my friends - where did this new phase of homeless mentally ill turning violent and attacking people randomly come from? After all there have been homeless on the streets of our cities for decades, and mental illness/alcoholism/drug addiction has always been a massive part of that problem. But they didn't go into furniture stores and stab the young girl working there to death or kill a father and daughter in a shopping center parking lot or ... and the list just seems to go on.
What has happened is that the Democrat Party has inflamed racism and installed a sense of false grievance against white people who are completely innocent of the crimes conjured by the Democrats. The demonization exhibited in the speech by the Senile Imbecile last night was on display for all to see. I can't begin to express how much I revile Biden and fantasize how I want only five minutes alone with that corrupt and vile piece of shit. The vast majority of Americans - of all races - are decent, fair-minded and generous. But the race hustlers in the Democrat Party want to divide us among races, genders and creeds for one reason - to destabilize our nation and increase their power over us.
Perhaps it has to do with sheer numbers of untreated mentally ill on the streets now compared with years ago? Increased numbers of homeless will increase the possibility that some will act out violently. The powers that be don't want to admit that the mentally ill can be violent, but the truth is, untreated mental illness is linked to violent behavior. Drugs may also be a factor.
I was wondering about drugs too - like if the drugs people are taking on the streets now and/or the quantities have changed. Concentration of homeless makes sense as well, but untreated mental illness, like homelessness (the two are intimately related IMO), are not new problems - they are decades old. Maybe some of those violent ones were spread out around the country so the crimes they committed were "local news" and rare enough that they didn't create the sense of horror/fear that we see in the major cities now?
Decades ago, such people were institutionalized. States had big mental hospitals where they treated, or tried to treat, such people. Not all treatments were successful; not all mental hospitals had competent staff, and some patients were admittedly abused. The movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" turned a lot of the public against mental hospitals in general. It was a very effective bit of propaganda.
Governments realized that they could score a twofer: curry favor with the public, and particularly the Left, by closing the hospitals. Simultaneously, they could use the hospital's budgets for other purposes. By the end of the 1970s, most of the nation's large state mental hospitals had been closed. What happened to the patients? They got dumped in the street. One cruelty problem got "solved" by committing another, and the costs of dealing with it got dumped on the police, the social services, business owners, and the general public.
Definitely agree with this. To be fair, there were horrific abuses in mental institutions (read about Nellie Bly if you don't know her story of undercover journalism; she's a fascinating person; the book "A Race Around the World" about her and Elizabeth Bisland is really really interesting). But we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also it wasn't just governments involved - as with so many stupid things in American life, a small number of activists were successful in pushing this narrative and creating a change in policy. We were going to have some sort of fantasy "community treatment" which of course never happened, and in many cases can't happen because some people are way beyond that option even if it existed.
However all of this went down in the 60s through 80s. US cities have been full of homeless people on the streets ever since. But the crazy random violence from street people - that seems to be something new, only in the last few years. That's the part I'm mystified by.
Everyone talks about fentanyl abuse but meth is everywhere and the newest formulation of meth is instantly addictive and causes violent psychosis. I had a roofer 20 years ago who was addicted to the old meth and he was functional and could be reasoned with. New meth is different and a whole lot worse.
That sounds plenty plausible. I have heard similar things about marijuana. In fact I have a theory that boomers especially are not capable of looking at the current drug crisis with open eyes due to their romanticization of the drug culture of the 60s and 70s.
But the people on the streets now (and not only on the streets) are not "tuning in and dropping out".
Love the moniker. The hole rule is one of.my big 3. Okay so in the very early 80s the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be held against their will in mental institutions. People had been so held for about a hundred years (and doing so then was considered reform of the prior method). So in the 80s the doors to the asylums were opened, the patients were put on buses and most ended up in big cities near the Greyhound bus station. Sort of like the Green Energy debaucle now there were no transition plans for local treatment, housing or employment. But the War on Drugs was in full swing and other criminal laws were strictly enforced so that type of activity had to be conducted on the down low. Then loitering and vagrants laws were passed in great number forcing the homeless further underground and basically out of sight. Then crack, followed by meth, followed by opioid addictions spiraled. So then you had added to the original mentally ill homeless the addicted homeless. This brings us into this millenia. The 2008 economic crisis saw record foreclosures and evictions. So a new crop of homeless, the working poor. This was followed by the housing boom/bubble of the past few years fueled by nominal interest rates which caused real estate prices to skyrocket and creating situations In many cities in many states where lower and middle income people were priced out of the housing markets. Often markets where they had lived for generations.
That is a whole new meaning of homeless, no? So basically you have 4 types of homeless. 1) the mentally ill who because they are mentally ill are traditionally resistant to treatment; 2) the addicted and these are on the road to mentally ill because prolonged use of many drugs will lead to drug induced psychosis; 3) the working homeless who will try to get out of the situation and in years past would have been able do so, but who knows in this economic environment; and 4) the philosophical descendents of old-time hobos but you rarely encounter these people as they, by their preference, are off the grid for lack of a better term, and want no contact with working class suckers.
People who say drug possession is a victimless crime, and in the interest of full disclosure I used to be one, are sadly misinformed. Anybody who loves an addict is a victim of drug abuse. People who say the homeless just need a safety net are incredibly naive. There is not enough money in the world to fix mentally ill people and addicts who desperately need treatment but refuse it. Think Amy Winehouse' Rehab. IMO there has to be forced (involuntary) rehab and treatment whichever we will more or less have come fill circle.
I am also interested to know the status of the millions of illegal aliens being allowed in the country and the ones here legally for the moment as asylum seekers. If the Texas border including El Psuckered. Arizona border including Tucson are any example the numbers flooding in are overwhelming to the local communities. Reportedly there are many homeless immigrants in San Antonio at this point.
I've wondered about this as well. I know its TV but I recall on old episodes of Law & Order (Jerry Orbach years) the detectives often turned to the homeless as witnesses to crimes. I bet LEOs keep their distance from these people now.
So hopefully, Susan, you’re in favor of the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and whoever else in the dreaded Deep State is out there protecting you and everybody else here from the next terrorist attack, either foreign or domestic. That’s law and order too.
Because I sense there’s not much sympathy for these agencies from many posters here.
I notice a tendency to put people in cubbyholes. You bet I'm concerned about lawlessness, about crime where I live,which is a town that never had it. I'm concerned about the state of San Francisco and New York City and what's happening to people in Chicago. From that fact, I'm showing symptoms of being anti- FBI, a "deep stater" ? That's so simplistic and divisive. I might well reverse the question: anyone who supports the FBI must also be concerned about the breakdown of law and order in our daily lives. It's equally apparent given statements by Democrats to the effect that we have no crime problem that that's not the case.
Ever since the Missiah weaponized the IRS, I've had doubts about government agencies. You should too. It's healthy to distrust our government. Our founding fathers did.
Or those who refuse to speak out against BLM and ANTIFA for burning down businesses and murdering people in over 140 of Democrat run cities. When Portland was burning the chairman of the house judiciary committee, Jerrold Nadler when asked about Portland burning said it was a myth, a rumor. That is how the nefarious left handled the burning of America. Do you condone that?
I grew up in the Deep South, and I’ve spent most of my life below the Mason-Dixon Line.
The most racist people I’ve met (in this country, at least) are upper-class, white, usually well-educated liberals. The ironic part is that they don’t see how they’re racists.
Ah yes, the soft bigotry of low expectations.................. The worst thing is their towering but baseless sense of superiority and their infuriating hypocrisy.
As a black woman who was born and raised in California, I agree with you 100%. The South may have been the seat of racism decades ago, but the insidious discrimination practiced by hypocritical, elite liberals is far more pervasive and, IMO, more harmful.
I think the difference is that good old-fashioned Southern racism has to exist in secret and in the dark. But it's horrible if you encounter it, and it's still there.
But on the west coast, well, I remember my friend in Seattle telling me that when she heard her executives openly talking about how they would hire more black women (regardless of laws against that discrimination) she realized she had been hired for her skin color and she told me it was "the most white supremacist thing I have ever seen." Racism sits in the highest seats of institutional power there, and declares publicly that it is actually the solution to racism if you would just take this ten thousand dollar course to understand.
And we actually have a president and a former candidate for president who think their ridiculous attempts to "talk black" aren't somehow the most racist and insulting things imaginable.
I have lived in DC, Boston, the Bay Area, Westchester County, and now Atlanta. Boston was by far the most rabidly racist place I ever lived.
You all might be interested that Jim Crow laws originated in the Northeast as darker completed immigrants arrived from other countries in the late 1800s. Southern populist politicians adopted them as a principle and wedge issue shortly thereafter. Previously as a matter of custom derived from slavery, Southern cities such as Charleston and Savannah were actually integrated, as the “help” lived with or nearby their workplace. Public conveyances were integrated too.
It is vital to understand that there are those seeking power who promote fear and hate--and it ain’t always obvious whodunnit.
I went to school in Boston and am all too familiar with what you describe. If you were in the city in 1990, you may recall the Charles Stuart affair. Stuart claimed that his pregnant wife was killed during a random robbery on a bridge one night (Stuart, himself, suffered injuries but survived). He also claimed that the assailant was — surprise — a black man. Boston police scoured every black neighborhood in the city searching for a black man who matched the vague description Stuart gave. Weeks later, Stuart committed suicide. It turns out he had murdered his own wife and child and thought that blaming a black man would deflect attention from his crimes. It worked —because Boston was (is?) just that racist.
I've traveled or lived in seventeen countries and almost all fifty states. Next to Arizona meth heads, west coast liberals are the second most racist people I've ever seen. They're the ones who started using the term "brown people", something I find profoundly offensive and racist.
There's a spiritual principle behind it, I think; where you fixate your energy is what you become, regardless of whether you are "for" or "against". Embrace anti-racism and you will become a racist.
Skin color identification is a strange beast! We routinely say whites and blacks and it's fine. We say browns and there's a problem. We say reds or yellows and there's racist hell to pay.
My view? Skin color identification should be okay--or not okay--across the board. I prefer dumping skin color completely as a way to classify people, but I don't see that happening. No skin color is monolithic, and "white people are ..." is as offensive as "black people are ..."
Yeah they never tested that term. It's kinda like Latinx. It sounded good to them in their elite IVY League bubbles but travelling Latin America and calling all residents "brown" is a sure way to have that bubble popped. Most liberals today think every "latino" is a monolithic ethnicity, not a multi-continental geographic region of shared languages.
Oddly, I am half Italian and Latin is my ancient heritage, yet Democrat race surveys explicitly exclude Italians from "Latino." I disagree because I understand some of the cultural links between Italy, Spain and their colonies, and also because I have travelled those places and I am often viewed as a local until they hear me speak.
None of it makes much sense but I think but it's probably because the Catholic church encouraged interbreeding. So the darker skins of Mestizo people in Latin America was used as rationale to call them all "brown", despite the fierce colorism and people who boast of European ancestry.
Even by that standard the leftist exclusion of Italians does not pass historic muster.
I hear the color equally often used for any kind of Arab, or for a diaspora of north African peoples. The broad, meaningless application of the color is one of the reasons I find it offensive, as well as the general dehumanization of colorizing people to begin with.
As I understand, there is some debate over whether Egyptians are "white" or "brown" 🙄
I grew up in/around DC, which at the time was essentially fully segregated black (2/3) and white (1/3) only. When my wife and I moved back from Colorado in the 90s we took a road trip through the South. I was amazed that this supposedly racist hellhole was far more diverse and integrated than "liberal" DC. Restaurant, bars, stores in DC were either black or white. In the South wherever we visited, there were both, and others, and they were sitting and talking to each other.
Over time, during the American period of urban renaissance, DC changed dramatically into an amazingly diverse and far more integrated city. Hipster blacks would open a funky Cambodian fusion restaurant that also sold clothes and books, and the clientele would be a mix of everyone possible.
It's horribly sad both that American cities have decided to commit suicide and that our elites are now committed to "racial purity". None of this is going to end well.
100%. Same here (Southerner) Also they have very little experience actually living along side black people in their daily lives. I got lectured once by a couple of professional students who left our white suburb in Colorado (where they were born and raised) for Portland where they collected government checks. I graduated from Little Rock Central High. So little self awareness!!
Clarence Thomas said as much in his bio as well. In DC he was racially savaged by the liberal elite. Evidently Sowell changed him early after graduating but he was too terrified by leftists to advocate Sowell.
Maybe subconsciously they do, but consciously they recognize the racism of others. These are aged (I can't say grown or matured because, well . . .) mean girls and their cliques. Self-reflection is beyond the..
"...Obama, who had ascended to the pinnacle of the post-Cold War American totem pole, who had presided over it and tended to it but done little..."
You mean making liberals, particularly "well educated" and wealthy white people, feel good about themselves isn't a tangible accomplishment? It might be my imagination, but I feel that just a little bit more each day, people are starting to realize that the emporer never had any clothes. Obama is the most substanceless public figure of my lifetime, and it's about time we all moved on and turn the channel the next time he insists on getting more attention. I saw him on Monday Night Football recently. The man really can't go 5 minutes without some kind of public validation and praise.
You know, me too. I was, at one time, enchanted with the smooth talk and the silver tongue. He presents himself very, very well (i felt at the time) and I fell for it. Perhaps I wanted to be accepted into "polite" society.
But as I got more distant from things, I began to realize not only what smoke and mirrors a good deal of it was, but how utterly divisive much of his rhetoric really was, especially around race. He hasn't left a good taste in my mouth since
My question to those who still sing his praises is what exactly is the actual political accomplishment from his 8 years that you’re proud of? Is it economic reform? we had 8 years of 2% GDP growth. Is it foreign policy? Russia grew brazen in the face of American leadership that always backed down from a challenge, ISIS, Libya, increased Chinese aggression, I could go on. Obamacare? Really, what is there for him to hang his hat on?
"Really, what is there for him to hang his hat on?"
We know what Joe Biden thinks....“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s storybook, man”.
Now his adoring fans have moved on to worship Michelle Obama, a woman whose only accomplishment is that she hasn’t inflicted as much damage on our country as Obama has.
I remember the first time he went on a late night talk show. It was Leno and it was early 2009, I believe. I thought “ya know, this is kinda cool. Like FDR’s fireside chats, the president is addressing the American people directly, this time in a more casual, relatable manner.” Then he… just kept going on talk shows! Letterman, Lopez tonight, Ellen, he did podcasts and YouTube shows for Pete’s sake. The man was clearly in it for the attention and mindless adoration. You’d think a US president would have better things to do.
Was he racially divisive on Leno and the talk shows? Are there some clips on YouTube you could direct me towards?
But the good thing, is that Trump absolutely isn't at all about attention and mindless adoration. He was a true leaer. Plus, golfing trips are where most of the work/policy setting is done, anyway. Everyone knows that.
Regular reminder to everyone to not feed the troll.
Comprof does not engage in good faith. Instead, he makes a straw man argument - in this case insinuating anyone who doesn’t like Obama does so because of some inherent racism - then no matter what you say he’ll demand you explain how his straw man argument could possibly be wrong.
Comprof is not here to engage in conversation. He’s here to hector. Ignore him.
Lol. "Anyone" No, not at all. 100% of people who disliked Obama did so solely on policy, etc.
No....just asked for all the speeches and things he said tha people view as "racially divisive." Him being the most "racially divisive" POTUS in history, and all.
Please share, Pemulis. Which one of his "Down with Whitey" speeches was the most angering?
But, if you don't have it....I guess you don't have it, then.
His standing with Louis Farrakhan when the latter visited DC in '05 (and Obama was a senator) was enough for me. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus did the same, but that's hardly an excuse. If you're going to shake hands, and smile for the camera with one of the most notorious and vile bigots in the country, I'm not voting for you. There's a direct link between that and Kanye and Kyrie's anti-Semitism. Farrakhan has long promoted anti-Semitism in the black community...Obama just enabled it to come out of the closet.
Just like no one on here was bothered by Joe Rogan's many "N*gger Episodes" on Spotify. And anyone who even said they might have found them to be a bit tacky, Bari Weiss and her acolytes like you, called them "woke, anti-Free speech, cancel-culture leftist" who wanted to shut down "tough conversations."
You had ZERO problem with Rogan's "N*gger show" episodes, so you should have ZERO problem with Kanye or Kyrie tweeting a link about a movie. You supported Rogan's "N*gger Show" episodes and his free speech....support Kanye and Kyries.
Those are just "tough converstations" why are you trying to cancel people?
Lol....yeah....Obama is virulent, enabling, anti-semite.
Now, that your buffoonishness and hypocrisy has been exposed.
Please, share with the rest of us which of Obama' s "Down with Whitey and Jews" speech was the most memorable.
But just like the never ending fools in the Mexican vampire movies, some idiot will always pull the wooden stake out of the skeleton's chest. And.....poof. He appears.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --Biden, 2007
The only positive thing Obama did for this country was usher in Trump, who brought some level of common sense. Those two were polar opposites. Obama was an academy award level actor, who was an articulate statesman without a clue of how to govern, and Trump was a buffoon who didn't tolerate the rules that our federal government played by to feed the elite and the military industrial complex.
Well said. They are polar opposites in terms of personal decorum - in which Obama is much better - and policies - in which trump is much better. Liberals need to wake up to which is more important
It takes work to understand who's policies are better, style is easy. Most of our electorate is too lazy to actually understand the policies that impact this country. They default to 'compassion' or emotion when they vote, which just gets us deeper into trouble.
I voted for Obama because I wanted a public healthcare safety net. I agree with most of the criticisms people are writing about him here but I would argue the US should have a robust two tier healthcare system.
But instead of doing something sensible like establishing a federal-level Medicare-For-All for the uninsured, Obama put the insurance companies (the originators of most of our healthcare system problem) front and center in Obamacare. As soon as I heard that, I knew it would be a complete shitshow.
Ironically ACA ended up costing me and most of the people in my age group much more. I should have read the fine print. Generally any two tier system is going to rely heavilly on young working folk to pay for the elderly. At the time it was still not clear how things would play out. When I first voted for Bill Clinton is was still legal for companies to genetically screen out applicants like me so I had a very strong incentive to advocate for a safety net. It just seemed like Dems were more "on my side" when it came to health care.
But remember his daring stare and always saying, that's a conversation I would like to have. Yet he never seemed to have the conversation. But then he loves himself too much to do that. You are correct, he is probably the phoniest, substanceless public figure, and useless President, well until Brandon his buddy. Brandon has raised that bar for useless to a level that can probably never be reached again. He did nothing for the Black communities, and they still love him. He is the starting point for the hatred that has split the country and I think it was his intended purpose. Like Bush, a World Order guy. You just cannot mandate common sense for people.
I thought that quote was the most powerful statement in the article. And I agree with your assessment as well. A different type of egoism than Trump's but every bit as egotistical. Biden's egoism may take the cake though. He does not even try to keep the lies straight. Biden, Obama and that other bastion of egoism Hillary Clinton keep talking about "we" need to protect "our" democracy. From who? Me? You? Republicans? That rhetoric IS an attack on democracy. Fools. Even Biden's press secretary had to acknowledge that. Reluctantly.
Does all this "our democracy is at stake" stuff bug anyone else? Because, well, we don't have a democracy! It's a democratic republic, and specifically NOT a democracy, so that we can avoid the tyranny of the majority.
I know s you are preaching to the choir. But that concept is wa-a-a-ay over the heads of far too many people. Ironically it is the democratic republic that created an environment where the idiocracy could flourish.
Trump had a right to his ego, Biden, Obama and HRH never contributed a lick to the public good.
If Trump had been less of a buffoon, he probably would have even accomplished more, including a reelction, but then, I wouldn't have enjoyed his speeches as much.
Flawed is a nice way to put it (couldn't think of the right word- had a Biden moment). But Trump's personality problems means he surrounds himself with a** kissers who are thirteen-rate. There needs to be that person who can tell the emperor that he is naked. That is not to say that supposedly first rate experts are that great.
If you are saying Trump had reason to be proud of his accomplishments I agree. I also think all successful people have an element of ego. You must believe in yourself to accomplish things repeatedly. But I also think good people temper that ego with humility. I liked Trump. I just see him as imperfect.
Obama started the practice of abusing the Executive Order as a Kingly Decree, and it's now a standardized way for the presidency to usurp the boundaries of its power.
Don't underestimate the danger of an executive branch without meaningful limits. We have Joe Biden on record "ordering" things that are brazenly illegal and then saying, "let them sue us, it will take years and we will already have what we want."
Obama did tremendous and permanent damage to this country. Don't underestimate the long term effects of removing checks and balances.
But more importantly Obama began the brainwashing of the University students, the normalization of anti-American socialism, and the glorification of extremist activism.
I'm more and more convinced he was one of the most profoundly destructive leaders the country has ever had.
Obama took it to the next level, but he did not start the abuse of executive power. The George W Bush administration had plenty of executive overreach in the form of signing statements and executive orders. During GWB, I remember reading articles about how this was establishing a dangerous precedent for subsequent administrations, and now here we are.
I agree. It was very foolhardy to join foreign and domestic intelligence agencies under one roof. It took less than twenty years that was turned against U S citizens. Plus militarization of law enforcement was a direct result.
Bothered examples of stupid decisions made in response to fear. We need a good strong dose of courage. But I think the cowards will be too scared of him/her to see the need.
Most of those were growing trends before Obama. Universities were staffed by disaffected hippy cranks since the 1970s for example. Plenty of literature on that.
Just to pay the devil's advocate..I have been in favor of some sort of two tier health care since I was 18 and that was a main reason I have been a Dem. I have an congenital disease that requires close monitoring. Being entirely reliant of full time employers has not worked so well for me and I'm sure others feel the same. Obama did pass ACA and while flawed it felt like progress at the time. The US should have a better health care system.
A worthwhile point. No doubt, health insurance should be uncoupled from employment. It only got that way in the first place due to shenanigans during WWII. I will point out, however, that it used to be possible for private citizens to form ad hoc affinity groups and purchase a group insurance policy. Obamacare banned those.
I certainly don't think so. Our insurance policy at work got swapped out for a high-deductible policy, and premiums went up 25%. A couple of not-as-well-off relatives signed up for it. They report that it's very difficult to get an appointment with an in-network doctor. And when they do get an appointment, it's check-the-box medicine: "Oh, you have these symptoms? Take this. Next patient!"
Well my entire definition of progress has changed. I don't necessarily think progress is a good thing all the time. The same factors that make health care disjointed in the US also allowed states to dodge medical fascism that kicked into high gear during the pandemic. If we had a basic two tier it would make it easier for folks to leave blue states and work in red states. There were some emergency orders issued that facilitated getting health care in a new state. I think the debate needs to be had still. Trump campaigned on universal coverage and making it better and more affordable. That will still have a populist appeal until we have a national net.
For sure, there is a lot that remains to be done there. From my perspective, neither Obama nor Trump accomplished very much in this area. One of the problems, as I'm sure you have found out, is that the cost for treatment for chronic or catastrophic situations can easily exceed the average citizen's lifetime income. It's probably time to admit that this situation represents a market breakdown, and come up with some sort of subsidized pool system for coverage, sort of the way homeowner flood insurance is done. For the rest, let people get insurance policies any way they want -- through work, affinity groups or individual. Make them portable, and give them all the same tax treatment.
My costs haven't surpassed my income but most medical costs are incurred in the final days of life. I don't know if what you say is true about lifetime incomes but prior to ACA medical costs were the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in the US. The cost issue is tricky. US has the highest paid MDs and specialists than any country in the world. The majority of health care cost is eaten by staff at hospitals. Milton Friedman called the AMA the most powerful union in the US, but they don't call themselves a union. I'd argue he's correct. There was an artificial bottleneck on entry to Med Schools. Plenty of very high IQ people had to apply many times before entering. That and the costs of Med School, all serve to reduce supply. I think we will end up with a 2 tier but the reality is it is just too expensive right now and until the med schools change they hold all the cards.
You have my sympathy. I am blessed with good health and I know not everyone is. I had heard pretty.much what AlabamaSlamma said. I have (young) clients with Medicaid and that is a joke.
I'm not on disability, I have never been. I'm not young either but there are many young men now getting it. Plenty of grift and that has to be addressed somehow.
It started way before either of them... FDR was a big abuser of the executive order. Hoover and Wilson might have been, but I'm not as familiar with them.
Obama spearheaded the fracking revolution and put the US on a path to energy independence. Obama and the majority of leftists see this as shameful, which is why he downplayed the growth of nat-gas under his rule.
Well it has been many years since I discussed this subject but I was "turned on" to it by Shellenberger, who way back in the day was focused on energy issues and he led the Breakthrough Institute. I found these articles to be edifying when I read them and I have many more from other orgs, libertarian think tanks and what not, all begrudgingly giving Obama props for ramping up nat-gas in the US. Shellenberger worked with Obama on energy policy at the time so he's pretty well versed on the subject.
He was getting called out on his claims back in 2018. Obama was banning exploration of Federal lands to reduce oil production, but fracking allowed an explosion of production that he could'nt restrain.
His administration was trying to develop regulations to reduce fracking. Trump opened the spigots, until Joe shut them down.
I don't find that article refutes the central premise of Breakthrough Institute. The regulations incentivized Nat Gas over Coal and all the growth took place on private lands. If nat gas was so terrified of Obama's federal land restrictions and they were both unaware what would happen once the Clean Power Plan was in effect. it is unlikely they would have been his primary funders. The smoke and mirrors component of the Energy BIll was that Renewable Energy companies and MSM would claim all the emissions reductions was due to growth of solar and wind when in fact nat gas was responsible for all emissions reductions. It is not uncommon for fossil fuel companies to be the puppetmasters behind renewable ploys.
There is an line from the TV show Mad Men. "The most important concept in advertising is 'new'" .
That's what "hope and change" was.
It's also what makes democratic policy more "sexy" and easier to sell. The word "justice" is an emotionally manipulative as it comes.
Put the word justice behind any bit of garbage policy and voila! Garnish and serve.
Shallow people who don't want to look too deeply at the issue (generally the lawn sign crowd) fall for this stuff every... EVERY.. time.
It's just that this time, the Democrats have screwed up so badly in their governance - and are in such deel denial about issues like crime - that even people who normally vote blue are taking a second look.
God bless our Republic and whatever this realignment turns out to be
His mantra was "...fundamentally change America" after all. Hasn't that been achieved? God help us! It seems that he would be the result of the 50+ years of indoctrination that began in "The Sixties". Logically he would have to have been the one.
I remember talking to a friend in my dorm during the 2007 primaries. We both wanted Clinton to win. We both wondered what the hell “Hope” and “Change” and “Yes we can!” actually meant. He was such a blank canvas of a candidate. 15 years later and I still don’t know what any of it was supposed to mean lol
I would have voted for the devil himself against Clinton. She is literally the apotheosis of malevolence. Obama comes a very close second, in fact they most likely are tied or he’s a little ahead now because he’s mobile while she’s like Jabba the Hutt.
But this is how dems have been for decades and decades. Carter was clueless, smart but clueless, but every other dem since Kennedy has been at base, malevolent and power hungry. Some just can’t hide it as well as others.
"We both wondered what the hell “Yes we can!” actually meant”
How about eliminate our borders, justify burning down cities, weaponize the justice department, turn males into “female” swimming champions, tell school children their white skin makes them racist, lower their test scores to levels not seen in decades while simultaneously raising inflation to levels not seen in 40 years…. and label anyone who disagrees with the policies responsible a fascist.
Obama himself said as much during the campaign. Something like, "I am a vessel onto which people project their hopes and dreams." I can't find the exact quote now.
What gets me about the chaos that resulted from "Defund the Police" and BLM is the OBVIOUS downhill effect of such unmitigated bullshit. It was racist in the sense that indeed, blacks do commit a high percentage of crime, ERGO let's not arrest them for it; resisting arrest for raping a woman and kidnapping her children is acceptable behavior for a black man (he knows better than we do what should be done with him); we don't need to see the full footage of the George Floyd tragedy, still billed as a "murder" which it arguably was not....
The delusions were running rampant. Meanwhile, when I brought up the slaughter of a one-year-old in gang crossfire around the corner from where I live, and the (black) grandmother of this child declaring that she WANTS police protection...
A frothing-at-the-mouth Useful Idiot fellow faculty member sent me a private message saying: "I'm afraid to work with you."
Never mind that the only opinions headlining my post on social media during this collective frenzy were the opinions of black people...the now mayor of NYC, the community leader in the neighborhood where this senseless killing occurred, and the NOT WHITE POLICE DETECTIVES who came to my door and who told me that dodging bullets on their way to school in the 90s is why they became police officers....
This faculty tool who reached out to let me know how "dangerous" my post was teaches RESEARCH SKILLS.
The best that can come out of this is a complete 180 political turn. These tools need to eat crow. On the one hand, I try to respect the perspectives of other people. But on so many occasions I have wanted to lob my own message saying: THANKS A LOT. YOUR OPINION MADE IT MUCH MORE DANGEROUS WHERE I LIVE. Meanwhile, you're sitting there watching TV in your suburban enclave, completely oblivious to the rotten truth behind the stupid black square you posted on Instagram.
This is why is bothers me so much when lefties redefine words like “safety”, “violence”, and “harm”. To unhinged neurotics like your fellow faculty member, he can claim your statements were violence that did harm to him and made the workplace unsafe. Whereas, what actually happened is you expressed your opinion. Hopefully, people like him haven’t completely taken over your institution, and your other coworkers understand what this actually is, which is a way to restrict speech.
Yes these words like “safe” have absolutely taken an Orwellian narcissistic turn. The Indoctrinated are using this as a DARVO tactic to control and demean others. But what’s most egregious about my catastrophizing colleague is that I was NOT on the face of it expressing my opinion; these were quotes attributed to black people on the matter, which is what disqualifies him from his job as a teacher of research skills. As a rule, I just provide the info without poisoning the well (what teachers are supposed to do).
The fake fear is a form of bigotry and emotional abuse. Don't fall for it and don't back down an inch. They're not really afraid of you, they just hate you.
My heart breaks for Nicole Avant, truly. That said, I can’t help but think the people in this article merely want to preserve their little piece of paradise. They’ll elect Caruso, and LA — maybe — will be restored to its glittery, glitzy glory. Then they’ll get back to work producing the dreck that has contributed mightily to America’s physical, moral, and spiritual decay. These folks still don’t understand why 80MM+ of us voted for Orange Man. We truly believe in this country, the genius of its founding, and its greatness past and present. These Hollywood types? They still need convincing. We need much more from them than inch-deep epiphanies.
I'm thrilled that Ms. Heslov was able to overcome her Trump-caused PTSD. Her courageous journey of healing, self-discovery and transformation should serve as an inspiration to all of us.
Who hasn't experienced the trauma of a mean tweet? There's no shame in admitting that you hurt and need to be held in the warm embrace of understanding and love.
It's been said that "War is Hell", but war is nothing compared to the scars received in the rough and tumble of the "Twitterverse".
We saw all this before. New York City becoming an open-air cesspool under a black mayor, David Dinkins. People leaving, fed up, so aghast at the chaos that they voted in Giuliani. And then, miracle of miracles, the city improved and healed. Rudy was hailed - but never loved by the nascent "wokerati."
The only thing that's changed is that the Democrat Party has gotten way "stupider" and is now fully steeped in idiocy, insanity and race and gender soaked ideology. But, when given the chance to govern, that poisonous mix is way more toxic and destructive than it was several decades ago.
So is anyone really surprised by the chaos in our Democrat run cities? Or the public -even the remaining sentient and semi-sane Democrats - becoming so fed up that they're turning to Republican governance?
Wash, rinse, repeat. But, sorry, you can't fix stupid. And Dems will always revert to form.
1990, the year Dinkins became mayor, still holds the record for homicides in NYC. Dinkins increased the police force in an effort to combat it. Thanks to the crack epidemic, a black man had less than 50% chance of making it to the age of 30. Police were driving over bodies in the 73rd precinct on their way to crime scenes. Dinkins inherited a real mess. Indeed, stricter measures were needed in order to clean it up. I now laugh at how blindly I went along with contempt for Guilliani's "Disneyfication" of Times Square. Look at it now!
The revisionists try to argue that Dinkins took many of the steps needed. But the mayor has a four year term and the city was as bad - maybe worse - when he started than when he was voted out. Squigee men, people living in cardboard boxes on Park Avenue, three card monte men everywhere and public urination and defecation so prevalent that the City was an open air toilet. I was there. And then Rudy cleaned it all up.
The latest dem trope is that people don’t care about little crimes, only big ones. Hence do nothing about vandalism, assault, public urination, broken windows and then think that they don’t lead to bigger crimes.
In addition, by not doing anything, Dinkins encouraged a boycott of Korean businesses. Race relations between blacks and Asians could not have been worse while Dinkins was mayor.
Went to NYC for the first time as a HS student in 1982. It was scary as hell. Hustlers trying to separate each of us from the group ("you dropped your wallet"). Times Square was a nasty bit of sleaze and filth. Fast forward to getting married and having a daughter, and we started taking her to NYC once or twice a year since she was a few years old. The transformation was amazing. Took the subway home late at night; they still had the "stand here so security can watch you" stuff but no one paid any attention. Everyone felt safe. Even did now suicidal stuff like walking through Central Park at night.
I won’t go back until they fix it again - and I don’t see it happening any time soon. I worry that my daughter (who loves NYC thanks to all those trips) doesn’t take seriously my warnings of how cities have changed in just a few years ("oh Dad").
It's the old adage of "who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I guess those videos of people being beaten, robbed, raped and pushed onto subway tracks are all part of "the vast right wing conspiracy." I hope your daughter is safe. I worry about mine even on her short commute from Penn Station to her job. Eric Adams is an outright fraud.
Let's be realistic here. Bass will win and LA will continue to be a shit hole just like SF. Why, the rich elites (elites is short for stupid asses) who forget where they came from and what it was like to struggle. If all of these A listers and even the B listers really cared about anyone but themselves, they would have long ago made sure the city had adequate police, fire, and job opportunities while rejecting absolutely stupid failed ideas from people with no life knowledge.
They only care when the rooster shits in their yard. Then it must be fixed. NY got fixed before and then the Liberals just went right back to work destroying it again. See once the gated communities and guards are no longer are good enough to keep the precious rich folks safe, then society must be restored. Well welcome to Utopia since you were right there helping create the crap hole that is now CA.
Funny, because fixing LA may not save it. Projected when the Salton Sea dries up even more the polluted dust that will blow to LA will make it unlivable. See the so-called environmentalists are a joke and don't see real threats. Build a multi-billion train to nowhere, that is now probably going to scraped, but no desalination plants for the rising oceans. Just like the Liberals don't see rampant mental health and drug use as a danger. Well at least until it bites them in the ass. Enjoy what you have created, no sympathy here. You made it, live in it and please keep it there. As Jack said, Go pedal your crazy someplace else, we are all stocked up here.
"For many in Hollywood, it came on December 1, 2021, when a robber—a repeat offender—broke into the Beverly Hills home of Nicole Avant’s parents. He shot Avant’s 91-year-old mother in the back, killing her—and later, according to court records, laughing and bragging about it."
They can kill others but not theirs. Sad that it took this to open their eyes.
Interesting… on NPR this morning I was told that crime isn’t really going up; that it’s "complicated" and "nuanced", that the serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were picked out 100 years ago by police (silly police! what about corporations doing bad things?! Like murdering the planet!), that all of this is just racist blah blah blah black and brown bodies, that "white conservatives" don’t really care about the neighborhoods where homicide is rising the most ("black and brown") and their proposed solutions "impact" those neighborhoods more, just like the crime itself (wait I thought the crime was made up? I’m confused. So the solutions are worse than homicide? But the solutions don’t work and didn’t work before when crime went down? I’m more confused.), and on and on and on.
It was truly a work of art, a wonder to behold. And a sign of utter desperation - they realize that people beyond bad Republicans may be starting to wake up to the mayhem around them.
Or they could form a bipartisan review board to review all output for bias. A simple change that would make a big difference. Also we have no clue how many stories are funded now by those with an axe to grind. So I would put a label on all government funded stories.. “this episode is reportd by x and has been reviewed by the NPR fairness and accuracy committee.”
I've been listening to Morning Edition for decades. At first because I thought it was a good news source, and I was a generic liberal. Over time my views changed, but NPR also changed. I kept listening to it to understand what my neighbors (until I left the city) - the peope that run the show - were thinking. Eventually (accelerated during the Trump era) it became amazing full-on propaganda. Now I listen for a combination of masochism and entertainment value (at times it is laugh out loud worthy).
Yes these are the talking points I'm hearing from lefties on comment boards - but the crime stats tell us crime isn't going up! Tell that to the people living in these areas. Tell that to my eyes of what I see on TV.
What you see on TV doesn't count. Sorry, but you could have 24 people murdered in a city in a year and if each murder got on tv, you'd think it was absolute mayhem. You could have 2400 people murdered in a year in a city, and if the news doesn't cover it - few people see it. When we witness crime first-hand and hear about it second hand from actual victims, THEN we know it is crazy. Crazy dangerous, I mean. This past year I've known/spoken to 6 people who were stabbed or otherwise attacked on public transportation. Never knew a victim of that before.
What you see on TV doesn't count. Sorry, but you could have 24 people murdered in a city in a year and if each murder got on tv, you'd think it was absolute mayhem. You could have 2400 people murdered in a year in a city, and if the news doesn't cover it - few people see it. When we witness crime first-hand and hear about it second hand from actual victims, THEN we know it is crazy. Crazy dangerous, I mean. This past year I've known/spoken to 6 people who were stabbed or otherwise attacked on public transportation. Never knew a victim of that before.
There's a difference between recognizing that something is complicated/nuanced and using that as a distraction to try and convince people that what they're seeing in front of their faces is not actually happening.
And some aspects are not complicated - as Bill Barr has noted, a small segment of the population are serial criminals. If you don't put them in jail when they commit a crime, they are committing other crimes. All the wonderful do-good "root cause" programs liberals/progressives advocate for have the disadvantage of (a) not working outside of a small section of dream success stories and (b) taking decades before you can even decide if they're working and (c) ignoring the reality of human nature, which is that some segment of any group of people is going to commit evil no matter what.
I’m an Angeleno, and we have been putting up with the homeless crap, harassment, arson, and routine theft and vandalism for many years now. L.A. has turned into a cesspool of dirt, trash, and is full of victims of crime of all sorts. All of these Hollywood types with their sorry ‘Donald Trump’ PTSD are insulated and out of touch. All of them. Jackie Avant was a beautiful lady who should never have been shot and killed. No one should be! A tragedy. It makes me angry that that is what it takes for these self-righteous, immature people to see beyond themselves and their pathetic Trump 'PTSD.' Get over it, grow up, and join the real world like the rest of us.
Again we are shedding tears over superrich switching sides the moment their own failure and selfishness backfires on their families and businesses. And I mean real rich people, not the working middle class who is blamed - and punished- by all sides
Well, well, well ... some folks are just now figuring out what the great unwashed masses in Flyover Country knew many generations ago: you select your leaders based on ability - not race, not sex, not ideology. Doing otherwise - electing officials whose driving force is trying to engineer equality of outcome (what they call "equity") instead of providing equality of opportunity - leads down a long, winding rabbit hole where you really don't want to go.
But of course, if they had read a little history they would know that those dead white men who bolted this Nation together told us all this a right good while ago.
It’s hard to have sympathy for some of the people cited in this article. When someone says “tribal” I don’t think of the MAGA crowd, the Democrats with abortion as their Polaris--I think of hive-minded Hollywood. Most people who live there are in lockstep about any given issue, and I know a few people who live and work there. Their whole raison d’etre centers around their identity, their brand, so of course they’re going to vote for short-sighted flashy slogans that get a lot of coverage. Unpopularity is anathema to them. When one of the people said she was independent thinker I had to laugh. I hope in her case it is true and will continue to be. But for the majority of people who live there? The guy had to switch to Democrat at the last minute for people to even think about voting for him.
A serious fraction of the country doesn’t pay taxes, and many rely on those taxes for their income. There’s another fraction (I’m told a half) who pay taxes. They all can vote.
A good part of the taxpaying class sympathize sufficiently with the non-taxpaying class to vote with them, and that’s a huge hurdle.
As few political ads I’ve seen all say that one side wants to take away a woman’s right to choose AND to kill democracy. If feces in the street, rioting, and crime is what we call democracy, I’m in favor of taking it away.
I have spent my entire life in Los Angeles, and I was born in 1947. We live in our dream home in a very exclusive guard gated community. In 2020, watching the trashing of 2 Beverly Hills police cruisers by rioters in the heart of BH, I knew no one in the LA area was safe anymore and we bought a second home in another state as a plan B.
Many friends have left entirely. This dystopian spiral was set in motion a long time ago. LA's leadership are these A listers - they simply live in a play world and tell themselves lies to feel even more status. I invest zero in California ever since Larry Elder, a great gentleman, lost. I only invest in my plan B state.
Those interviewed for this article are wrong that say LA is reaching a breaking point, it is long past broken. I tell everyone to get out, and work to save your new, more sane state from a similar outcome.
I upgraded to paid just to reply to this post. If you have the means and feel you must leave California for another state, please *do not vote* there. Californians are like goddamn cancer.
All of my friends as I, are MAGA people. We ignore tweets and personality, we vote and advocate for sanity above "A listers' compassionate manners." Their compassion is killing residents and homeless alike.
You, sir, are basically a political refugee. I wish you well.
Same here in Northern California. We will leave here as well hopefully soon. It isn't just LA that is broken it is the whole state. For all the complaining people in the article they may vote for this guy in LA but then they will vote for that current moron in the governors mansion just giving the rest of the state more of the same.
Too many of those who run for local office forget the reason they were elected: to govern. Not to wage culture wars left or right, but to fill potholes, balance budgets, and protect prey from predators. If that's too "boring," then go do something else for a living. I elected local and state politicians to run the day-to-day so I don't have to. Fuck the culture wars; fix my sidewalk.
L.A.'s progressives forgot that and should lose this election.
So right!
My beautiful city has become a lawless shit hole.
Hence, I mailed in my ballot yesterday and I proudly voted for Caruso.
Oh thank you for saying the quiet part out loud! 😂
This ‘ability’ you mention, Jim - I applaud the theory. I really do.
But would this include the man elected President in 2016? A TV personality who in a prior life stiffed hundreds of contractors, was quite cavalier in paying taxes, went bankrupt multiple times, thought telling the truth was just an option, didn’t understand what the nuclear triad meant, didn’t understand the workings of government, and treated women.. .well, is it all that necessary to go on? And this was all known during the primaries?
Is this the ability you’re referring to?
I'm referring to his ability to govern. That's why we hired him, not to drink beer with. How do you like the New Guy? How's he governing? Are you better off than you were two years ago? How about your family? Your other relatives? People you know? How much is gas where you live? Eggs? Your kids enjoying stuffing dollar bills into grown men's g-strings at elementary school?
No, unless they cheat, come Tuesday there is going to be a bloodbath. A well-deserved one.
My reply to you was on the perceived ability of Trump to govern when he was running for office. He was never a politician, so all we had to go by was his character and history. I think Americans knew of his failures, accepted them and voted for him anyway. It was not necessarily his ability. He recognized grievance and that was enough.
And as for the higher prices, be happy you don’t live in any other G20 nation other than Canada - our inflation rate is lower than everyone else.
Good luck with the election, Jim.
I suspect we’ll all need it.
re: perceived ability. Understood. I looked at him vis à vis Hillary Ramrod Clinton, since that was the choice - the only choice. My wife asked me that very question you imply, "How can you vote for the Orange Man when you know absolutely nothing about his ability to govern, since he has never held public office?" My response? "True. But I have followed Hillary Clinton for more than twenty years, and one thing is for certain: I do NOT want her. Unlike the old saying, I am willing to take the chance on the devil I DON'T know because the devil I DO, I know very well."
Turned out to be the best gamble ever. Energy independence. $2 buck a gallon gasoline. First real wage increase for the middle class in over forty years. Lowest female unemployment in fifty years. Lowest minority unemployment in history. My retirement doubled in four years. North Korea, what Hussein referred to as the world's greatest threat, subdued. On and on and on and on. I just paid $150 to fill up the tank on my diesel pickup, and it looks likely that diesel will become unavailable shortly. Do you know the extent to which diesel is used in America, and who uses it? All your food is grown with diesel farm tractors. Every freight train that carries that food. Every truck that carries everything you need to survive. As for higher prices elsewhere, I take little solace that my fellow citizens will probably starve or freeze less often than those in other countries.
No, the 2020 Cheat has sewn the wind, and it is very likely we will all reap the result. That's what happens when you vote based on personality rather than the demonstrated ability to get things done. As you say, good luck with the election.
Well put. For me, the reasons for supporting Trump were obvious and totally rational. He gets real things done. Things that help all of us, regardless of race/religion/gender blah blah blah. I don’t want a culture warrior/lecturer-in-chief.
A well thought out reply..
I have heard that argument from other Progressives - we only have the third highest rate of inflation, it could be worse. Why not say other idiot leaders like Biden are forcing policies like a “much needed transition away from fossil fuels” that are driving up prices on fuel and heating, food, etc. too. All I know is that crime is skyrocketing, 401k’s are tanking, credit card and housing interest rates have gone through the roof and the Biden Administration is doing everything they can do to ignore it.
This idea that we need to deep-six fossil fuels is, IMHO, nonsense. Look at a profile view of the earth sometime. The atmosphere is the thinnest sliver - half of it below 3-1/2 miles altitude on a planet that is 8,000 miles diameter. Of that, CO2 constitutes 400 ppm - four parts per ten-thousand. As an analogy, ten-thousand steps is about 5-1/2 miles for an adult man. Of that two-hour hike, CO2 would represent your first four steps. Lunacy. And thank God for the CO2 we have. 400 ppm is a geological near-low; at 150 ppm, plant die-off begins - plants that supply every molecule of oxygen that keeps animals - like, say, oh, humans - alive.
Now they're going after nitrogen - which in its elemental form makes up about 80% of the atmosphere already. Make no mistake, it's not in any way about "saving the planet" (except in the minds of the Useful Idiots like Greta Thunberg, King Charles, and Lurch Kerry, perhaps, and I'm far from certain about Kerry.). It's about power.
Churchill said that the Hun was either at your boots or at your throat. Herr Schwab with his Great Reset plan for global domination has done very little to disabuse me of that notion. (edited to correct my math)
Nope
And in two years time, another reckoning ..
It doesn’t much matter who wins anything anymore. Nothing will result.
You’re right - Dems probably need to get destroyed.
But then when all eyes are on a Republican House populated by intellectual stars such as Greene, Gaetz, Jordan, Boebert et al, with a harried McCarthy trying to corral the wayward conspiracy laden cats, well then we’ll let the cycle begin anew..
No one will cheat, Jim. The Congress will probably go GOP. Don’t worry.
But then they own it. Let’s see what they do with their power for two years. They did nothing when Trump was in charge. Do you think anything will change?
Nope.
I understand and concur with you, although disagree on the cheating. I believe there will be as much fraud as can be got away with because of the understanding that if you get caught, nothing will be done to you.
Vote integrity has been my top priority since 2020. After that U.S. election, France immediately went to paper ballots; we should do that, too. Until there is an ironclad voting mechanism, enforced viciously, with a secure chain of custody for ballots and the severest of penalties for vote fraud, then the elections from here out will be filled with cries of, "Foul!" To my eye, top priority in that arena should be that the voting computers be outlawed; once your vote is scanned, you have absolutely no idea what happens. None.
My only hope is that, in the same way the progressives hijacked the Democrat party, the nationalists are able to crush the Republican cabal of losers now in charge of the party. It's wishful thinking, probably, but I still have hope. When you lose hope, it's all over.
Good comment.
Let’s chat Wednesday morning..
:)
Oh brother…yawn.
People are realizing that without law and order, nothing else matters.
Our Constitution stated the fundamental principle that the role of government is to protect us from foreign enemies and to ensure domestic tranquility. If it cannot or will not do that, it loses all claims to legitimacy.
It's 'will not,' deliberate. They side with the people who steal your car, break into your house, car jack your car, assault you on the street, break your ribs, clean out entire stores or live, defecate and pee in your parks. The Short Hills Mall is an armed camp. In New York, the current governor says increased crime is a conspiracy theory. That's outright contempt for law abiding citizens. In my town, it is unlawful to leave a car on the street overnight. No one does.
New York is not my circus . . .. But I am stunned at Hochul's "I don't know why that's so important to you[.]" crack. But she was being honest. Says it all, does it not?
Hochul's "I don't know why that's so important to you" comment is equivalent to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin calling the CHOP/CHAZE zone nothing more than the "Summer of Love". If New Yorkers give Hochul a pass then they'll get what's coming
I'm so grateful for her honest stupidity and pray that she's packing boxes on November 9th.
Hopefully it’s her McAuliffe moment.
“Public spaces are overrun with graffiti and needles and human feces. In the first year of the pandemic, an estimated 160,000 people left Los Angeles County”
And yet…” recent polls show that the race is a dead heat”.
Personally, I think the polls are once again skewed at least 2-3 points in the Dems favor. But… if I’m wrong, the end of civilization as we’ve known it is nigh.
Did you guys see the part of the governor's debate in Oklahoma where the Democrat Ms. Hofmeister put it to incumbent Gov. Stitt regarding crime in OK? https://finance.yahoo.com/video/democrat-candidate-points-crime-oklahoma-071531960.html worth a look. It was fact checked by the moderators https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/we-fact-checked-the-oklahoma-governors-debate-between-kevin-stitt-and-joy-hofmeister/ Crime is up everywhere -- blue states, red states, rural areas, cities. But, statistically, violent crime is higher per capita among red states. I thought this was a good point she made. Problem is, the video was only reported in left leaning publications. For example, Washington Examiner covered the debate, and not surprisingly, it did not even make it into their lengthy summary. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/five-takeaways-from-oklahoma-gubernatorial-debate Nothing to see here in the right leaning press. I bring this up because last month in OK 4 guys went for a bike ride, a week later their body parts are found floating in a river. Now, picture this in NYC -- 4 cyclists go missing in Central Park and their body parts found floating in the Hudson? It would be in every Fox news show for weeks, it would be mentioned by every GOP candidate around the country even if running for the town's dog catcher. The crime stuff, the FEAR, works. No doubt. But, as the stats prove, the GOP OK governor, the GOP OK city mayors, etc. have a lot to answer for regarding crime as well. I know a lot of "theys" and they would never " side with the people who steal your car, break into your house, car jack your car, assault you on the street, break your ribs, clean out entire stores or live, defecate and pee in your parks." C'mon people, we can do better in our discourse.
Toretto
look at the city where crime is high and murder is high... The top ten crime ridden cities are run by democratic mayors. The democrats spin it by ignoring that fact, and calling it a red state.... They are sick and pathetic!
It was Governor Stitt who acted incredulous when comparing the state of New York or the state of California with the state of Oklahoma's crime rates. As for comparing cities, have to be careful with correlation vs. causation. Most large US cities have majority Democratic voters, so not surprising they have democratic mayors. Most studies that looked at the issue recognize the correlation -- Mayors of large cities are Democrats, therefore cities with high crime rates have Democratic mayors. Causation (crime) as to political affiliation of mayors, etc. has not been easy to pin down. Further on the OK example, the two largest cities in OK, Oklahoma City and Tulsa have GOP mayors. To the extent these cities contribute to the higher state crime rate, still cannot blame the Dems in OK (and I don't blame either party for crime, just saying the propaganda that the Dems want/support/cause/excuse crime, and the GOP will be somehow magically eliminate crime if elected (isn't that what they are implying?), is totally BS. I won't call anyone involved sick or pathetic though.... I don't like calling people names, too easy and not useful toward a meaningful discussion ....
Clearly, crime is a problem across the country. You've made a solid point there. Where Democrats have been particularly insidious is in the role of prosecutor and judge. Obviously, high profile examples like Chesa Boudin and George Gascón highlight a real problem where leniency (or call it compassion or whatever, but it is what it is) toward criminals has added stress to the system and emboldened people to commit crimes. A Governor or a Mayor can only do so much; a Police force that arrests someone who is let off by a progressive DA or judge on signature bond/no bail/parole might as well not have made the arrest in the first place. In Oklahoma, the DA in the largest county of the State happens to be a Democrat. That's where the power and the problem most centrally exists. Electing Republicans to other offices will not have a significant impact on crime statistics, but it may serve as a wake up call to Democrats that the country has had enough of that progressive bullshit.
Joe Biden was Clinton's lead attack dog in the Senate for the Crime bill. Now he's the face of failure when it comes to crime in America. Democrats don't have to serve the socialist whims of their Party fringe. Take back the legal system from the progressives and don't apologize for taking crime seriously and we'll see results. Tell Gen Z to sit down and shut the hell up.
Thank you for your post. While I'm not sure if it is accurate, and it probably is, I really appreciate your post because it helps prevent this substack from becoming an echo chamber. It is essential to evaluate the facts, and not simply repeat talking points.
When I looked into the huge reduction in crime in the U.S. over the decades after the '70s, I could not reach a conclusion about the cause of the decrease. The time when the decrease started did not correlate well with the timing of, for example, implementation of "broken windows" policing. I believe the book Freakenomics, or its sequel, discussed some other associations between when crime started to decrease and when various policies were enacted, but the book pointed only to association and not causation.
Thank you. I believe it was the Freakenomics team that associated legalized abortions with reduced crime, by way of example. It is a struggle to dismantle correlation and causation, especially when politically charged. Almost every major issue is super complicated, and when you try to boil it down to one political talking point or cause or a simplified sounding solution — (here, Democrats cause crime, or Democrats are in favor of crime, or Democrats support criminals over you — you law abiding citizen), and most people don’t have the time to give it a deep think, then the echo chamber swells, and off we go…. The only fix to crime is to eliminate the Democrats. The only solution to the immigration is to build the wall. And on and on….
Wait… the “fact checkers” found that red states had more crime than blue states? Let’s see if the “fact checkers” predict the election by the people that live in those states holds true… We’ll see next Tuesday… surely those living with more crime will vote the opposite way of their manipulators…we shall see…litmus test we will call it…😂
Four criminals left on bicycles to commit a crime because they were too down and out to own a car. They were caught by other criminals and were killed in a violent manner. Unfortunately, not an uncommon occurrence in that world. That’s why it received so little coverage. Why try to make it appear like they were a group of guys in spandex on their skinny tire road bikes logging in miles?
https://nypost.com/2022/10/17/missing-oklahoma-men-were-found-shot-dismembered/
It’s that dishonesty that so many find off-putting. Don’t believe our eyes;
Y ou’ll school us in crime stats.
The below, random articles, about thieves breaking into the house next to Phil Murphy,3 car chases in leafy, rich Short Hills in one day, belie your spin.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/12-major-us-cities-top-annual-homicide-records/story?id=81466453
https://nypost.com/2022/09/12/violent-crime-up-across-us-new-study/
https://patch.com/new-jersey/woodbridge/serious-spike-nj-car-thefts-ag-warns
https://patch.com/new-jersey/millburn/police-fire
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/gov-murphy-responds-to-attempted-car-theft-next-door-to-his-home/ar-AA11PGBE
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-atlantas-buckhead-neighborhood-rising-crime-fuels-move-to-secede-11642687201
My spin? I did say crime is up everywhere, and I will add anywhere, to your point. Statistics are helpful to analyze problems, starting with some basic facts, and to avoid trusting the noise that our eyes perceive. It is the GOP spin on crime that is often meant to scare rather than inform. And Governor Stitt got called out on it and had no defense for the data.
"Avoid trusting the noise that our eyes perceive"? Sounds as useful as the blind man said to his deaf wife what he saw.
Law abiding citizen. Now there’s a good movie. The system is corrupt and needs to go. Hopefully non-violently
I'm trying to remember if there ever has been a president who truly understood that he represented all people. That part of his job was to unite the country rather than divide it. In essence, to ensure domestic tranquility. Not sure it has ever happened, at least in my lifetime.
Obama ramped up the divisiveness, Trump pushed it up even higher, and now we have a president who has gone to new heights (or lows, I guess) by saying those that do not adhere to his dictates are domestic terrorists.
Dear God, he is ensuring domestic chaos. I am not feeling good about what will happen after the coming elections - no matter who wins.
Rod: I agree that we’ve had a long string of divisive presidents. The Bushes are a good-hearted clan, but the younger’s tenure was divisive despite his good intentions. Jimmy Carter is a fine man, but was an inept president. JFK meant to be a uniter but was tainted by personal flaws and the shady circumstances of his election. Ike might be the most recent example of a president who tried to serve the entire country and did so successfully. Different times then, for sure ...
Anyway, I share your hope that this election will kick-start the job of turning around our ship of state.
Regarding Ike, when they both lived in Princeton Einstein took daily talks with the great Kurt Gödel (the only guy who could follow his thinking). Despite their close friendship Einstein was apoplectic that Gödel supported Eisenhower. I shook my head when I read that. The Left—including its highest saints—have demonized those with traditional American values for a long time.
And, of course, Ronald Reagan.
I loved Ronald Reagan, but the left hated him and the country was divided.
Well, name one republican president that the left liked. In my life there were Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Old Bush, Younger Bush and Trump. No one there for a democrat to love. However, I would say that when republicans are in power, there are grown-ups in charge and democrats act like spoiled brats, albeit very intelligent and devious brats.
Who's ensuring domestic chaos? The most recent domestic terrorist is the man who, for political reasons, broke into Nancy Pelosi's house and attacked her husband with a hammer fracturing his skull established by the assailant's confession, videotape of breaking and entering, and police who witnessed the attack. Those who lie about these irrefutable facts claiming it was a homosexual encounter gone bad or the Pelosi's house window was broken from the inside (implying the assailant was trying to get out of the house) are creating divisiveness. When the former president and some leading Republicans (not Mike Pence) are joining in this alternate reality where irrefutable facts are ignored for political gain and hammer memes are posted on social media for giggles at the expense of an 82 year old man with a fractured skull (for instance Donald Trump Jr's twitter account) that's sociopathic and/or sadistic behavior. It's similar to lying about the results of the 2020 election and condoning an insurrection by extremists on Jan 6th. President Biden is correct to call out the lies and sociopathic behavior in an attempt to tamp down on domestic chaos created by those who care more about winning elections than domestic tranquility, truth or democracy. The President's motivation for speaking last night is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. While this article makes many good points about the effect of crime, addiction, untreated mental illness and homelessness on politics in LA, I cannot follow your reasoning with regard to national politics when it omits any reference to these recent alarming events and overlooks what they portend for the mid term election and beyond.
Your argument about the current President's motivation is only true if a you see is a snapshot of today. What you fail to take into account is that at this point it is both sides. Plus saying posting memes is is sociopathic and/or sadistic is the height of hyperbole. It is humor. Maybe in poor taste but humor nevertheless. You make a few other leaps as well but highly emotional people do. Which brings me to my real point here. In my estimation shocking and scandalous behavior and statements ("desperately clinging to guns and Bibles", "basket of deplorables", "get up in their faces", "if abortion is not safe, neither are you" and a host of others) are routinely overlooked and accepted as justified. If your argument is valid this lead to Congressman Scalia and others being shot, Senator Paul being assaulted, pregnancy centers are burned, and other crimes committed against those of a certain political persuasion. Had the current president truly been interested in quashing the chaos he would have said "[L]isten folks we have ALL got to tone down the rhetoric. You, me, and everybody else." But he didn't. He just continued the Gaslighting Tour. So I am asking you to please tone down yours. The snarkiness, name-calling, insults, and derogation played against us is causing a strengthening of resolve and hardening of the heart that does not bode well.
I respectfully disagree, Lynne, that memes and jokes about the attack on Paul Pelosi are only "tasteless humor." Criminal violence must be taken seriously or it will continue. Nobody should make fun of an elderly man being hammer-struck by a psychopath in his own home because his wife is speaker of the House. Many in the GOP did right by the Pelosis--Mitch McConnell chief among those condemning the attacker. I applaud them for standing up.
But Donald Trump Jr., Kari Lake, and others making fun of Paul and Nancy Pelosi while surgeons put his skull back together? And President Trump out-and-out lying about the glass broken during the home invasion? Despicable. It's not poor taste, it's politically psychopathic.
Culture wars are all fun and games until someone gets hurt, and Congressman Scalise and Mr. Pelosi were badly hurt. It's time for both sides to end the "joking" that harms and kills actual people.
I do not follow the Trumps so am unfamiliar with their posts or comments. I have moved on and wish others would as well. I did see a meme of a hammer in a holster captioned "California open carry". I scrolled on by. I have no idea what politically psychopathic means. That seems to be a mish-mash of two fields of study to me. But neither you, Scott, PXL or me are the humor police. There is much that passes for comedy these days that I find no humor in. I have 4 comedy channels on my Sirius subscription and rarely hear anything funny. Some of that stuff is incredibly racist and very angry. But I figure it is not my place to jusge as it involves experiences different than mine. I just change the channel. Nobody is forcing you to listen or participate in humor you find objectionable. I do think what those of you find objectionable is a perception that those on my side of the equation think the attack on Paul Pelosi was justified or deserved. I nor anyone I know think that. I do think that Democrats initiated this bullshit (Obama's desperately clinging to guns and Bibles; HRCs "basket of deplorables"; Maxine Waters "get up in their faces"; Jane's Revenge's "if abortion is not safe you are not safe" and more but you get my dtift) with dismissive emotionally charged language. My side has heard it for more than a dozen years and no longer labor under any illusion that it is not meant and is not unkind. That side keeps talking about "fear" but fail to understand we do not live in fear. We conquer our fear. What we are is pissed. We are tired of it and will not sit quietly anymore. We do not support violence. We do not support insurrection. We will not be silenced. Not by the FBI, not by Zuckerburg. Not by Twitter. There are millions of us. We vote.
Edited to note that criminal violence is taken seriously. The Scalise shooter, Rand assailant, Kavanaugh would-be assassin and Pelosi assailants are all being prosecuted. Criminal court is where criminal violence is taken seriously.
Good luck getting that to happen.
This is not a both sides issue. When Republican Congressman "Scalise" was shot by an unhinged leftist, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi publicly condemned the "despicable and cowardly attack" and expressed thoughts and prayers to him. No current high ranking Republican leader has condemned the attack on Paul Pelosi last week, rather some have furthered lies about it. Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor over property issues having nothing to do with politics so it is not analogous. Your reasoning is flawed and you've made several leaps as highly emotional people do. I suggest you tone down your gaslighting.
Actually, you're wrong. Mitch McConnell, "Horrified and disgusted by the reports that Paul Pelosi was assaulted in his and Speaker Pelosi's home last night. Grateful to hear that Paul is on track to make a full recovery and that law enforcement including our stellar Capitol Police are on the case.
Ted Cruz, "What happened to Paul Pelosi last night is horrific. Heidi & I are praying for him & Nancy & the entire Pelosi family. May God’s protection be upon them. We can have our political differences, but violence is always wrong & unacceptable.
Steve Scalisi, "Disgusted to hear about the horrific assault on Speaker Pelosi’s husband Paul. Grateful for law enforcement’s actions to respond. Let’s be clear: Violence has no place in this country. I’m praying for Paul Pelosi’s full recovery.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-attacked-mitch-mcconnell-ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-politicians-respond/
I do volunteer work sometimes involving people who have been seriously injured. Everyone taking care of them does the best job they can. Almost all of them, out of earshot of the victim, makes some sort of morbid jokes from time to time as a way of dealing with the stress and psychological effects of this type of work.
The problem, however, is that people like Donald Trump Jr. are doing this in public trying to reach as many people as possible when this type of humor used to be confined to to your own small, trusted circle of people who went through the same experience as you.
Morbid jokes about a hammer attack, dead babies, Helen Keller, etc. are not an indicator of bad character. Sharing them with the entire world, though, is.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think to speak behind someone's back is far worse than saying it for all the world to see.
Well said Lynne.
If I got this right, Lynne - in your retort you labelled PXL as 'highly emotional.' Where exactly does he display that? And how do you know he's highly emotional? He's only illustrating a point of view different than yours. Your last sentence was more 'emotional' than anything I could find in his post..
Well first off "retort" is itself emotionally charged as it is not being used in wittily incisive way. And I could have responded with a vitriolic retort but chose not to do so. But to actually answer your question (a rare thing on CS these days) he said someone who posted a meme was sociopathic and sadistic. That is very emotionally charged language without any basis in fact. Then he goes on to calling people names. Hurling insults, is an emotional response. Even if done by a troll as they are motivated by an emotional need for a reaction. All are welcome to dispute my position but it needs to be done with facts not insults and other vitriol, and it needs to be done civilly. I have a few vitriolic retorts but I am.going to refrain. Like a lot of other people on here I found myself in an echo chamber. I was not only cognizant of the fact, I was cognizant of the dangers thereof so I looked around . Here and elsewhere. I have even engaged in civil discourse with several who are political opposites. I appreciate their viewpoint. It helped tone down my rhetoric. If what we want is unity it is imperative to do so. And this nation needs unity.
Biden condemned the racist attack on Jesse Smollett too soon (later proven to be a premeditated fabrication). And Nicholas Sandmann was a racist (until it was PROVEN that he wasn't). And calling half of the voters semi-fascist (a good one for unity). Biden is screwing up everything, especially what he has time to think about. How many parents are domestic terrorists for voicing their outrage to school boards about sexually explicit library and course content? Biden's DOJ treats them like they are. The examples of Biden's divisiveness are many.
I don’t think anyone would condone the nutjob’s actions and pretty much any R would want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and would want the same if the V was a political nobody (not sure Dems would feel the same).
However, I understand some of the skepticism of the Rs based upon the timing of the event, and because the media by amd large have been cheerleaders for the Dems….
I am just waiting to read the police reports for myself before I make any judgments
"I understand some of the skepticism of the Rs based upon the timing of the event ..."
No. Way. If Democrats wanted to stage a "fake moon landing," the "attacker" would have made sure to crack Nancy's skull, not her husband's. Democrats did no such thing, just as Republicans did not hire a nut to shoot Congressman Scalise at the softball game to generate sympathy.
To suggest Democrats staged this is QAnon-level conspiracy thinking.
A politician (I don’t care which party) would allow herself/himself to be the victim who has to be hurt, that’s not in a politician’s nature.
I doubt that this was a false flag operation as well, my point was that the Rs have a pretty good reason not to trust the mainstream media…
I think the PC Affidavit, or the California equivalent thereof, has been released.
I understand your passion. I would only point out that it's happening on both "sides."
Question, were you just as outraged when Steve Scalise was shot or when Rand Paul was attacked? I hope so. What's truly troubling is that many on the left said they got what they deserved. I'm sure most would not agree, but still, the current trend is to paint all members of a particular group by the worst actions of one individual. Both sides do it. I remember when people used to agree to disagree and still remain supportive and caring friends. Not anymore.
I could be wrong, but you seem very angry. If the "red wave" happens in a few days, what's next? What's the next level for you? Rage? That's my closing point. Regardless of who "wins," I fear many in the country will reach that next level. There are a lot of angry people on both sides. And Biden has not helped that awful possibility in any way, shape, or form. He sees it, as you do, as "us vs. them." For me, there's just "us."
Well, Dr Freud, I guess the diagnosis is in. What could I be upset about? On the unity front, I am upset with the media, both print and video, for finding endless ways to make us different from each other. I am upset with being constantly made the villain - white, male, straight, successful, a boomer, an oppressor. I am upset with obsessive preoccupation with looking for victimhood - race victims, gender victims, sexual preference victims, relatively poor victims and millenials. The red wave cannot happen soon enough, to put reasonable people in a position to make some of Biden's damage, including his divisiveness right. I am also upset with enforced group think, in academe and in corporate America. How many of us have to lose friends over ideological bullshit? Or feel compelled to be quiet when outnumbered? These highly visible elites have invented diversity, finding differences where they are so subtle as to be almost imperceptible, and then they tell us to celebrate the differences as if they are a strength. Diversity has divided us. Let's find a way the celebrate our similarities.
You are right.
Of course I was outraged when Steve Scalise was attacked. Rand Paul's incident had nothing to do with politics. Yes, you're wrong with your personalizing and projection. Try discussing the facts without attacking another person--about whom you know nothing-- when you disagree.
You may be right that a property dispute motivated Paul's attack, but as I'm sure you know, many on the left cheered that it happened.
As for attacking you, I don't see where I did. I shared my opinion that many people are angry, of which you seem to be one. I hope you are not. I would like to hear your state of mind if a "red wave" occurs.
Rand Paul’s attacker was described in Vanity Fair by Jim Bullington, a former city commission member who knows both men. He told the Post “that the two, who live next to each other in their gated community, often engaged in heated exchanges about politics; Boucher is a vocal anti-Trump socialist, according to Bullington”.
The only evidence that it wasn’t politically motivated is the attacker’s word. We can’t see into his mind so when he says that he was angry about the yard debris, you have too take his word for it.
Yes. The standards are gone.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the status quo.
Another Democrat triumph: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/union-station-joe-biden-homeless-drugs-crime-speech/ Anyone who votes for the Dem/Commie party needs to have their heads examined. They are destroying this country and the article above proves it. The entire West Coast is going down the drain just like Union Station.
Vote Dem/Socialist to keep the status quo. Californians must love having to tip toe around human feces in their city streets and that is why they vote for the idiots, I mean Democrats/Communists.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/03/california-capital-homelessness-emergency-midterm
Rick Caruso is a Democrat, perhaps more due to how the CA primaries are structured than loyalty to the party. Hoping that if he wins that this will suggest to the Democratic party that public safety, education, and inflation are important issues and nudge them away from a Biden and Harris policies. Perhaps with an improved Democratic party, the Republican party will be forced to produce better candidates for elections. As a voter, how nice to have candidates on the ballots for their merits and qualifications rather than paying off party debts or celebrity status. What a dream to make a difficult choice rather than holding your nose when voting.
Have we ever in our history had such a candidate besides Washington?
Wait Washington was a good candidate and president?! You are not keeping up with (revised) history!
Public safety is the rationale for taxation too.
Public safety (and services) are a very logical and justified rationale for taxation.
In theory but modern taxpayers are being seriously abused. The taxing entities, particularly the federal one, is like the plant in the Little Shop of Horrors - monster screaming "[F]eed me!!!!". The state and local entities in my jurisdictions still have some accountability but I am not sure that is true in all. The federal government has no accountability. Just look at the fraud in the Covid relief for an example. Green energy involves way too much pocket lining money.
Part of the abuse is the growing number of agencies and employees that are not elected and are not service but "advisory" with great power and little if any accountability.
Exactly. And now privatization.
No, it’s not a theory. It’s reality. Necessary public services like policing and garbage removal cannot be provided without taxation. The reaction to Covid was hysterical and unscientific. As is the reaction to very slight global warming.
You have missed my point. Of course public safety is the basis of taxation and good reason therefor at least as for things you have described. But it is also grossly exploited in the modern environment.
I disagree with everything you said except this is a democratic republic. To be glue to hold the republic together election integrity must exist. But you are entitled to your opinion as are everyone else who comments on CS. But you really need to tone down the rhetoric - the snarling name-calling, insults, and hyperbole are not persuasive.
Don't answer this troll. He says obnoxious crap just to illicit a response. Not responding to him is the best approach. They crave attention.
I know. My bad.
No need to get off my horse. I'll just step out of the gutter. Giddyup.
Big talk from a small mind.
Nobody is arguing about fair and free elections. That means, unless you have a good excuse, you show up at the polls on election day with a valid ID. It also means that information is not censored by the government, as our FBI did. And that in-kind campaign contributions are counted and comply with our election laws. Which means that where the media is materially helping one party only, as is the case, that massive influx of cash and resources is taken into account and regulated.
Psst, Bruce, self-control!
You mean the same Comey who allowed Clinton to dictate the terms of her interview (i.e. no recordings)……
Again the insurrection. Seriously? A wild group of crazies dressed like it's Halloween, riot in the Capitol. OK, nobody liked that. What we also really don't like is the well described situation in major democrat-run cities. And what went on during the summer of (2020) love? Everything but the Jan 6 riot which lasted one afternoon, is to be enjoyed, embraced, forgotten. Vote for Democrats and get more of the same insane deterioration of America. How much more can our previously strong country take?
And empathy has its limits
I said the exact same thing to a die hard progressive friend of mine. She agreed, and went right back to her progressive mantras. I started to be very interested in my phone after that
You wouldn't have a dialogue with the meth addled vagrant screaming insanely into the void. Why even bother with a "progressive?" Their idiocy and lunacy is not debatable any longer.
I would agree. My girlfriend has a really nice way of putting it. If you keep banging your head against the wall, sooner or later, you have to stop blaming the wall. That was our second ROUGH night. No longer. We discuss movies and TV and food from now on lol
I just couldn't resist, Bruce. Your antipathy towards Biden is easily matched by mine towards Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'd rather scream into the wind with a 'meth addled vagrant' (love that one, very good..), and get more sense out of it, than listen to the idiocy and conspiracy ravings of Greene. I can't wait until January, when poor McCarthy, now Speaker of the House, has to somehow give this complete imbecile a committee chair. Our national IQ will gone down a notch.
Of course then there's gun packing Boebert, but that's a story for another day..
I'm not sure McCarthy will be speaker if the Republicans take the House. And nobody's giving Greene a chairmanship. But then Greene's nuttiness is more than matched by the Squad, Waters, Raskin and a host of Leftwing Loons.
Let’s see how the GOP does with control of the House, should they take it. Expect a showdown over the debt ceiling as Republicans try to use leverage to extract concessions. Won’t that be fun? Watching the US careen towards non payment of debt?
Enjoy watching your 401k plummet.
We need mature people in there. I know you hate Dems. But do you really think the GOP have the brains to do it? They blew it in Congress when Trump was in control.
Why will it change now?
I think leftism is attractive to people who don't like having to learn things. Leftism promises them that they will never again have to think about any issue more complex than what to order at Starbucks.
Hey, ordering a Half Caf Quarter Turn Choco Berry Extra Foam No Skim Double Bubble Triple Pump is tough!
I spoke to a very intelligent, well read and well traveled long time friend yesterday who lives in PA I said how sad it was that the choice she had was Fetterman or Oz never dreaming that she said she had already voted for Fetterman. She and Ihave known each other for 60 years and have never had an arguement about anything but for some reason things have changed not only for her but also for most of my other "liberal" friends. It is far easier to talk about religion these days than politics.
When someone concedes they voted for Fetterman - the Village Idiot - the discussion is over. They are hopelessly and utterly retarded.
I agree with you last observation. I hadn't really considered it before, but you are correct.
Different snark, same stupidity. Doubtful you know any Trump supporters. And clearly a person who voted for Trump over the corrupt, senile imbecile who now befouls the Oval Office can hardly be termed a crazed zealot for doing so Get a mirror and reflect or stop wasting our time.
Trump's been gone for two years. But the damage done by his replacement in those two short years is incalculable.
RT - Must cause some serious headaches having Trump live in your head rent-free everyday. And that's some original material: Duh, Trump supporters are dumb....I'm smart because I didn't vote for Trump. I mean just try and make a point without insulting people.
You can’t argue logically with inherently irrational and religious beliefs
I didn't say I argue about religion - I never do.People are free to believe what they want. But, if you can at least have an open mind and be prepared to learn about "inherently irrational and religious beliefs" you just may learn something . Maybe something even logical.
Ben Septer
Very illogical of you to insinuate that religious beliefs are irrational. It seems to me that most atheists are not political conservatives, so obviously logic is not your strong suit.
If someone, in a non-religious context, were to rant about a dead guy coming back to life after three days and asking people to gather once a week to eat that dead person's flesh and drink that dead person's blood, you'd think they were insane and irrational. Yet that's the core of one of the world's major religions.
Even a grain of logic suggests it makes MUCH more sense that things changed very slowly over billions of years than to say a magic person waved their hands and everything simply appeared.
And actual scientific studies have been done showing that praying or being prayed for has zero effect on whether or not someone recovers from an illness or surgery.
Religion, like political party, is just another form of tribalism.
I think maybe you don't know many atheists. What if I were to say that most christians are mega-MAGA-white nationalist Neo-Nazis? Wouldn't that be a truly ignorant thing to say? Actually atheists may be more likely to be conservative because we are a bit more rational.
Because…it’s the guns. They fire themselves, apparently.
I think it is the fear. They know guns don't fire themselves. They are terrified of the people who do. They just can't distinguish between which ones will fire indiscriminately and which ones will do so with justification. So the solution they see is to prevent anyone from being able to fire for any reason. The same is true for a host of their other beliefs as well - criminal justice reform may help some but the way they have gone about it deprives others, for example. Allowing public camping everywhere may help the campers but at the expense of the nearby housed, for another. It seems to me that they are fear driven and employ knee-jerk reactions to that fear. In short we have become a nation of cowards, hence fools.
Very well state, Lynne: "They're terrified of the people who do." Why they are so terrified when data show their fears are largely only in their minds is the question.
I do not understand this.
If you are so "terrified" of guns in other hands, why are they safe in yours? Why do you assume anybody but you is competent with guns? Most of us are perfectly safe and competent with them. Perhaps you should give yours up just in case.
You need new friends.
Off topic, but I could have used this remark the other day. Was arguing with someone on Twitter (whose pronouns were she/they/cloud - I’m not kidding) over the video of the trans Starbucks barista crying because they had to work an actual 8-hour shift. Apparently I had no empathy because I thought he/she should get back to work or quit if they were so miserable. 🙄
I saw that video too. It was jaw dropping. They were SOBBING because of an 8 hour work day. What must their parent's think? The manager of a UPS store was telling me recently how difficult it is to hire staff. They take the job then quit on the first day or two for exactly the reasons the barista was crying about. Sorting mail is too hard apparently. He said they would rather be Uber or Grubhub drivers so they can be on their phones and work limited hours. Then they complain that society doesn't provide health care or stability. Um...sometimes you have to EARN those things!
And not only sobbing over an 8-hour work day. They were in the back of the store, sobbing on the internet, while their fellow understaffed employees were having to pick up the slack out front. Lots of "pity me" but very little empathy for their co-workers.
Their parents probably told them that if they got that degree in Critical Literature Theory, they'd be guaranteed a mid-six-figure government job for life.
😂 what a society
Here’s the post: https://twitter.com/sebgorka/status/1586716751412207619?s=46&t=2b8BHxmYw6UTYuVjy6cIHw
What a f*%#ing baby. In their mid 20's and not qualified to run a lemonade stand. Grateful my kids and their friends give me hope for society. They would be mortified if anyone in their group behaved this way.
This was absolutely priceless, thank you for sharing! What a pathetic generation. Don't all Starbucks employees split the tips from their shift? I'd be THRILLED if it was super busy, more tips == more money. Regardless, suck it up and do the job. Like you said, you don't like it, leave. There are so many jobs out there now.
I suggested maybe he/she could go apply at Chic-Fil-A because they could only be scheduled for Saturdays on weekends and would have Sundays off. 🤣 And maybe, just maybe, their hormone replacement therapy might be contributing to some mental fragility issues.
Yup. If you can't feel safe in your home and community, literally everything else is secondary. At least that's how I feel and I think many others as well
My first reaction to reading this article was, "Oh look, Democrats voting to protect themselves."
You have captured "The Hollywood Power Brokers Mugged by Reality
PETER SAVODNIK" essay in a nutshell.
The white left votes for black people just to prove to their friends they are not racist. It makes them, the brain dead lemmings, feel good. They really can't think for themselves and they get vicious and call you names if you challenge them. If you don't believe me, just look at how they treat black conservatives.
1. Drugs--both legal (psychiatric) and illegal
2. Lack of serious mental health treatment. The inability to commit people who obviously need it (if there is even a place for them to go)
3. Population--220 million in 1980, 330 million now. 100 million more people but not 100 million more housing units
4. Fearlessness--knowing any bad acts committed short or murder are unlikely to be punished
5. Weaker families--due to both liberal (form your own family, change it whenever you like) and conservative (fend for yourself so move thousands of miles from home for a good job and do this multiple times in your life)
A question I raised recently with my friends - where did this new phase of homeless mentally ill turning violent and attacking people randomly come from? After all there have been homeless on the streets of our cities for decades, and mental illness/alcoholism/drug addiction has always been a massive part of that problem. But they didn't go into furniture stores and stab the young girl working there to death or kill a father and daughter in a shopping center parking lot or ... and the list just seems to go on.
What on earth has happened?
What has happened is that the Democrat Party has inflamed racism and installed a sense of false grievance against white people who are completely innocent of the crimes conjured by the Democrats. The demonization exhibited in the speech by the Senile Imbecile last night was on display for all to see. I can't begin to express how much I revile Biden and fantasize how I want only five minutes alone with that corrupt and vile piece of shit. The vast majority of Americans - of all races - are decent, fair-minded and generous. But the race hustlers in the Democrat Party want to divide us among races, genders and creeds for one reason - to destabilize our nation and increase their power over us.
Perhaps it has to do with sheer numbers of untreated mentally ill on the streets now compared with years ago? Increased numbers of homeless will increase the possibility that some will act out violently. The powers that be don't want to admit that the mentally ill can be violent, but the truth is, untreated mental illness is linked to violent behavior. Drugs may also be a factor.
I was wondering about drugs too - like if the drugs people are taking on the streets now and/or the quantities have changed. Concentration of homeless makes sense as well, but untreated mental illness, like homelessness (the two are intimately related IMO), are not new problems - they are decades old. Maybe some of those violent ones were spread out around the country so the crimes they committed were "local news" and rare enough that they didn't create the sense of horror/fear that we see in the major cities now?
Decades ago, such people were institutionalized. States had big mental hospitals where they treated, or tried to treat, such people. Not all treatments were successful; not all mental hospitals had competent staff, and some patients were admittedly abused. The movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" turned a lot of the public against mental hospitals in general. It was a very effective bit of propaganda.
Governments realized that they could score a twofer: curry favor with the public, and particularly the Left, by closing the hospitals. Simultaneously, they could use the hospital's budgets for other purposes. By the end of the 1970s, most of the nation's large state mental hospitals had been closed. What happened to the patients? They got dumped in the street. One cruelty problem got "solved" by committing another, and the costs of dealing with it got dumped on the police, the social services, business owners, and the general public.
Definitely agree with this. To be fair, there were horrific abuses in mental institutions (read about Nellie Bly if you don't know her story of undercover journalism; she's a fascinating person; the book "A Race Around the World" about her and Elizabeth Bisland is really really interesting). But we threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Also it wasn't just governments involved - as with so many stupid things in American life, a small number of activists were successful in pushing this narrative and creating a change in policy. We were going to have some sort of fantasy "community treatment" which of course never happened, and in many cases can't happen because some people are way beyond that option even if it existed.
However all of this went down in the 60s through 80s. US cities have been full of homeless people on the streets ever since. But the crazy random violence from street people - that seems to be something new, only in the last few years. That's the part I'm mystified by.
Everyone talks about fentanyl abuse but meth is everywhere and the newest formulation of meth is instantly addictive and causes violent psychosis. I had a roofer 20 years ago who was addicted to the old meth and he was functional and could be reasoned with. New meth is different and a whole lot worse.
That sounds plenty plausible. I have heard similar things about marijuana. In fact I have a theory that boomers especially are not capable of looking at the current drug crisis with open eyes due to their romanticization of the drug culture of the 60s and 70s.
But the people on the streets now (and not only on the streets) are not "tuning in and dropping out".
Love the moniker. The hole rule is one of.my big 3. Okay so in the very early 80s the Supreme Court ruled that people could not be held against their will in mental institutions. People had been so held for about a hundred years (and doing so then was considered reform of the prior method). So in the 80s the doors to the asylums were opened, the patients were put on buses and most ended up in big cities near the Greyhound bus station. Sort of like the Green Energy debaucle now there were no transition plans for local treatment, housing or employment. But the War on Drugs was in full swing and other criminal laws were strictly enforced so that type of activity had to be conducted on the down low. Then loitering and vagrants laws were passed in great number forcing the homeless further underground and basically out of sight. Then crack, followed by meth, followed by opioid addictions spiraled. So then you had added to the original mentally ill homeless the addicted homeless. This brings us into this millenia. The 2008 economic crisis saw record foreclosures and evictions. So a new crop of homeless, the working poor. This was followed by the housing boom/bubble of the past few years fueled by nominal interest rates which caused real estate prices to skyrocket and creating situations In many cities in many states where lower and middle income people were priced out of the housing markets. Often markets where they had lived for generations.
That is a whole new meaning of homeless, no? So basically you have 4 types of homeless. 1) the mentally ill who because they are mentally ill are traditionally resistant to treatment; 2) the addicted and these are on the road to mentally ill because prolonged use of many drugs will lead to drug induced psychosis; 3) the working homeless who will try to get out of the situation and in years past would have been able do so, but who knows in this economic environment; and 4) the philosophical descendents of old-time hobos but you rarely encounter these people as they, by their preference, are off the grid for lack of a better term, and want no contact with working class suckers.
People who say drug possession is a victimless crime, and in the interest of full disclosure I used to be one, are sadly misinformed. Anybody who loves an addict is a victim of drug abuse. People who say the homeless just need a safety net are incredibly naive. There is not enough money in the world to fix mentally ill people and addicts who desperately need treatment but refuse it. Think Amy Winehouse' Rehab. IMO there has to be forced (involuntary) rehab and treatment whichever we will more or less have come fill circle.
I am also interested to know the status of the millions of illegal aliens being allowed in the country and the ones here legally for the moment as asylum seekers. If the Texas border including El Psuckered. Arizona border including Tucson are any example the numbers flooding in are overwhelming to the local communities. Reportedly there are many homeless immigrants in San Antonio at this point.
I've wondered about this as well. I know its TV but I recall on old episodes of Law & Order (Jerry Orbach years) the detectives often turned to the homeless as witnesses to crimes. I bet LEOs keep their distance from these people now.
So hopefully, Susan, you’re in favor of the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and whoever else in the dreaded Deep State is out there protecting you and everybody else here from the next terrorist attack, either foreign or domestic. That’s law and order too.
Because I sense there’s not much sympathy for these agencies from many posters here.
I notice a tendency to put people in cubbyholes. You bet I'm concerned about lawlessness, about crime where I live,which is a town that never had it. I'm concerned about the state of San Francisco and New York City and what's happening to people in Chicago. From that fact, I'm showing symptoms of being anti- FBI, a "deep stater" ? That's so simplistic and divisive. I might well reverse the question: anyone who supports the FBI must also be concerned about the breakdown of law and order in our daily lives. It's equally apparent given statements by Democrats to the effect that we have no crime problem that that's not the case.
Actually, I did not say that you were showing symptoms of being anti FBI - I was only hoping you weren't, since so many on CS are.
That's all, Susan. I'm not trying to be divisive.
Ever since the Missiah weaponized the IRS, I've had doubts about government agencies. You should too. It's healthy to distrust our government. Our founding fathers did.
You should too.
Or those who refuse to speak out against BLM and ANTIFA for burning down businesses and murdering people in over 140 of Democrat run cities. When Portland was burning the chairman of the house judiciary committee, Jerrold Nadler when asked about Portland burning said it was a myth, a rumor. That is how the nefarious left handled the burning of America. Do you condone that?
I forgot to add that Nadler was Chairman of the House Judiciary Commitee. What a jerk.
I grew up in the Deep South, and I’ve spent most of my life below the Mason-Dixon Line.
The most racist people I’ve met (in this country, at least) are upper-class, white, usually well-educated liberals. The ironic part is that they don’t see how they’re racists.
Ah yes, the soft bigotry of low expectations.................. The worst thing is their towering but baseless sense of superiority and their infuriating hypocrisy.
As a black woman who was born and raised in California, I agree with you 100%. The South may have been the seat of racism decades ago, but the insidious discrimination practiced by hypocritical, elite liberals is far more pervasive and, IMO, more harmful.
I think the difference is that good old-fashioned Southern racism has to exist in secret and in the dark. But it's horrible if you encounter it, and it's still there.
But on the west coast, well, I remember my friend in Seattle telling me that when she heard her executives openly talking about how they would hire more black women (regardless of laws against that discrimination) she realized she had been hired for her skin color and she told me it was "the most white supremacist thing I have ever seen." Racism sits in the highest seats of institutional power there, and declares publicly that it is actually the solution to racism if you would just take this ten thousand dollar course to understand.
And we actually have a president and a former candidate for president who think their ridiculous attempts to "talk black" aren't somehow the most racist and insulting things imaginable.
Hillary Clinton.
I have lived in DC, Boston, the Bay Area, Westchester County, and now Atlanta. Boston was by far the most rabidly racist place I ever lived.
You all might be interested that Jim Crow laws originated in the Northeast as darker completed immigrants arrived from other countries in the late 1800s. Southern populist politicians adopted them as a principle and wedge issue shortly thereafter. Previously as a matter of custom derived from slavery, Southern cities such as Charleston and Savannah were actually integrated, as the “help” lived with or nearby their workplace. Public conveyances were integrated too.
It is vital to understand that there are those seeking power who promote fear and hate--and it ain’t always obvious whodunnit.
I went to school in Boston and am all too familiar with what you describe. If you were in the city in 1990, you may recall the Charles Stuart affair. Stuart claimed that his pregnant wife was killed during a random robbery on a bridge one night (Stuart, himself, suffered injuries but survived). He also claimed that the assailant was — surprise — a black man. Boston police scoured every black neighborhood in the city searching for a black man who matched the vague description Stuart gave. Weeks later, Stuart committed suicide. It turns out he had murdered his own wife and child and thought that blaming a black man would deflect attention from his crimes. It worked —because Boston was (is?) just that racist.
The headquarters for the KKK in the early 1900s was in Ohio, not the south.
I've traveled or lived in seventeen countries and almost all fifty states. Next to Arizona meth heads, west coast liberals are the second most racist people I've ever seen. They're the ones who started using the term "brown people", something I find profoundly offensive and racist.
There's a spiritual principle behind it, I think; where you fixate your energy is what you become, regardless of whether you are "for" or "against". Embrace anti-racism and you will become a racist.
Skin color identification is a strange beast! We routinely say whites and blacks and it's fine. We say browns and there's a problem. We say reds or yellows and there's racist hell to pay.
My view? Skin color identification should be okay--or not okay--across the board. I prefer dumping skin color completely as a way to classify people, but I don't see that happening. No skin color is monolithic, and "white people are ..." is as offensive as "black people are ..."
Yeah they never tested that term. It's kinda like Latinx. It sounded good to them in their elite IVY League bubbles but travelling Latin America and calling all residents "brown" is a sure way to have that bubble popped. Most liberals today think every "latino" is a monolithic ethnicity, not a multi-continental geographic region of shared languages.
Oddly, I am half Italian and Latin is my ancient heritage, yet Democrat race surveys explicitly exclude Italians from "Latino." I disagree because I understand some of the cultural links between Italy, Spain and their colonies, and also because I have travelled those places and I am often viewed as a local until they hear me speak.
None of it makes much sense but I think but it's probably because the Catholic church encouraged interbreeding. So the darker skins of Mestizo people in Latin America was used as rationale to call them all "brown", despite the fierce colorism and people who boast of European ancestry.
Even by that standard the leftist exclusion of Italians does not pass historic muster.
Italians used to be considered black, which is the origin of Italianantidiscrimination orgs. Columbus was thought at the time to be a figure that would reduce anti-Italian bigotry from the WASPS. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/12/opinion/columbus-day-italian-american-racism.html
I hear the color equally often used for any kind of Arab, or for a diaspora of north African peoples. The broad, meaningless application of the color is one of the reasons I find it offensive, as well as the general dehumanization of colorizing people to begin with.
As I understand, there is some debate over whether Egyptians are "white" or "brown" 🙄
Egyptians are rightfully indignant when revisionist Afrocentrics claim Egypt was the cradle of "Black Civilization".
I grew up in/around DC, which at the time was essentially fully segregated black (2/3) and white (1/3) only. When my wife and I moved back from Colorado in the 90s we took a road trip through the South. I was amazed that this supposedly racist hellhole was far more diverse and integrated than "liberal" DC. Restaurant, bars, stores in DC were either black or white. In the South wherever we visited, there were both, and others, and they were sitting and talking to each other.
Over time, during the American period of urban renaissance, DC changed dramatically into an amazingly diverse and far more integrated city. Hipster blacks would open a funky Cambodian fusion restaurant that also sold clothes and books, and the clientele would be a mix of everyone possible.
It's horribly sad both that American cities have decided to commit suicide and that our elites are now committed to "racial purity". None of this is going to end well.
100%. Same here (Southerner) Also they have very little experience actually living along side black people in their daily lives. I got lectured once by a couple of professional students who left our white suburb in Colorado (where they were born and raised) for Portland where they collected government checks. I graduated from Little Rock Central High. So little self awareness!!
Clarence Thomas said as much in his bio as well. In DC he was racially savaged by the liberal elite. Evidently Sowell changed him early after graduating but he was too terrified by leftists to advocate Sowell.
Racists come in all shapes and sizes. This article is concerned with the rational limits of tolerance.
Maybe subconsciously they do, but consciously they recognize the racism of others. These are aged (I can't say grown or matured because, well . . .) mean girls and their cliques. Self-reflection is beyond the..
"...Obama, who had ascended to the pinnacle of the post-Cold War American totem pole, who had presided over it and tended to it but done little..."
You mean making liberals, particularly "well educated" and wealthy white people, feel good about themselves isn't a tangible accomplishment? It might be my imagination, but I feel that just a little bit more each day, people are starting to realize that the emporer never had any clothes. Obama is the most substanceless public figure of my lifetime, and it's about time we all moved on and turn the channel the next time he insists on getting more attention. I saw him on Monday Night Football recently. The man really can't go 5 minutes without some kind of public validation and praise.
You know, me too. I was, at one time, enchanted with the smooth talk and the silver tongue. He presents himself very, very well (i felt at the time) and I fell for it. Perhaps I wanted to be accepted into "polite" society.
But as I got more distant from things, I began to realize not only what smoke and mirrors a good deal of it was, but how utterly divisive much of his rhetoric really was, especially around race. He hasn't left a good taste in my mouth since
My question to those who still sing his praises is what exactly is the actual political accomplishment from his 8 years that you’re proud of? Is it economic reform? we had 8 years of 2% GDP growth. Is it foreign policy? Russia grew brazen in the face of American leadership that always backed down from a challenge, ISIS, Libya, increased Chinese aggression, I could go on. Obamacare? Really, what is there for him to hang his hat on?
"Really, what is there for him to hang his hat on?"
We know what Joe Biden thinks....“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s storybook, man”.
Now his adoring fans have moved on to worship Michelle Obama, a woman whose only accomplishment is that she hasn’t inflicted as much damage on our country as Obama has.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2012/03/01/obamas-top-50-accomplishments/
I remember the first time he went on a late night talk show. It was Leno and it was early 2009, I believe. I thought “ya know, this is kinda cool. Like FDR’s fireside chats, the president is addressing the American people directly, this time in a more casual, relatable manner.” Then he… just kept going on talk shows! Letterman, Lopez tonight, Ellen, he did podcasts and YouTube shows for Pete’s sake. The man was clearly in it for the attention and mindless adoration. You’d think a US president would have better things to do.
Was he racially divisive on Leno and the talk shows? Are there some clips on YouTube you could direct me towards?
But the good thing, is that Trump absolutely isn't at all about attention and mindless adoration. He was a true leaer. Plus, golfing trips are where most of the work/policy setting is done, anyway. Everyone knows that.
You have got to be kidding. The man who ridicules wives, military service and height and surrounds himself with boot lickers is a true leader?
That was a sarcastic response to another poster/MAGA, who btw, represents the majority of this message board.
Yeah...I've always wondered what made Obama so devisive around race? Was it stuff he said weekly? Or daily?
Cause....it seems like a large % of America lost their collective shit on election night.
Regular reminder to everyone to not feed the troll.
Comprof does not engage in good faith. Instead, he makes a straw man argument - in this case insinuating anyone who doesn’t like Obama does so because of some inherent racism - then no matter what you say he’ll demand you explain how his straw man argument could possibly be wrong.
Comprof is not here to engage in conversation. He’s here to hector. Ignore him.
Lol. "Anyone" No, not at all. 100% of people who disliked Obama did so solely on policy, etc.
No....just asked for all the speeches and things he said tha people view as "racially divisive." Him being the most "racially divisive" POTUS in history, and all.
Please share, Pemulis. Which one of his "Down with Whitey" speeches was the most angering?
But, if you don't have it....I guess you don't have it, then.
His standing with Louis Farrakhan when the latter visited DC in '05 (and Obama was a senator) was enough for me. Most of the Congressional Black Caucus did the same, but that's hardly an excuse. If you're going to shake hands, and smile for the camera with one of the most notorious and vile bigots in the country, I'm not voting for you. There's a direct link between that and Kanye and Kyrie's anti-Semitism. Farrakhan has long promoted anti-Semitism in the black community...Obama just enabled it to come out of the closet.
But I guess that doesn't bother you, Comprof.
Lol...really....a 2005 photo did it for you?
Nope. Doesn't bother me at all.
Just like no one on here was bothered by Joe Rogan's many "N*gger Episodes" on Spotify. And anyone who even said they might have found them to be a bit tacky, Bari Weiss and her acolytes like you, called them "woke, anti-Free speech, cancel-culture leftist" who wanted to shut down "tough conversations."
You had ZERO problem with Rogan's "N*gger show" episodes, so you should have ZERO problem with Kanye or Kyrie tweeting a link about a movie. You supported Rogan's "N*gger Show" episodes and his free speech....support Kanye and Kyries.
Those are just "tough converstations" why are you trying to cancel people?
Lol....yeah....Obama is virulent, enabling, anti-semite.
Now, that your buffoonishness and hypocrisy has been exposed.
Please, share with the rest of us which of Obama' s "Down with Whitey and Jews" speech was the most memorable.
But just like the never ending fools in the Mexican vampire movies, some idiot will always pull the wooden stake out of the skeleton's chest. And.....poof. He appears.
Beetejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice
(Waits)
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --Biden, 2007
Honestly, I don't know how Obama managed to campaign with and work 8 years alongside such a virulent racist.
The only positive thing Obama did for this country was usher in Trump, who brought some level of common sense. Those two were polar opposites. Obama was an academy award level actor, who was an articulate statesman without a clue of how to govern, and Trump was a buffoon who didn't tolerate the rules that our federal government played by to feed the elite and the military industrial complex.
Well said. They are polar opposites in terms of personal decorum - in which Obama is much better - and policies - in which trump is much better. Liberals need to wake up to which is more important
It takes work to understand who's policies are better, style is easy. Most of our electorate is too lazy to actually understand the policies that impact this country. They default to 'compassion' or emotion when they vote, which just gets us deeper into trouble.
I voted for Obama because I wanted a public healthcare safety net. I agree with most of the criticisms people are writing about him here but I would argue the US should have a robust two tier healthcare system.
But instead of doing something sensible like establishing a federal-level Medicare-For-All for the uninsured, Obama put the insurance companies (the originators of most of our healthcare system problem) front and center in Obamacare. As soon as I heard that, I knew it would be a complete shitshow.
Ironically ACA ended up costing me and most of the people in my age group much more. I should have read the fine print. Generally any two tier system is going to rely heavilly on young working folk to pay for the elderly. At the time it was still not clear how things would play out. When I first voted for Bill Clinton is was still legal for companies to genetically screen out applicants like me so I had a very strong incentive to advocate for a safety net. It just seemed like Dems were more "on my side" when it came to health care.
But remember his daring stare and always saying, that's a conversation I would like to have. Yet he never seemed to have the conversation. But then he loves himself too much to do that. You are correct, he is probably the phoniest, substanceless public figure, and useless President, well until Brandon his buddy. Brandon has raised that bar for useless to a level that can probably never be reached again. He did nothing for the Black communities, and they still love him. He is the starting point for the hatred that has split the country and I think it was his intended purpose. Like Bush, a World Order guy. You just cannot mandate common sense for people.
I thought that quote was the most powerful statement in the article. And I agree with your assessment as well. A different type of egoism than Trump's but every bit as egotistical. Biden's egoism may take the cake though. He does not even try to keep the lies straight. Biden, Obama and that other bastion of egoism Hillary Clinton keep talking about "we" need to protect "our" democracy. From who? Me? You? Republicans? That rhetoric IS an attack on democracy. Fools. Even Biden's press secretary had to acknowledge that. Reluctantly.
Does all this "our democracy is at stake" stuff bug anyone else? Because, well, we don't have a democracy! It's a democratic republic, and specifically NOT a democracy, so that we can avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Not as much because of the Republic thing, more because it's Projection. And it's utter bullshit.
I know s you are preaching to the choir. But that concept is wa-a-a-ay over the heads of far too many people. Ironically it is the democratic republic that created an environment where the idiocracy could flourish.
Trump had a right to his ego, Biden, Obama and HRH never contributed a lick to the public good.
If Trump had been less of a buffoon, he probably would have even accomplished more, including a reelction, but then, I wouldn't have enjoyed his speeches as much.
Trump left a road strewn with contractors he didn’t pay and loans he defaulted on. You can agree with his policies but he is a very flawed person.
Not many Presidents in my lifetime haven't been flawed. Trump had the best policies since Eisenhauer.
And, other than Carter, was the least hawkish.
Flawed is a nice way to put it (couldn't think of the right word- had a Biden moment). But Trump's personality problems means he surrounds himself with a** kissers who are thirteen-rate. There needs to be that person who can tell the emperor that he is naked. That is not to say that supposedly first rate experts are that great.
Yup.
If you are saying Trump had reason to be proud of his accomplishments I agree. I also think all successful people have an element of ego. You must believe in yourself to accomplish things repeatedly. But I also think good people temper that ego with humility. I liked Trump. I just see him as imperfect.
His preening self-regard knows no bounds.
Obama started the practice of abusing the Executive Order as a Kingly Decree, and it's now a standardized way for the presidency to usurp the boundaries of its power.
Don't underestimate the danger of an executive branch without meaningful limits. We have Joe Biden on record "ordering" things that are brazenly illegal and then saying, "let them sue us, it will take years and we will already have what we want."
Obama did tremendous and permanent damage to this country. Don't underestimate the long term effects of removing checks and balances.
But more importantly Obama began the brainwashing of the University students, the normalization of anti-American socialism, and the glorification of extremist activism.
I'm more and more convinced he was one of the most profoundly destructive leaders the country has ever had.
Agree. And the assault on the Supreme Court is chilling.
Obama took it to the next level, but he did not start the abuse of executive power. The George W Bush administration had plenty of executive overreach in the form of signing statements and executive orders. During GWB, I remember reading articles about how this was establishing a dangerous precedent for subsequent administrations, and now here we are.
I agree. It was very foolhardy to join foreign and domestic intelligence agencies under one roof. It took less than twenty years that was turned against U S citizens. Plus militarization of law enforcement was a direct result.
Bothered examples of stupid decisions made in response to fear. We need a good strong dose of courage. But I think the cowards will be too scared of him/her to see the need.
That's great context, thanks. I was a bit young under Bush and did not understand much.
Most of those were growing trends before Obama. Universities were staffed by disaffected hippy cranks since the 1970s for example. Plenty of literature on that.
Just to pay the devil's advocate..I have been in favor of some sort of two tier health care since I was 18 and that was a main reason I have been a Dem. I have an congenital disease that requires close monitoring. Being entirely reliant of full time employers has not worked so well for me and I'm sure others feel the same. Obama did pass ACA and while flawed it felt like progress at the time. The US should have a better health care system.
Other than that I share your disdain of Obama.
A worthwhile point. No doubt, health insurance should be uncoupled from employment. It only got that way in the first place due to shenanigans during WWII. I will point out, however, that it used to be possible for private citizens to form ad hoc affinity groups and purchase a group insurance policy. Obamacare banned those.
Does the ACA still feel like progress? Serious question, no derogation intended.
I certainly don't think so. Our insurance policy at work got swapped out for a high-deductible policy, and premiums went up 25%. A couple of not-as-well-off relatives signed up for it. They report that it's very difficult to get an appointment with an in-network doctor. And when they do get an appointment, it's check-the-box medicine: "Oh, you have these symptoms? Take this. Next patient!"
Well my entire definition of progress has changed. I don't necessarily think progress is a good thing all the time. The same factors that make health care disjointed in the US also allowed states to dodge medical fascism that kicked into high gear during the pandemic. If we had a basic two tier it would make it easier for folks to leave blue states and work in red states. There were some emergency orders issued that facilitated getting health care in a new state. I think the debate needs to be had still. Trump campaigned on universal coverage and making it better and more affordable. That will still have a populist appeal until we have a national net.
For sure, there is a lot that remains to be done there. From my perspective, neither Obama nor Trump accomplished very much in this area. One of the problems, as I'm sure you have found out, is that the cost for treatment for chronic or catastrophic situations can easily exceed the average citizen's lifetime income. It's probably time to admit that this situation represents a market breakdown, and come up with some sort of subsidized pool system for coverage, sort of the way homeowner flood insurance is done. For the rest, let people get insurance policies any way they want -- through work, affinity groups or individual. Make them portable, and give them all the same tax treatment.
My costs haven't surpassed my income but most medical costs are incurred in the final days of life. I don't know if what you say is true about lifetime incomes but prior to ACA medical costs were the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in the US. The cost issue is tricky. US has the highest paid MDs and specialists than any country in the world. The majority of health care cost is eaten by staff at hospitals. Milton Friedman called the AMA the most powerful union in the US, but they don't call themselves a union. I'd argue he's correct. There was an artificial bottleneck on entry to Med Schools. Plenty of very high IQ people had to apply many times before entering. That and the costs of Med School, all serve to reduce supply. I think we will end up with a 2 tier but the reality is it is just too expensive right now and until the med schools change they hold all the cards.
IMO, could flood the country with Nurse Practitioners. ICBW, but think that'd make a big dent.
I agree. And costs have got to be examined.
You have my sympathy. I am blessed with good health and I know not everyone is. I had heard pretty.much what AlabamaSlamma said. I have (young) clients with Medicaid and that is a joke.
I'm not on disability, I have never been. I'm not young either but there are many young men now getting it. Plenty of grift and that has to be addressed somehow.
I think Bush is up there with Obama. Their presidencies were basically the same
It started way before either of them... FDR was a big abuser of the executive order. Hoover and Wilson might have been, but I'm not as familiar with them.
So was Kennedy.
Obama spearheaded the fracking revolution and put the US on a path to energy independence. Obama and the majority of leftists see this as shameful, which is why he downplayed the growth of nat-gas under his rule.
Fracking happened in spite of Obama, but he took credit for the high oli production rates.
Well it has been many years since I discussed this subject but I was "turned on" to it by Shellenberger, who way back in the day was focused on energy issues and he led the Breakthrough Institute. I found these articles to be edifying when I read them and I have many more from other orgs, libertarian think tanks and what not, all begrudgingly giving Obama props for ramping up nat-gas in the US. Shellenberger worked with Obama on energy policy at the time so he's pretty well versed on the subject.
https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/us-government-role-in-shale-gas-fracking-history-an-overview
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/president-obama-coal-killer
He was getting called out on his claims back in 2018. Obama was banning exploration of Federal lands to reduce oil production, but fracking allowed an explosion of production that he could'nt restrain.
His administration was trying to develop regulations to reduce fracking. Trump opened the spigots, until Joe shut them down.
https://apnews.com/article/business-5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2
I don't find that article refutes the central premise of Breakthrough Institute. The regulations incentivized Nat Gas over Coal and all the growth took place on private lands. If nat gas was so terrified of Obama's federal land restrictions and they were both unaware what would happen once the Clean Power Plan was in effect. it is unlikely they would have been his primary funders. The smoke and mirrors component of the Energy BIll was that Renewable Energy companies and MSM would claim all the emissions reductions was due to growth of solar and wind when in fact nat gas was responsible for all emissions reductions. It is not uncommon for fossil fuel companies to be the puppetmasters behind renewable ploys.
There is an line from the TV show Mad Men. "The most important concept in advertising is 'new'" .
That's what "hope and change" was.
It's also what makes democratic policy more "sexy" and easier to sell. The word "justice" is an emotionally manipulative as it comes.
Put the word justice behind any bit of garbage policy and voila! Garnish and serve.
Shallow people who don't want to look too deeply at the issue (generally the lawn sign crowd) fall for this stuff every... EVERY.. time.
It's just that this time, the Democrats have screwed up so badly in their governance - and are in such deel denial about issues like crime - that even people who normally vote blue are taking a second look.
God bless our Republic and whatever this realignment turns out to be
His mantra was "...fundamentally change America" after all. Hasn't that been achieved? God help us! It seems that he would be the result of the 50+ years of indoctrination that began in "The Sixties". Logically he would have to have been the one.
I remember talking to a friend in my dorm during the 2007 primaries. We both wanted Clinton to win. We both wondered what the hell “Hope” and “Change” and “Yes we can!” actually meant. He was such a blank canvas of a candidate. 15 years later and I still don’t know what any of it was supposed to mean lol
I would have voted for the devil himself against Clinton. She is literally the apotheosis of malevolence. Obama comes a very close second, in fact they most likely are tied or he’s a little ahead now because he’s mobile while she’s like Jabba the Hutt.
But this is how dems have been for decades and decades. Carter was clueless, smart but clueless, but every other dem since Kennedy has been at base, malevolent and power hungry. Some just can’t hide it as well as others.
My dad came back from the Democratic Convention in 1976 a firm Carter man. Four years later, he was voting for Reagan.
"We both wondered what the hell “Yes we can!” actually meant”
How about eliminate our borders, justify burning down cities, weaponize the justice department, turn males into “female” swimming champions, tell school children their white skin makes them racist, lower their test scores to levels not seen in decades while simultaneously raising inflation to levels not seen in 40 years…. and label anyone who disagrees with the policies responsible a fascist.
It's funny, by his OWN admission he was a blank canvas. He essentially admitted that he was.. whatever you wanted him to be.
Obama himself said as much during the campaign. Something like, "I am a vessel onto which people project their hopes and dreams." I can't find the exact quote now.
Yup. 100pct
I have an outlandish idea about getting lobbyist outta the way.
But, on the issue of the two parties, this is a real dark horse that may (or may not) amount to anything: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/centrist-group-quietly-mobilizing-for-bipartisan-2024-unity-ticket-as-biden-trump-move-closer-to-re-electio
This group gets a big donation, but that's just me.
TY for reply. Dunno what NWO means. Mebbe should. And "Ordo Ab Chao?"
But, yeah, it's all in place for the two-headed monster alright. And, sadly, these guys might chicken out when the time comes.
What gets me about the chaos that resulted from "Defund the Police" and BLM is the OBVIOUS downhill effect of such unmitigated bullshit. It was racist in the sense that indeed, blacks do commit a high percentage of crime, ERGO let's not arrest them for it; resisting arrest for raping a woman and kidnapping her children is acceptable behavior for a black man (he knows better than we do what should be done with him); we don't need to see the full footage of the George Floyd tragedy, still billed as a "murder" which it arguably was not....
The delusions were running rampant. Meanwhile, when I brought up the slaughter of a one-year-old in gang crossfire around the corner from where I live, and the (black) grandmother of this child declaring that she WANTS police protection...
A frothing-at-the-mouth Useful Idiot fellow faculty member sent me a private message saying: "I'm afraid to work with you."
Never mind that the only opinions headlining my post on social media during this collective frenzy were the opinions of black people...the now mayor of NYC, the community leader in the neighborhood where this senseless killing occurred, and the NOT WHITE POLICE DETECTIVES who came to my door and who told me that dodging bullets on their way to school in the 90s is why they became police officers....
This faculty tool who reached out to let me know how "dangerous" my post was teaches RESEARCH SKILLS.
The best that can come out of this is a complete 180 political turn. These tools need to eat crow. On the one hand, I try to respect the perspectives of other people. But on so many occasions I have wanted to lob my own message saying: THANKS A LOT. YOUR OPINION MADE IT MUCH MORE DANGEROUS WHERE I LIVE. Meanwhile, you're sitting there watching TV in your suburban enclave, completely oblivious to the rotten truth behind the stupid black square you posted on Instagram.
This is why is bothers me so much when lefties redefine words like “safety”, “violence”, and “harm”. To unhinged neurotics like your fellow faculty member, he can claim your statements were violence that did harm to him and made the workplace unsafe. Whereas, what actually happened is you expressed your opinion. Hopefully, people like him haven’t completely taken over your institution, and your other coworkers understand what this actually is, which is a way to restrict speech.
Yes these words like “safe” have absolutely taken an Orwellian narcissistic turn. The Indoctrinated are using this as a DARVO tactic to control and demean others. But what’s most egregious about my catastrophizing colleague is that I was NOT on the face of it expressing my opinion; these were quotes attributed to black people on the matter, which is what disqualifies him from his job as a teacher of research skills. As a rule, I just provide the info without poisoning the well (what teachers are supposed to do).
Remember the leftist mantra: "Your speech is violence. My violence is speech."
The fake fear is a form of bigotry and emotional abuse. Don't fall for it and don't back down an inch. They're not really afraid of you, they just hate you.
My heart breaks for Nicole Avant, truly. That said, I can’t help but think the people in this article merely want to preserve their little piece of paradise. They’ll elect Caruso, and LA — maybe — will be restored to its glittery, glitzy glory. Then they’ll get back to work producing the dreck that has contributed mightily to America’s physical, moral, and spiritual decay. These folks still don’t understand why 80MM+ of us voted for Orange Man. We truly believe in this country, the genius of its founding, and its greatness past and present. These Hollywood types? They still need convincing. We need much more from them than inch-deep epiphanies.
To be fair, many do t have HS degrees and if they do, they are still stupid and vain. It’s all me me me with them.
I'm thrilled that Ms. Heslov was able to overcome her Trump-caused PTSD. Her courageous journey of healing, self-discovery and transformation should serve as an inspiration to all of us.
Who hasn't experienced the trauma of a mean tweet? There's no shame in admitting that you hurt and need to be held in the warm embrace of understanding and love.
It's been said that "War is Hell", but war is nothing compared to the scars received in the rough and tumble of the "Twitterverse".
Bravo Ms. Heslov! Bravo!
Thank you ♥️
You're welcome, but you do realize I was being facetious? Lol.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We saw all this before. New York City becoming an open-air cesspool under a black mayor, David Dinkins. People leaving, fed up, so aghast at the chaos that they voted in Giuliani. And then, miracle of miracles, the city improved and healed. Rudy was hailed - but never loved by the nascent "wokerati."
The only thing that's changed is that the Democrat Party has gotten way "stupider" and is now fully steeped in idiocy, insanity and race and gender soaked ideology. But, when given the chance to govern, that poisonous mix is way more toxic and destructive than it was several decades ago.
So is anyone really surprised by the chaos in our Democrat run cities? Or the public -even the remaining sentient and semi-sane Democrats - becoming so fed up that they're turning to Republican governance?
Wash, rinse, repeat. But, sorry, you can't fix stupid. And Dems will always revert to form.
1990, the year Dinkins became mayor, still holds the record for homicides in NYC. Dinkins increased the police force in an effort to combat it. Thanks to the crack epidemic, a black man had less than 50% chance of making it to the age of 30. Police were driving over bodies in the 73rd precinct on their way to crime scenes. Dinkins inherited a real mess. Indeed, stricter measures were needed in order to clean it up. I now laugh at how blindly I went along with contempt for Guilliani's "Disneyfication" of Times Square. Look at it now!
The revisionists try to argue that Dinkins took many of the steps needed. But the mayor has a four year term and the city was as bad - maybe worse - when he started than when he was voted out. Squigee men, people living in cardboard boxes on Park Avenue, three card monte men everywhere and public urination and defecation so prevalent that the City was an open air toilet. I was there. And then Rudy cleaned it all up.
The latest dem trope is that people don’t care about little crimes, only big ones. Hence do nothing about vandalism, assault, public urination, broken windows and then think that they don’t lead to bigger crimes.
In addition, by not doing anything, Dinkins encouraged a boycott of Korean businesses. Race relations between blacks and Asians could not have been worse while Dinkins was mayor.
Went to NYC for the first time as a HS student in 1982. It was scary as hell. Hustlers trying to separate each of us from the group ("you dropped your wallet"). Times Square was a nasty bit of sleaze and filth. Fast forward to getting married and having a daughter, and we started taking her to NYC once or twice a year since she was a few years old. The transformation was amazing. Took the subway home late at night; they still had the "stand here so security can watch you" stuff but no one paid any attention. Everyone felt safe. Even did now suicidal stuff like walking through Central Park at night.
I won’t go back until they fix it again - and I don’t see it happening any time soon. I worry that my daughter (who loves NYC thanks to all those trips) doesn’t take seriously my warnings of how cities have changed in just a few years ("oh Dad").
It's the old adage of "who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I guess those videos of people being beaten, robbed, raped and pushed onto subway tracks are all part of "the vast right wing conspiracy." I hope your daughter is safe. I worry about mine even on her short commute from Penn Station to her job. Eric Adams is an outright fraud.
How does anyone not understand that without accountability and responsibility you end up with chaos and anarchy……..
Let's be realistic here. Bass will win and LA will continue to be a shit hole just like SF. Why, the rich elites (elites is short for stupid asses) who forget where they came from and what it was like to struggle. If all of these A listers and even the B listers really cared about anyone but themselves, they would have long ago made sure the city had adequate police, fire, and job opportunities while rejecting absolutely stupid failed ideas from people with no life knowledge.
They only care when the rooster shits in their yard. Then it must be fixed. NY got fixed before and then the Liberals just went right back to work destroying it again. See once the gated communities and guards are no longer are good enough to keep the precious rich folks safe, then society must be restored. Well welcome to Utopia since you were right there helping create the crap hole that is now CA.
Funny, because fixing LA may not save it. Projected when the Salton Sea dries up even more the polluted dust that will blow to LA will make it unlivable. See the so-called environmentalists are a joke and don't see real threats. Build a multi-billion train to nowhere, that is now probably going to scraped, but no desalination plants for the rising oceans. Just like the Liberals don't see rampant mental health and drug use as a danger. Well at least until it bites them in the ass. Enjoy what you have created, no sympathy here. You made it, live in it and please keep it there. As Jack said, Go pedal your crazy someplace else, we are all stocked up here.
"For many in Hollywood, it came on December 1, 2021, when a robber—a repeat offender—broke into the Beverly Hills home of Nicole Avant’s parents. He shot Avant’s 91-year-old mother in the back, killing her—and later, according to court records, laughing and bragging about it."
They can kill others but not theirs. Sad that it took this to open their eyes.
Same with the Pelosi attack.
Democrats Ruin Everything. Defund the Democrats.
Interesting… on NPR this morning I was told that crime isn’t really going up; that it’s "complicated" and "nuanced", that the serious crimes (murder, rape, etc.) were picked out 100 years ago by police (silly police! what about corporations doing bad things?! Like murdering the planet!), that all of this is just racist blah blah blah black and brown bodies, that "white conservatives" don’t really care about the neighborhoods where homicide is rising the most ("black and brown") and their proposed solutions "impact" those neighborhoods more, just like the crime itself (wait I thought the crime was made up? I’m confused. So the solutions are worse than homicide? But the solutions don’t work and didn’t work before when crime went down? I’m more confused.), and on and on and on.
It was truly a work of art, a wonder to behold. And a sign of utter desperation - they realize that people beyond bad Republicans may be starting to wake up to the mayhem around them.
In Jan 2025, one of the first acts deSantis needs to do is stop funding NPR.
Would be fantastic
Or they could form a bipartisan review board to review all output for bias. A simple change that would make a big difference. Also we have no clue how many stories are funded now by those with an axe to grind. So I would put a label on all government funded stories.. “this episode is reportd by x and has been reviewed by the NPR fairness and accuracy committee.”
Nah. Just defund. If they want to eliminate bias to get listeners back, they can do it on their dime.
My god, NPR has fallen so low. Just straight leftist propaganda now. How sad, I used to have so much respect for them.
I've been listening to Morning Edition for decades. At first because I thought it was a good news source, and I was a generic liberal. Over time my views changed, but NPR also changed. I kept listening to it to understand what my neighbors (until I left the city) - the peope that run the show - were thinking. Eventually (accelerated during the Trump era) it became amazing full-on propaganda. Now I listen for a combination of masochism and entertainment value (at times it is laugh out loud worthy).
Yes these are the talking points I'm hearing from lefties on comment boards - but the crime stats tell us crime isn't going up! Tell that to the people living in these areas. Tell that to my eyes of what I see on TV.
What you see on TV doesn't count. Sorry, but you could have 24 people murdered in a city in a year and if each murder got on tv, you'd think it was absolute mayhem. You could have 2400 people murdered in a year in a city, and if the news doesn't cover it - few people see it. When we witness crime first-hand and hear about it second hand from actual victims, THEN we know it is crazy. Crazy dangerous, I mean. This past year I've known/spoken to 6 people who were stabbed or otherwise attacked on public transportation. Never knew a victim of that before.
What you see on TV doesn't count. Sorry, but you could have 24 people murdered in a city in a year and if each murder got on tv, you'd think it was absolute mayhem. You could have 2400 people murdered in a year in a city, and if the news doesn't cover it - few people see it. When we witness crime first-hand and hear about it second hand from actual victims, THEN we know it is crazy. Crazy dangerous, I mean. This past year I've known/spoken to 6 people who were stabbed or otherwise attacked on public transportation. Never knew a victim of that before.
It is complicated and nuanced. Everything is complicated and nuanced. And crime is going up.
There's a difference between recognizing that something is complicated/nuanced and using that as a distraction to try and convince people that what they're seeing in front of their faces is not actually happening.
And some aspects are not complicated - as Bill Barr has noted, a small segment of the population are serial criminals. If you don't put them in jail when they commit a crime, they are committing other crimes. All the wonderful do-good "root cause" programs liberals/progressives advocate for have the disadvantage of (a) not working outside of a small section of dream success stories and (b) taking decades before you can even decide if they're working and (c) ignoring the reality of human nature, which is that some segment of any group of people is going to commit evil no matter what.
I’m an Angeleno, and we have been putting up with the homeless crap, harassment, arson, and routine theft and vandalism for many years now. L.A. has turned into a cesspool of dirt, trash, and is full of victims of crime of all sorts. All of these Hollywood types with their sorry ‘Donald Trump’ PTSD are insulated and out of touch. All of them. Jackie Avant was a beautiful lady who should never have been shot and killed. No one should be! A tragedy. It makes me angry that that is what it takes for these self-righteous, immature people to see beyond themselves and their pathetic Trump 'PTSD.' Get over it, grow up, and join the real world like the rest of us.
Again we are shedding tears over superrich switching sides the moment their own failure and selfishness backfires on their families and businesses. And I mean real rich people, not the working middle class who is blamed - and punished- by all sides
Let's hope the rest of the country doesn't wait so long to start making sense of things.