President Obama Warns Democrats Of The Dangers Of Socialism, Liberals Turn On And Attack Him

[cots]

More fallout from rich Democrats. Instead of Obama this time it's the founder of BET or Black Entertainment Television. He's taken what Obama said a step further and isn't even supporting any of the 2020 candidates. If you haven't heard of BET it's an American cable network channel that caters to African Americans and has had some really good family based shows on in the past. I used to watch it back when it started regardless that a lot of people were racist back then. I haven't watched cable TV in decades so I'm not sure what's on now. I'm not sure what his personal reasons are, but there's only a handful of black billionaires in the USA and possibly he doesn't like the idea that the Liberals would want to take 90% of his income away from him? Don't quote me on that - it's just a theory (not the Liberals wanting to take most of his income, that's a fact).

I wonder how @Xzi stating "After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups. " would apply to this issue.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in an interview Friday that he does not believe that there's a Democrat in the 2020 field today who can prevent President Trump from winning a second term. Johnson, a lifelong Democrat who has in the past praised Trump, told CNBC that his opinion was based on facts and he did not want to make it political.

In July, Johnson – the country’s first African-American billionaire – warned that the Democrats have become too liberal and said at the time that he isn’t supporting a particular 2020 candidate.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bet-founder-says-2020-election-is-trumps-to-lose

 

[Lucifer666]

Translation: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"
Translation for the next 1,000 threads cots makes: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"

 

[cots]

On the 'prisoners allowed to vote' argument (in the video), there is some sound logic behind this as well (Maher hints at it). Because previously convicted people in the US loose their right to vote (in other countries around the world they dont), and because of a generations lasting 'war on drugs' that was pushed through with profiling and prejudices intact - this means, that large portions of the black community are still barred from voting. So this is another 'lets game the voting system' issue. (In some regions - if you want to keep power as a conservative - you push law and order politics.) This then also is related to a self perception of 'we cant change things' which leads to lower voter turnout in those demographics - its a whole thing. So thats where that argument started. The 'serial killer' has nothing to do with it - is just used to push the argument to the extreme to then denounce it. Rhetorics. (So someone asked Sanders a loaded question, he replied emotionally charged. Now hes painted as wanting serial killers have a right to vote. Basically.)

Hey, sorry you replied and I missed it. I think that felons who serve their time should regain their rights. Not only their right to vote, but their right to work, get public assistance or credit. Right now if you get out of Prison there's few options for you, even less if you don't have family. They'll put you up in a motel for a few weeks (if you're lucky) and possibly get you hooked up with a low paying job. Then you're on your own. Sometimes they just kick them out of Prison (like the mentally ill) and drop them off in a city and say "good luck". Like with no food, money and just the clothes on your back. I've seen mentally ill people walking around in gowns with no shoes because they weren't given any clothes and just dropped off of the street corner. I mean, sure, they did the crime, but then they served their time. I think it's pretty fucked up how we treat people that we're supposed to be rehabilitating and integrating back into society. It's like we set them up to fail.

 

[Spring_Spring]

Why are liberals inherently evil?
They have ruled this country for many decades. I guess I must be very opressed without knowing...

 

[cots]

Translation: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"
Translation for the next 1,000 threads cots makes: "hurr durr snowflake liberals"

Pretty much. If it's not about video games it'll be about Liberals. Kinda like before I showed up 99% of this polical forum was "trumpy dumty orange man bad let's hate white men and conservatives"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Why are liberals inherently evil?
They have ruled this country for many decades. I guess I must be very opressed without knowing...

Your brand of Liberal is something American Liberals could aspire to. There's a big difference. See this post for an overview of an "American Liberal". If you need proof go read replies to news articles regarding anything Trump or related to Christian's on ABC News or Fox News.

 

[Spring_Spring]

ah yes, the definition of "liberal" is very different in the us. It's not even the same x3

 

[cots]

I think the Conservative claims that they're going to have a majority of the African American and Hispanic vote come 2020 is turning out to be pretty accurate.

Clarence Thomas reportedly compares 'the modern-day liberal' to Klansmen in new doc

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly recalled threats posed by the Ku Klux Klan when discussing how liberals impeded his career.
His comments came during a new documentary -- "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words" -- in which he reflects on the difficulties he faced during his confirmation battle in 1991.

"I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me. We were told that, 'Oh, it's gonna be the bigot in the pickup truck; it's gonna be the Klansmen; it's gonna be the rural sheriff,'" Thomas says in a new documentary, according to ABC News.

"But it turned out that through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern-day liberal," he added. "They were the ones who would discount all those things because they have one issue or because they have the power to caricature you."

The film is set to be released in early 2020, nearly 30 years after he assumed his spot on the nation's highest court.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/clarence-thomas-modern-liberal-klansmen

 

[notimp]

Next lesson, those are really just, lets say four, quite literally indistinct groupings of people based on their feels for risk aversement.

In our lifetime - there has been no political idea, that significantly changed anything. (Thats what makes the Obama statement so iffy.) - and even if, they usually get tested out in small projects, or smaller countries, and then analyzed - and then shut down, or partly implemented.

None of it has to do with a public speech level of convincing others for them. Or at least - very little.

Now - "but this is american liberalism' and something else is a different brand of liberalism - also, pretty much nonsense.

US currently is further right than almost any western country - flirting with the far end of the spectrum even. Thats it.

*Shake fists against those god darn liberals* is very, very similar to cursing at mirages. Meaning - regardless of what subgroup you mean to direct your anger against, splitting society in two groups (racism), or four groups (liberals, democrats, republicans, conservatives), some public speaker came up with a few centuries ago - serves pretty much no purpose.

People 'fall' in those groups based on self identification, around surface issues, that mattered - for a bit, based on their life experience, and what was hip, when they were 16-24. And then it changes over time.

There is no one out there trying to 'cure people' from liberalism successfully. Not that I know of. And when people do that with proponents on the far right - its mostly to reduce radicalization, that mostly follows cultish gameplans. (Build echochamber, remove peoples social contacts to the outside world. Teach - ingroup is bliss, you are better, hate the outgroup.)
--

Only political changes we will see in our lifetimes:
- Reduction of opportunities is good, because climate. (In societies on a degrowth path.)
- Corporations pivoting from shareholder value to "Ben and Jerries" business model. (People buying into feels, because of felt deficit of those values in their lives).
(The World economic forum in Davos is currently ongoing - catch up on it.. edit: Or at least its co-founder presented pivoting away from shareholder value to more CSR as a necessary outlook/perspective two days ago. Unsure.)

Both are highly cynical. Both may also provide needed progress. Both wont change powerstructures.

So whats the fuzz all about, really?


I think I wrote it once before.

Ancient Rome had people in lower classes pitched against each other based on the four colors of chariot (horse racing) teams. Din't mean jack. Everyone was very involved.

Much more interesting to lock at the proposals for any actual change, once they get enacted, or shortly before. Or even those that never get anywhere.

But trying to mobilize against an entire political fraction (party - in any part of the world that isnt the US), on the basis of 'it must go - they are always wrong, and evil' - kind of...

... well how do you say it...

The arguments always revolve around actually trying to win arguments. But hey - any chimp, who learned rhetorics can do that. Thats conversational technique from 400-2000 years ago. With cots, we are never exploring issues. We are only hearing stories about the devious 20% of society, that will never change their ways.

It really serves no purpose. No one gets more intelligent or knowledgable. Everything is presented with the same pathos, and the same intensity. And the enemy is to be blamed, and responsible for all them bad things.

I think I broke through that barrier at around age nine. When I thought to myself - wait a minute - people want to believe in monsters, so they don't have to face the duality of men (good and evil are part of everyone of us).

Talking about those very basic narratives. Do you think the Brothers Grimm, wanted to warn people around them, by collecting those dark and scary fairytales from yesteryear and writing them up? What do you think the purpose of those stories was in the first place.. Because you take 'big bad wolf' often very literally.

The day cots can be made to reflect on his own drive, must and will be a good day..