why don't we take the antifas, and the qanons..and put them in a cage and let em have at it, thunderdome style. or, or...bring back the coliseums (but no lions his time, b/c PETA).
Because it would mostly be the Q's fighting themselves. Antifa has been made into a movement by Trump, not the anti-fascists who despise him. It's hard to get people upset over "crazy liberals"...but if you can give their group a name, and easily blame them for things..."Antifa is burning Portland"...it's more powerful.
why don't we take the antifas, and the qanons..and put them in a cage and let em have at it, thunderdome style. or, or...bring back the coliseums (but no lions his time, b/c PETA).
The announcement comes just weeks after Hillary warned the Democrats running for president in 2020 that they could have the election "stolen" from them, suggesting that Russian interference was the sole factor in her humiliating loss to Donald Trump in 2016—and not, for example, her unprecedented deficiencies as a candidate.
"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," Clinton told a cheering audience in Los Angeles as part of her "Evening with the Clintons" tour with her nominal husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Yep, it's official, Trump is not the legitimate POTUS ...
A New York Times op-ed by political scientist (and former Bob Kerrey aide) Greg Weiner (7/13/18) may well be the New York Times–iest op-ed ever.
Its ostensible subject is why Democrats should call themselves “liberals” and not “progressives.” But in making that case, it hits most of the main points of the New York Times‘ ideology—one that has guided the paper since the late 19th century.
First and foremost, it’s a defense of the status quo. “The basic premise of liberal politics,” Weiner writes, “is the capacity of government to do good, especially in ameliorating economic ills.” But not too much good, mind you: “A liberal can believe that government can do more good or less,” he stresses. Weiner draws a contrast with progressives: “Where liberalism seeks to ameliorate economic ills, progressivism’s goal is to eradicate them.”
So Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society is cited negatively as an example of “a progressive effort to remake society by eradicating poverty’s causes”—in the process supporting “community action” and financing the “political activism”—presented without explanation as a self-evident evil. The explanation, presumably, is that the poor should remain passive as they remain poor, gratefully accepting the handouts that “alleviate” their plight, as “cutting checks,” as Weiner puts it, is “something government does competently.”
Coupled with this anxiety about “eradicating poverty’s causes” is the confident assurance that the truth is always somewhere in the middle. “Unlike liberalism, progressivism is intrinsically opposed to conservation,” Weiner warns:
Nothing structurally impedes compromise between conservatives, who hold that the accumulated wisdom of tradition is a better guide than the hypercharged rationality of the present, and liberals, because both philosophies exist on a spectrum.
Conservatives make better partners for liberals than progressives, because “one can debate how much to conserve.” But you can’t debate how much to progress, apparently: “Progressivism is inherently hostile to moderation because progress is an unmitigated good.”
In other words: Equality and justice, sure, but let’s not rush into things, is the “liberal’s” advice. He endorses “policies develop gradually and command wide consensus—at least under normal circumstances.” (Progressives have an unnerving desire to “depress the accelerator.”)
Something that doesn’t change is the right wing of the left’s attraction to redbaiting. Weiner praises “the Cold War liberal who stood for social amelioration and against Soviet Communism,” a figure who “was often maligned by progressives.” Without coming out and accusing progressives of Stalinism, he describes progressives’ response to critics as “a passive-aggressive form of re-education,” one that “supersedes the rights of its opponents.” The example he gives of this is the “progressive indifference to the rights of those who oppose progressive policies in areas like sexual liberation”—an odd arena to cite, since the main “rights” that opponents of “sexual liberation” have demanded in recent years are the “right” of small businesses to discriminate against gay customers and the “right” to check the chromosome status of people who use public restrooms.
This is a report on the Donald Trump rally from Markos, who was reporting live for Danger & Play Media.
I’m sure most of you have heard the news, and seen the videos on the news. You may have a lot of questions, and want to see if what the media reported was accurate or not.
Well, I’ve got good news for you. I was there, and I will tell you exactly what I saw, and how it all went down.
"Mr. Williams hasn't always been against armed militias in the United States. In November he tweeted: "If the Government ever makes Muslims carry ID cards or shuts down mosques, I will have no choice but to take up arms against my government."
Hehe. Montel was famous for like 6 months in the early 90's. Somebody needs to tell his agent that his day passed 25 years ago and that he should just retire.
This is just a publicity stunt. Montel is no less a jackass than he was in the 90s...
I didn't search it out but the mangling of language in the subhead tipped me off...
