Proud Boys are the Nationalist Conservative (Nat-C) Brownshirts.
No, they aren't, and I can prove it. If your claim were true then there would be a Proud Boys chapter associated with every Republican chapter and the local one here does not have one.
Incidentally, stop calling the Republican Party the "Nationalist Conservative (Nat-C)" Party. That is a baseless smear and you know it.
That's not proof that there aren't yet Proud Boys in every town. There weren't brown shirts in every town in the beginning of fascist Germany either. Maybe we should do something before it gets that bad here, no?
And I will cease calling the cult of Trump "Nat-Cs" when they stop acting like Nazis. Trump just said he's a Nationalist, he didn't say Patriot he said nationalist. He knows the difference. Trump calls the Democratic party the Democrat party and says they are for open borders and crime and nicknames are his thing so this is fair game. Not only that it fits based on what is going on - things like ongoing child concentration camps.
I mean, there aren't any nuts who are just nuts, right?
Maybe Republicans should disavow racist things and right wing domestic terrorist organizations and the alt-right.
God knows any time there's a Muslim terrorism attack when they interview a prominent Muslim they always demand he disavow extremists he doesn't even know.
Maybe the left should admit that not wanting open borders isn't the same as Nazism but I'm not holding my breath...
Mr. Trump and others from the Nationalist Conservatives (Nat-C) party have spewed hate and lies on Mrs. Clinton, President Obama, CNN, and George Soros for so long.
It has had a tangible effect - Domestic terrorism.
I don't suspect Trump will apologize or change his demagoguing and scapegoating and demonization. It's the only note he knows how to play to distract you while he and other Nat-Cs run off with all the money. Their game is grab all the power and cut regulations and taxes to let then exploit you and squeeze a few more bucks at your expense.
Kind of like the left accusing Michigan's governor of intentionally poisoning Flint residents? I'm sure that doesn't encourage domestic terrorism.
Both sides are so full of shit and full of themselves now that domestic terrorism is just another symptom. I swear to God every time a Democrat wins the presidency I have to hear how he's the Anti-Christ from my family and every time a Republican wins I have to hear from my friends on the left how he's Hitler! I've been alive for 51 years and 9 presidents and guess what? I'm still here, America's still here, Hitler is still dead and the Anti-Christ still hasn't shown up...
There was terrorism in Flint? No? Then only Trump's rhetoric has caused domestic terrorism. Come on enough with the 'both sides' stuff. Look into the numbers, the facts and not the spin. There hasn't been any left wing terrorism since the 70s but plenty of right wing violence and terrorism. Remember Heather Heyer ran over by a right winger? OKC bombing was also a right winger.
Trump and state TV say "oh left wing violence!" which are non-violent protests to a government that is sabotaging their interests. Then Trump goes to a rally and they are always getting in fights and chanting 'lock her up' that's the mob. Charlottesville that was a violent mob, Proud Boys love inciting violence too.
There's one parties mouthpieces that are warning, as if they want it, of a coming race war and a second civil war. One parties extremists stockpile guns as if they want this to happen.
it is possible to condemn any ideological domestic terrorism. But come on don't fall for the 'both sides are the same' nonsense.
I can name two left wing domestic terror attacks. The first happened quite recently, the mailing of white powder to the White House, Cruz(?) and the pentagon.
The other one is the guy opening fire at the pick up baseball game involving Republicans. The guy even asked if it was Republicans or Democrats playing on the field before opening fire.
That’s off the top of my head. I bet if I actually researched it a bit, I could find more examples of left wing domestic terrorism since 1995 that you might have forgotten about.
I mean, I can't help but notice that the people who have been up in arms about Republicans simply getting yelled at in public restaurants are awfully silent about bombs literally being sent to try to kill the last two Democratic nominees for President, which kind of makes their whole "call for civility" argument seem pretty ridiculous. It's moments like this when I'd love a venn diagram of the population.
Also, the Secret Service has debunked the report of the package at the White House, so this certainly appears to be a coordinated effort to terrorize people/organizations that just so happen to be the 4 biggest right-wing boogeymen in the country. What a coincidence.
Both Pence and Sanders, the latter one of the people who was chased out of a restaurant called the act “dispictable.” Sanders went further and stated that this person will be prosecuted at the full extent of the law for his actions.
The truly stupid thing is thinking that this one guy's death is somehow more important than anything else going on in the world or that his death is more important than any other person's death. When four of our own citizens died in Benghazi our government's general position on the issue was summarized nicely by Ms. Clinton: what does it matter? When Obama assassinated one of our own citizens without due process no one batted an eye. Yet we are supposed to wring our hands over this guy and pretend that somehow Saudi Arabia is now the worst evil in the world even though a) other countries are doing thing which are worse than killing one person and b) this is just "business as usual" for Saudi Arabia and has been for a long time? No, *that* is stupid and anyone naive enough to believe otherwise is similarly stupid.
This is a facile argument. One cannot presume to know the reason why something is or is not covered by the media - and so cannot be said to be more or less important than another event which wasn't covered to your (and only your) liking. You're not an idiot, so you understand that there is only a limited amount of space and time that one can devote to covering news worthy events.
It's worth noting that almost without fail, every time the media does start to cover things like gun violence in Chicago, the Right immediately pushes back and doesn't want to talk about gun control, and doesn't want to talk about poverty levels in cities that disproportionately effect People of Color.
It's also a logical fallacy to suggest that because someone doesn't remark on a subject means that they either don't care or don't know. How many times will I have to say this: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
We have been over and over this, but there is NO comparison between left-wing and right-wing extremist terrorism in this country. The later is deadlier by a magnitude of 10:
I mean, I can't help but notice that the people who have been up in arms about Republicans simply getting yelled at in public restaurants are awfully silent about bombs literally being sent to try to kill the last two Democratic nominees for President, which kind of makes their whole "call for civility" argument seem pretty ridiculous. It's moments like this when I'd love a venn diagram of the population.
Also, the Secret Service has debunked the report of the package at the White House, so this certainly appears to be a coordinated effort to terrorize people/organizations that just so happen to be the 4 biggest right-wing boogeymen in the country. What a coincidence.
On the one hand, I don't get "up in arms" over anything--that is not how I react, instead comporting myself with more dignity. On the other hand, *I* was the one who first mentioned the explosive devices--you are welcome.
Yes, the earlier report of one having been sent to the White House has been disproven; even CNN was initially reporting that story.
And I will cease calling the cult of Trump "Nat-Cs" when they stop acting like Nazis. Trump just said he's a Nationalist, he didn't say Patriot he said nationalist. He knows the difference.
Fair enough--I can't tell you how to speak...except...they don't act like Nazis. No one is rounding anyone up with secret police or any of the other activities which were historically documented for anyone to research.
nationalist, noun 1) a person devoted to nationalism 2) a member of a political group advocating or fighting for national independence and/or a strong national government
nationalism, noun 1) spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation 2) devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism 3) excessive patriotism; chauvinism
Poor choice of words, probably, but technically the definition fits if those are the ideals to which he holds. Anything can be taken to excess, though, so such feelings should be tempered into moderation lest they get out of hand. The word may be misconstrued to reflect either positive or negative connotations--Tank man, whose identity remains unknown to this day, is a nationalist because he was one of the protesters pushing for increased freedoms in China, which would be a positive use of the word, and I doubt I need to provide any examples of the negative use of the word, given that we have so many examples.
I mean, I can't help but notice that the people who have been up in arms about Republicans simply getting yelled at in public restaurants are awfully silent about bombs literally being sent to try to kill the last two Democratic nominees for President, which kind of makes their whole "call for civility" argument seem pretty ridiculous. It's moments like this when I'd love a venn diagram of the population.
Also, the Secret Service has debunked the report of the package at the White House, so this certainly appears to be a coordinated effort to terrorize people/organizations that just so happen to be the 4 biggest right-wing boogeymen in the country. What a coincidence.
On the one hand, I don't get "up in arms" over anything--that is not how I react, instead comporting myself with more dignity. On the other hand, *I* was the one who first mentioned the explosive devices--you are welcome.
Yes, the earlier report of one having been sent to the White House has been disproven; even CNN was initially reporting that story.
I wasn't referring to you are anyone specifically in this forum, simply giving my general feeling of the zeitgeist and the reaction to two things that aren't even remotely comparable in their seriousness. I apologize if I made it seem so.
Yeah, I'm sure they're terrified. There was like a 0% chance those bombs would ever get to them and like a negative infinity chance that they'd open their own packages. This has got to be the stupidest terrorist in existence. There's also about a 0% chance that anybody this dumb won't be caught so let's just see...
I don't know why anyone is trying to minimize what's going on here. That so many liberal politicians/figures have been targeted is incredibly meaningful, particularly in the face of the language used by Trump.
Have liberal figures used as divisive language as GOP? Sure - But it makes a WAY bigger splash when the POTUS does it. We've never had someone like Trump that literally demonizes he opposition as President before.
Yeah, I'm sure they're terrified. There was like a 0% chance those bombs would ever get to them and like a negative infinity chance that they'd open their own packages. This has got to be the stupidest terrorist in existence. There's also about a 0% chance that anybody this dumb won't be caught so let's just see...
I don't know why anyone is trying to minimize what's going on here. That so many liberal politicians/figures have been targeted is incredibly meaningful, particularly in the face of the language used by Trump.
Have liberal figures used as divisive language as GOP? Sure - But it makes a WAY bigger splash when the POTUS does it. We've never had someone like Trump that literally demonizes he opposition as President before.
We've had those kinds of presidents before (admittedly it's been a while) and we will again. I'm not minimizing anything, just pointing out the fact that those particular bombs had 0% chance of affecting their targets. You can't mimimize zero unless you go to negative numbers...
Yeah, I'm sure they're terrified. There was like a 0% chance those bombs would ever get to them and like a negative infinity chance that they'd open their own packages. This has got to be the stupidest terrorist in existence. There's also about a 0% chance that anybody this dumb won't be caught so let's just see...
I don't know why anyone is trying to minimize what's going on here. That so many liberal politicians/figures have been targeted is incredibly meaningful, particularly in the face of the language used by Trump.
Have liberal figures used as divisive language as GOP? Sure - But it makes a WAY bigger splash when the POTUS does it. We've never had someone like Trump that literally demonizes he opposition as President before.
He specifically encourages chants calling for the jailing of his opponents. He praises a Congressman bodyslamming a reporter for asking a question about healthcare. During the campaign he offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who physically assaulted protesters at his rallies, from the stage. I wish people would quit ignoring the fact that Trump has been doing this non-stop, in EXPLICIT ways, for two years. Maybe he thinks it's part of the "show", but millions of people take him deadly seriously.
Now we are receiving reports that Eric Holder and Maxine Waters can be added to the list of packages sent to them. We've moved beyond plausible deniability about what is happening here. There is a coordinated terrorist attempt going on against Donald Trump's political rivals.
It's worth noting that almost without fail, every time the media does start to cover things like gun violence in Chicago, the Right immediately pushes back and doesn't want to talk about gun control, and doesn't want to talk about poverty levels in cities that disproportionately effect People of Color.
I will be more than happy to discuss, at some point, how city leadership in Chicago, almost exclusively Democrats for many years, have made the city into what it is today--filled with abject poverty and one of the most violent places in the United States, not to mention the entire world.
Yeah, I'm sure they're terrified. There was like a 0% chance those bombs would ever get to them and like a negative infinity chance that they'd open their own packages. This has got to be the stupidest terrorist in existence. There's also about a 0% chance that anybody this dumb won't be caught so let's just see...
I don't know why anyone is trying to minimize what's going on here. That so many liberal politicians/figures have been targeted is incredibly meaningful, particularly in the face of the language used by Trump.
Have liberal figures used as divisive language as GOP? Sure - But it makes a WAY bigger splash when the POTUS does it. We've never had someone like Trump that literally demonizes he opposition as President before.
He specifically encourages chants calling for the jailing of his opponents. He praises a Congressman bodyslamming a reporter for asking a question about healthcare. During the campaign he offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who physically assaulted protesters at his rallies, from the stage. I wish people would quit ignoring the fact that Trump has been doing this non-stop, in EXPLICIT ways, for two years. Maybe he thinks it's part of the "show", but millions of people take him deadly seriously.
Millions of people take him 'deadly' seriously? If that were true the left should start thinking about migrating to Canada. Most of those 'millions' probably have guns, too. How long before the Republicans start telling those obviously brainwashed right-wingers to start shooting their neighbors? I'm sure every Christian in the Bible-Belt is just waiting for the chance to start blowing away lefties. Surely, that's what Godly people do.
I'm a conservative. I'm not a racist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a heartless rich bastard. I'm not a CEO. I'm not a rapist. I've never sexually harassed anyone. I've never blown up an abortion clinic. I own guns but have never shot anything more intelligent than a deer. My daughter's best friend is a Muslim and I don't give a shit. My neighbors across the street are a black man married to a white woman and I even let my daughter play with their sons. Wow, I'm actually kind of boring...
Now we are receiving reports that Eric Holder and Maxine Waters can be added to the list of packages sent to them. We've moved beyond plausible deniability about what is happening here. There is a coordinated terrorist attempt going on against Donald Trump's political rivals.
Edit: AND John Brennan.
This hypothesis definitely fits the facts. The most important questions right now are 1) will anyone else be targeted? and 2) how long before authorities find the person(s) responsible?
I'm a conservative. I'm not a racist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a heartless rich bastard. I'm not a CEO. I'm not a rapist. I've never sexually harassed anyone. I've never blown up an abortion clinic. I own guns but have never shot anything more intelligent than a deer. My daughter's best friend is a Muslim and I don't give a shit. My neighbors across the street are a black man married to a white woman and I even let my daughter play with their sons. Wow, I'm actually kind of boring...
I'm guessing that's why you haven't shown up in the news!
Normal people are not the ones who get represented most often in the media. I've never seen a headline say "Most [insert political group here] Did Nothing Scandalous Today." The people who show up in the news tend to be extremists because they're more attention-grabbing, even if they're a tiny minority. It creates a distorted picture of half the country.
We have been over and over this, but there is NO comparison between left-wing and right-wing extremist terrorism in this country. The later is deadlier by a magnitude of 10:
Yes there are more right-Wing, I was countering the there hasn’t been any since the 70’s which is false.
And if you like, we can look at just the DC baseball shooter and how he was dismissed by the media very quickly as unstable and his influences were never discussed deeply as this unknown wanna-be bomber’s is.
We can assume they were influenced by the president, but until he’s caught, we have no idea what his motive and who influenced him to act this way.
Probably because the shooter was caught pretty much right away. The longer someone goes uncaught, the more their motivations, influences, etc. get to be discussed.
We've had those kinds of presidents before (admittedly it's been a while) and we will again. I'm not minimizing anything, just pointing out the fact that those particular bombs had 0% chance of affecting their targets. You can't mimimize zero unless you go to negative numbers...
Not in modern US history we haven't. - and I think you accidentally prove my point, in that in the 1800's, when presidents did sometimes demonize people - we had a LOT more domestic terrorism.
Seems like you're downplaying its significance to me by qualifying its likelihood. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but that's how it came off to me.
Edit: I don't typically try to intuit why someone is thinking the way they are, but it feels to me like you think you're being targeted because you're a conservative and it's infinitely more likely that these attacks have a political motivation and may have been fostered in an environment in which a conservative president makes innuendo about he morality of the left.
I don't think anyone is targeting you. I think you're a stand-up guy. For selfish reasons, I don't want to think of you as defending the kind of conservative you're not (Militant, bigoted, angry - things that aren't necessarily restricted to the Right).
We've had those kinds of presidents before (admittedly it's been a while) and we will again. I'm not minimizing anything, just pointing out the fact that those particular bombs had 0% chance of affecting their targets. You can't mimimize zero unless you go to negative numbers...
Not in modern US history we haven't. - and I think you accidentally prove my point, in that in the 1800's, when presidents did sometimes demonize people - we had a LOT more domestic terrorism.
Seems like you're downplaying its significance to me by qualifying its likelihood. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but that's how it came off to me.
I was trying to point out (perhaps badly) that there's something here that doesn't meet rhe sniff test. Somebody with the intelligence to make sophisticated explosives (assuming that these devices are legit) should certainly realize that they'd never be able to get them to such high profile figures this way. There's something else going on here. I really hope they catch this person...
It's worth noting that almost without fail, every time the media does start to cover things like gun violence in Chicago, the Right immediately pushes back and doesn't want to talk about gun control, and doesn't want to talk about poverty levels in cities that disproportionately effect People of Color.
I will be more than happy to discuss, at some point, how city leadership in Chicago, almost exclusively Democrats for many years, have made the city into what it is today--filled with abject poverty and one of the most violent places in the United States, not to mention the entire world.
Feel free to go for this one. Yes leadership has been Democratic. Pray tell how cutting taxes and scapegoating 'others' (minorities?), the Republican platform, would have saved Chicago if only they'd been in charge. Or maybe looser gun laws would have helped right.
In general, the poorest states with the most problems have Republican leadership and governments. The richest best states to live with the most vibrant cultures have Democrats in charge. Yes there are exceptions to either case (Chicago and Austin and others).
Actually, the entire State of Texas is an exception--the economy remained strong here even after the 2008/2009 housing collapse and now we help lead the world in oil and natural gas production. We should a net exporter by 2020 or 2025 (I would have to look at the numbers again).
Truthfully, I am uncertain if anyone's leadership could have helped Chicago survive the decline of the Rust Belt, but non-conservative policies at the city level helped exacerbate the problem. I need to browse back through the "Chicago" thread over at my other forum.
We've had those kinds of presidents before (admittedly it's been a while) and we will again. I'm not minimizing anything, just pointing out the fact that those particular bombs had 0% chance of affecting their targets. You can't mimimize zero unless you go to negative numbers...
Not in modern US history we haven't. - and I think you accidentally prove my point, in that in the 1800's, when presidents did sometimes demonize people - we had a LOT more domestic terrorism.
Seems like you're downplaying its significance to me by qualifying its likelihood. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but that's how it came off to me.
Edit: I don't typically try to intuit why someone is thinking the way they are, but it feels to me like you think you're being targeted because you're a conservative and it's infinitely more likely that these attacks have a political motivation and may have been fostered in an environment in which a conservative president makes innuendo about he morality of the left.
I don't think anyone is targeting you. I think you're a stand-up guy. For selfish reasons, I don't want to think of you as defending the kind of conservative you're not (Militant, bigoted, angry - things that aren't necessarily restricted to the Right).
I don't feel targeted mostly because I don't feel helpless. I'm confident enough in my beliefs that I don't feel threatened by other's. I just don't like it when this thread becomes page after page of conservative bashing without a voice speaking up on the other side. Truthfully, my mentality is probably more akin to a fiscally conservative Libertarian than a true Conservative.
Actually, the entire State of Texas is an exception--the economy remained strong here even after the 2008/2009 housing collapse and now we help lead the world in oil and natural gas production. We should a net exporter by 2020 or 2025 (I would have to look at the numbers again).
Truthfully, I am uncertain if anyone's leadership could have helped Chicago survive the decline of the Rust Belt, but non-conservative policies at the city level helped exacerbate the problem. I need to browse back through the "Chicago" thread over at my other forum.
Yes, sitting on Natural resources help’s one’s economy extremely well. You just have to look at Alberta and how much wealth they’ve generated for Canada after opening up the tar sands there.
It’s hard to screw up an economy when you are literally sitting on riches. The NDP in Alberts are trying, but the province is still chugging along (if not growing).
McALLEN — Nelson Enrique Sánchez said he got the call in September: Come now, his mother-in-law said, and bring the boy with you.
So Sánchez did as he was told. Led by smugglers, he and his 10-year-old son, Michael, traveled north from Honduras to join her in Louisiana — first by car, then on foot, then on a raft across the Rio Grande, before they surrendered to Border Patrol agents.
“He was our ticket, our passport,” Sánchez said, gesturing toward his son, arms wrapped around his father’s knees. “We had the opportunity to make it through, and he was our way out.”
If they had arrived a few months earlier, they likely would have been split up, the boy sent to a shelter or foster care and his father kept in detention — the result of a “zero tolerance” policy meant to deter immigrants from crossing the border illegally. That policy saw the government separate thousands of families as it prosecuted adults who crossed the border illegally while following a court agreement that says children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.
But after public outcry led President Donald Trump to end that policy in June, parents with children have been crossing the border in record numbers. In September, Border Patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members along the U.S.-Mexico border, up 80 percent from July and more than any other month on record, according to data released Tuesday.
Most of those families, like Nelson and Michael Sánchez, were released from detention within days — a return to the so-called "catch and release" practice that Trump has criticized.
So they came here, to a respite center run by the Catholic Church in McAllen, eating hamburgers and watermelon and glancing at multi-color, laminated maps of this unfamiliar country whose leaders are now considering a new crackdown on illegal border crossers that could include resuming family separations.
Noncompliance with the law--entering the country illegally--is a slap in the face to every person who waited and entered legally.
That being said, just like it is logically and logistically impossible to find and deport everyone here who is in violation of immigration law, it is logically and logistically impossible to take in *everyone*. Yes, many of these people are in desperate situations, but one thing they don't think about are the unscrupulous people here who are more than willing to use and abuse workers who are trying to stay under the radar--"do what I say or I'll report you". Walls won't keep people out--even the Berlin Wall leaked every now and then and it was manned with armed guards at all times--but I am not hearing solutions from the other side, only indications that trying to enforce immigration laws makes law enforcement agents racists and/or xenophobes. Where is the middle ground? At some point, conservatives are going to have to examine the dreaded a-word, amnesty. That, at least, would give us a clean slate and we could start from scratch.
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
Haven't heard from @WarChiefZeke in a while either...
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
Haven't heard from @WarChiefZeke in a while either...
I posted a bit in here yesterday, but it's just not my thing to talk politics every day. I have too many other interests, right now Mass Effect is what takes up most of my free time.
I do have this to add though: I would never consider voting for anyone who hinted at amnesty. I would vote for a border protecting democrat over an open borders republican in a heartbeat. Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
You enforce the law as it is and make it clear that crossing illegally will never be a solution. There is no other alternative.
Requiring an I.D to vote is not voter suppression. It is a reasonable requirement. Purging voter rolls is a normal process that happens under Democrat and Republican admins. Why it's normal then and voter suppression now is beyond me.
I think we would be better served with stronger federal laws here and less state by state laws though.
Comments
The other one is the guy opening fire at the pick up baseball game involving Republicans. The guy even asked if it was Republicans or Democrats playing on the field before opening fire.
That’s off the top of my head. I bet if I actually researched it a bit, I could find more examples of left wing domestic terrorism since 1995 that you might have forgotten about. Both Pence and Sanders, the latter one of the people who was chased out of a restaurant called the act “dispictable.” Sanders went further and stated that this person will be prosecuted at the full extent of the law for his actions.
That really isn’t being silent.
It's worth noting that almost without fail, every time the media does start to cover things like gun violence in Chicago, the Right immediately pushes back and doesn't want to talk about gun control, and doesn't want to talk about poverty levels in cities that disproportionately effect People of Color.
It's also a logical fallacy to suggest that because someone doesn't remark on a subject means that they either don't care or don't know. How many times will I have to say this: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/08/21/which-ideology-has-inspired-the-most-murders-in-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists
Yes, the earlier report of one having been sent to the White House has been disproven; even CNN was initially reporting that story. Fair enough--I can't tell you how to speak...except...they don't act like Nazis. No one is rounding anyone up with secret police or any of the other activities which were historically documented for anyone to research.
nationalist, noun
1) a person devoted to nationalism
2) a member of a political group advocating or fighting for national independence and/or a strong national government
nationalism, noun
1) spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation
2) devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism
3) excessive patriotism; chauvinism
Poor choice of words, probably, but technically the definition fits if those are the ideals to which he holds. Anything can be taken to excess, though, so such feelings should be tempered into moderation lest they get out of hand. The word may be misconstrued to reflect either positive or negative connotations--Tank man, whose identity remains unknown to this day, is a nationalist because he was one of the protesters pushing for increased freedoms in China, which would be a positive use of the word, and I doubt I need to provide any examples of the negative use of the word, given that we have so many examples.
Trump promises thorough investigation into suspicious packages
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-promises-thorough-investigation-suspicious-packages-183741531.html?.tsrc=notification-brknewsNAACP: Georgia votes for Democrat Stacey Abrams are being changed to Republican Brian Kemp
https://www.salon.com/2018/10/24/naacp-georgia-votes-for-democrat-stacey-abrams-are-being-changed-to-republican-brian-kemp/?preview=true&preview_id=14929364&preview_nonce=c862d97c99&fbclid=IwAR0DlYXpR7FNM13wEwHUGAydU5CYV5iGpRsMeWXwU2MRbXTJ459TNXb73z8Can fascism take root in the U.S.?
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/video/can-fascism-take-root-in-the-u-s-1350162499903?v=raila&cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_maHave liberal figures used as divisive language as GOP? Sure - But it makes a WAY bigger splash when the POTUS does it. We've never had someone like Trump that literally demonizes he opposition as President before.
Now we are receiving reports that Eric Holder and Maxine Waters can be added to the list of packages sent to them. We've moved beyond plausible deniability about what is happening here. There is a coordinated terrorist attempt going on against Donald Trump's political rivals.
Edit: AND John Brennan.
I'm a conservative. I'm not a racist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a heartless rich bastard. I'm not a CEO. I'm not a rapist. I've never sexually harassed anyone. I've never blown up an abortion clinic. I own guns but have never shot anything more intelligent than a deer. My daughter's best friend is a Muslim and I don't give a shit. My neighbors across the street are a black man married to a white woman and I even let my daughter play with their sons. Wow, I'm actually kind of boring...
Normal people are not the ones who get represented most often in the media. I've never seen a headline say "Most [insert political group here] Did Nothing Scandalous Today." The people who show up in the news tend to be extremists because they're more attention-grabbing, even if they're a tiny minority. It creates a distorted picture of half the country.
And if you like, we can look at just the DC baseball shooter and how he was dismissed by the media very quickly as unstable and his influences were never discussed deeply as this unknown wanna-be bomber’s is.
We can assume they were influenced by the president, but until he’s caught, we have no idea what his motive and who influenced him to act this way.
Seems like you're downplaying its significance to me by qualifying its likelihood. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but that's how it came off to me.
Edit: I don't typically try to intuit why someone is thinking the way they are, but it feels to me like you think you're being targeted because you're a conservative and it's infinitely more likely that these attacks have a political motivation and may have been fostered in an environment in which a conservative president makes innuendo about he morality of the left.
I don't think anyone is targeting you. I think you're a stand-up guy. For selfish reasons, I don't want to think of you as defending the kind of conservative you're not (Militant, bigoted, angry - things that aren't necessarily restricted to the Right).
'The whole world is my home:' Man travels globe spreading message of peace and love
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/the-whole-world-is-my-home-man-travels-globe-spreading-message-of-peace-and-love/24079928In general, the poorest states with the most problems have Republican leadership and governments. The richest best states to live with the most vibrant cultures have Democrats in charge. Yes there are exceptions to either case (Chicago and Austin and others).
Truthfully, I am uncertain if anyone's leadership could have helped Chicago survive the decline of the Rust Belt, but non-conservative policies at the city level helped exacerbate the problem. I need to browse back through the "Chicago" thread over at my other forum.
It’s hard to screw up an economy when you are literally sitting on riches. The NDP in Alberts are trying, but the province is still chugging along (if not growing).
Noncompliance with the law--entering the country illegally--is a slap in the face to every person who waited and entered legally.
That being said, just like it is logically and logistically impossible to find and deport everyone here who is in violation of immigration law, it is logically and logistically impossible to take in *everyone*. Yes, many of these people are in desperate situations, but one thing they don't think about are the unscrupulous people here who are more than willing to use and abuse workers who are trying to stay under the radar--"do what I say or I'll report you". Walls won't keep people out--even the Berlin Wall leaked every now and then and it was manned with armed guards at all times--but I am not hearing solutions from the other side, only indications that trying to enforce immigration laws makes law enforcement agents racists and/or xenophobes. Where is the middle ground? At some point, conservatives are going to have to examine the dreaded a-word, amnesty. That, at least, would give us a clean slate and we could start from scratch.
I do have this to add though: I would never consider voting for anyone who hinted at amnesty. I would vote for a border protecting democrat over an open borders republican in a heartbeat. Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
You enforce the law as it is and make it clear that crossing illegally will never be a solution. There is no other alternative.
Voter Suppression dominates the Gubernatorial Debate in Georgia
I think we would be better served with stronger federal laws here and less state by state laws though.