trump the traitor

[Observing]

It's time to demand Trumps removal from office. You don't give the Klan a pass and pardon a racist law man in the same month, not in this country.

[centexguy]

Originally Posted by Observing

It's time to demand Trumps removal from office. You don't give the Klan a pass and pardon a racist law man in the same month, not in this country.

Don't worry, one day you'll emerge from your bubble and see the world like the rest of us normal folks.

[Yssup Rider]

"Us normal folks."

I'm sure that's how you see yourself.

Pity that the new normal is so cowed by the cheeto-headed despot.

Not to mention the evil axis in the State Capitol.

Y'all keep normaling up, y'hear!

[lustylad]

If we had another dozen sheriffs like Joe Arpaio down there at the border, we wouldn't need a fucking wall!

Libtards like crunchyass think it's more important to protect the "constitutional rights" of non-citizens (who shouldn't even be here) than it is to protect our own citizens from people like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.

[Observing]

Originally Posted by centexguy

Don't worry, one day you'll emerge from your bubble and see the world like the rest of us normal folks.

Mueller gonna burst your little bubble...

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by Observing

Mueller gonna burst your little bubble..

More mental masturbation, Obie?

Carry on.

[Yssup Rider]

Is there a point there or are you just attacking another poster, gfe(forbiddentopic addict)?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If we had another dozen sheriffs like Joe Arpaio down there at the border, we wouldn't need a fucking wall!

Libtards like crunchyass think it's more important to protect the "constitutional rights" of non-citizens (who shouldn't even be here) than it is to protect our own citizens from people like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.

That's a fucking lie, Junior.

We need a wall around PISSBURG!

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is there a point there or are you just attacking another poster, gfe(forbiddentopic addict)?

Nope. Just an 'observation'.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

I knew little about the guy so I googled him:

"Arpaio has been accused of various types of police misconduct, including abuse of power; misuse of funds; failure to investigate sex crimes; improper clearance of cases; unlawful enforcement of immigration laws; and election law violations. A Federal court monitor was appointed to oversee his office's operations because of complaints of racial profiling. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history, and subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[10][11][12][13]


Over the course of his career Arpaio was the subject of several federal civil rights lawsuits. In one case he was a defendant in a decade-long suit in which a federal court issued an injunction barring him from conducting further "immigration round-ups".[14] A federal court subsequently found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to detain "persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed."[14] In July 2017, he was convicted of misdemeanor contempt of court, a crime for which he was pardoned by President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017.[15] In a separate racial-profiling case which concluded in 2013, Arpaio and his subordinates were found to have unfairly targeted Hispanics in conducting traffic stops."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of him. I also looked at various opinions of Trump pardoning him and most condemned the pardon and a few praised it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's a fucking lie, Junior.

We need a wall around PISSBURG!

Way to chime in intelligently, oinkboy!

All you know how to do is scream "You Lie!" - whether you're spamming here or in the Political Forum.

You're quite the conversation stopper, asswipe.

Keep it up... make Joe Wilson proud... nice to see you picked a Republican for your role model!

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by lustylad

All you know how to do is scream "You Lie!" - whether you're spamming here or in the Political Forum.

lustyturd,

Perhaps if you would stop lying, people would stop calling you a liar.

Easy fix, huh?

Austin doesn't buy you racist views of the world. Know your audience, dipshit.

Your ignorant blather goes over better in hillbilly country. Go talk to your fellow hillbillies, you pathetic loser.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

Austin doesn't buy you (sic) racist views of the world. Know your audience, dipshit.

Your ignorant blather goes over better in hillbilly country. Go talk to your fellow hillbillies, you pathetic loser.

"You lie!"

"You're a racist!"

"You lie!"

"You're a racist!"


There - I just saved you and assup from the effort of your next two posts... you're welcome, crunchyass!

Here you go... Shelby Steele is no hillbilly and he's talking directly to YOU!


Why the Left Can’t Let Go of Racism

Liberals sell innocence from America’s past. If bigotry is pronounced dead, the racket is over.

By Shelby Steele
Aug. 27, 2017 5:15 p.m. ET

Is America racist? It used to be that racism meant the actual enforcement of bigotry—the routine implementation of racial inequality everywhere in public and private life. Racism was a tyranny and an oppression that dehumanized—animalized—the “other.” It was a social malignancy, yet it carried the authority of natural law, as if God himself had dispassionately ordained it.

Today Americans know that active racism is no longer the greatest barrier to black and minority advancement. Since the 1960s other pathologies, even if originally generated by racism, have supplanted it. White racism did not shoot more than 4,000 people last year in Chicago. To the contrary, America for decades now—with much genuine remorse—has been recoiling from the practice of racism and has gained a firm intolerance for what it once indulged.

But Americans don’t really trust the truth of this. It sounds too self-exonerating. Talk of “structural” and “systemic” racism conditions people to think of it as inexorable, predestined. So even if bigotry and discrimination have lost much of their menace, Americans nevertheless yearn to know whether or not we are a racist people.

A staple on cable news these days is the “racial incident,” which stands as a referendum on this question. Today there is Charlottesville. Yesterday there were the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others. Don’t they reveal an irrepressible racism in American life? At the news conferences surrounding these events there are always the Al Sharpton clones, if not the man himself, ready to spin the tale of black tragedy and white bigotry.

Such people—and the American left generally—have a hunger for racism that is almost craven. The writer Walker Percy once wrote of the “sweetness at the horrid core of bad news.” It’s hard to witness the media’s oddly exhilarated reaction to, say, the death of Trayvon Martin without applying Percy’s insight. A black boy is dead. But not all is lost. It looks like racism.

What makes racism so sweet? Today it empowers. Racism was once just racism, a terrible bigotry that people nevertheless learned to live with, if not as a necessary evil then as an inevitable one. But the civil-rights movement, along with independence movements around the world, changed that. The ’60s recast racism in the national consciousness as an incontrovertible sin, the very worst of all social evils.

Suddenly America was in moral trouble. The open acknowledgment of the nation’s racist past had destroyed its moral authority, and affirming democratic principles and the rule of law was not a sufficient response. Only a strict moral accounting could restore legitimacy.

Thus, redemption—paying off the nation’s sins—became the moral imperative of a new political and cultural liberalism. President Lyndon Johnson turned redemption into a kind of activism: the Great Society, the War on Poverty, school busing, liberalized welfare policies, affirmative action, and so on.

This liberalism always projects moral idealisms (integration, social justice, diversity, inclusion, etc.) that have the ring of redemption. What is political correctness, if not essentially redemptive speech? Soon liberalism had become a cultural identity that offered Americans a way to think of themselves as decent people. To be liberal was to be good.

Here we see redemptive liberalism’s great ingenuity: It seized proprietorship over innocence itself. It took on the power to grant or deny moral legitimacy across society. Liberals were free of the past while conservatives longed to resurrect it, bigotry and all. What else could “Make America Great Again” mean? In this way redemptive liberalism reshaped the moral culture of the entire Western world with sweeping idealisms like “diversity,” which are as common today in Europe as in America.

So today there is sweetness at the news of racism because it sets off the hunt for innocence and power. Racism and bigotry generally are the great driving engines of modern American liberalism. Even a remote hint of racism can trigger a kind of moral entrepreneurism.

The “safe spaces” for minority students on university campuses are actually redemptive spaces for white students and administrators looking for innocence and empowerment. As minorities in these spaces languish in precious self-absorption, their white classmates, high on the idea of their own wonderful “tolerance,” whistle past the very segregated areas they are barred from.

America’s moral fall in the ’60s made innocence of the past an obsession. Thus liberalism invited people to internalize innocence, to become synonymous with it—even to fight for it as they would for an ideology. But to be innocent there must be an evil from which to be free. The liberal identity must have racism, lest it lose innocence and the power it conveys.

The great problem for conservatives is that they lack the moral glibness to compete with liberalism’s “innocence.” But today there are signs of what I have called race fatigue. People are becoming openly cynical toward the left’s moral muscling with racism. Add to this liberalism’s monumental failure to come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms, and the makings of a new conservative mandate become clearer. As idealism was the left’s political edge, shouldn’t realism now be the right’s? Reality as the informing vision—and no more wrestling with innocence.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the...ism-1503868512

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by lustylad

[SIZE="3"]

"You lie!"

racist, bigoted lustyturd,

All you ever do is DEFLECT. You want to be a racist and have nobody notice. Fat chance, hillbilly..

Your views here have been consistently RACIST.

You defend Joe Arpaio, like he is some hero, when he is a disgrace to this nation, (much like you, lustyturd).


Not all Republicans and conservatives are racists, far from it. But YOU are a flaming racist SCUM. Keep on doing things like defending people like Joe Arpaio. So continue to go fuck yourself, since none else would want to fuck you.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by lustylad

[SIZE="3"]

"racist!"

Read this:

How the GOP Can Prove It Isn’t a Party for White Supremacists

By Eric Levitz

white supremacists marched on Charlottesville to defend the honor of men who fought for their right to keep dark-skinned people as chattel. That same day, in the same city, socialists, anarchists, and Nazi-hating normies marched to defend the fundamental dignity of all human beings. One member of the first group sped his car through the latter one, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring 19 others.

Hours later, the president of the United States condemned “the hatred, bigotry, and violence — on many sides.”

Donald Trump went on to say that Americans must “cherish our history,” a phrase that, in context, could be understood only as an expression of support for the preservation of Confederate monuments — which is to say, for the cause that had brought Nazis and blood to the streets of Charlottesville. Trump then congratulated himself for bringing new jobs to the United States and touted his plans for veterans’ health care. He did not utter a single unkind word about the “alt-right” or neo-Nazis. As he walked away from the podium, a reporter asked if he welcomed the support of white nationalists. The president kept walking.

o their credit, a number of prominent Republicans rushed to answer the reporter’s question in the negative. Senators Chuck Grassley and Jeff Flake decried the evil of white supremacy. Orrin Hatch said his brother “didn’t die fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” Ted Cruz declared that every American has a moral obligation to speak out against “the lies and bigotry” of the KKK, and called on the Justice Department to investigate Saturday’s act of “domestic terror.” Marco Rubio subtly criticized the president for failing to address the evildoers by name.

That such statements were the bare minimum dictated by decency does not make them any less important. These days, we can’t take decency for granted. On Saturday, America needed its elected officials to know an act of racist terrorism when they saw it. Many GOP leaders did.

For the Republican Party to truly distance itself from the cause of white supremacy, however, it is going to have to do a lot more than that. Trump’s failure to describe the “events in Charlottesville for what they were” was a moral abomination. But so is congressional Republicans’ daily failure to describe Trump for who he is — or the party of Lincoln, for what it has become.

For half-a-century, the GOP has deliberately exploited — and inflamed — white racial animus, as a means of obtaining political power. That isn’t partisan hyperbole; it’s historical fact. In 1964, the Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights left most of the white South (and hefty portions of the white North) without a political home. This development provided Republicans with a great opportunity, so long as they were sufficiently cynical — or reactionary — to exploit it.

Richard Nixon was both. “We’ll go after the racists,” Nixon’s special counsel John Ehrlichman wrote, summarizing the spirit of his boss’s 1968 campaign. “The subliminal appeal to the anti-black voter was always present in Nixon’s statements and speeches.”

After the election, Nixon’s chief of staff H.R. Haldeman wrote in his diary that the president had told him, “[Y]ou have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognized this while not appearing to.” The system they settled on became known as the Southern Strategy. Its core premise was that the GOP had everything to gain from polarizing the electorate along racial lines, and that this could be done through the deployment of coded appeals to white racists — “dog whistles” that right-thinking fiscal conservatives could effortlessly ignore.

Republican consultants made no secret of this strategy. Some wrote best-selling books about it.

Over the ensuing decades, the gambit was updated but never abandoned. As the legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater infamously observed:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites … “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

In 1980, Ronald Reagan launched his presidential campaign by extolling the virtues of “states’ rights” in Neshoba County, Mississippi — a place where that phrase was synonymous with the defense of white supremacy, and where the defenders of white supremacy had infamously lynched three civil-rights activists. In 1988, George H.W. Bush’s campaign worked tirelessly to portray Michael Dukakis as soft on black criminality — or, as Bush’s campaign manager Lee Atwater put it, to “make Willie Horton his running mate.” Twelve years later, Bush’s son would secure the GOP nomination with the help of a whisper campaign that painted his chief Republican rival as the father of an African-American child.

Barack Obama’s election did not deliver us into a “post-racial” society. If anything, it did the very opposite. The reality of a dark-skinned president threatened a vital source of many a white American’s fragile sense of self-respect. And just as the backlash to civil rights had done decades earlier, the ensuing explosion of white racial animus provided the right with a fulsome opportunity. Fox News seized it with both hands — and, thus, so did Donald Trump.

Establishment Republicans may have had little taste for “birtherism”— but they took great pains to ensure that birthers felt welcome in the GOP tent. In 2012, Mitt Romney flew to Las Vegas to accept the “honor” of Trump’s endorsement.

There is no evidence that American elections are plagued by voter fraud, despite the second Bush administration’s strenuous efforts to generate some. But there is copious evidence that the Republican Party’s preferred means of combating voter fraud just so happen to make voting more difficult for nonwhite people.

In the allocation of electoral resources, GOP state governments don’t even bother with pretenses: After Obama won Indiana in 2008, state and local Republicans “expanded early voting in GOP-dominated areas and restricted it in Democratic areas,” thereby producing “a significant change in Central Indiana voting patterns,” the Indianapolis Star reported last week. (Specifically, the “reforms” saw a dramatic reduction in the number of absentee ballots cast in racially diverse Marion County, and a dramatic increase in such voter participation in lily-white Hamilton County).

No Republican senator expressed outrage over this news. And yet, state lawmakers working to deliberately reduce the influence of their black constituents (by making it more difficult for them to vote) does far more to advance the political domination of African-Americans by whites than a bunch of prep-school Nazis with tiki torches ever could.

To be sure, most GOP legislators who back voting restrictions don’t do so with the aim of bolstering white supremacy, but merely their own political fortunes. If African-American communities voted Republican — which is to say, if they could repress their urge for “free stuff” long enough to wander off the “Democratic plantation” — then surely the GOP would work to expand their access to the franchise, just as Democrats do now.

The fear of an ascendent, nonwhite majority — and the social “regression” that it will inevitably induce — is one of the modern GOP’s animating anxieties. Republicans in the Trump administration and Congress have voiced this fear, explicitly. During the 2016 election, senior White House national security staffer Michael Anton wrote that a Clinton victory would mark the “death” of the United States, because it would lead to “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty,” thereby rendering the electorate “more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.”

More below::

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...e-racists.html


but, but, but.. pigeons have no reading comprehension!