The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-30-2020, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I wonder, since Classic Xer thinks we should keep the confederate statues up, whether he would like to see statues of our other traitors and enemies. They are, after all, part of our history. Should we have a statue of King George III in Washington DC? He was the leader of our country for a long time. How about the British generals? Should we name military bases after them too? Benedict Arnold? John Breckinridge ran for president and became a traitor. Maybe he needs a statue. Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, they are part of our history too. Should we erect statues to them too?

I know of a few archery stores that would be an appropriate place for such statues. You'd have to make them of an appropriate material, though, to let the arrows penetrate some.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2020, 12:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 08:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not obsessed with violence...

You don't think so?  Try not regularly threatening others with violence.  I am doubtful that you are capable of refraining yourself.

You don't like warnings. You don't view giving warnings as a good/nice gesture. You don't prefer to give or receive warnings in advance. Are you a terrorist or some kind of radical?

Warnings that violence may be coming is one thing. I do that too, although I agree with Bob that we have entered an era of less war and violence. But you make personal threats. I suppose it's not too serious, since this is a virtual world and we live far away from each other. But we have been tolerant. Sometimes people are booted off sites for that behavior.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2020, 01:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 11:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er, I have seen copious talk of nebulous violence from you. Americans are becoming less tolerant of racist, religious, homophobic, and domestic violence. Even executions are becoming rarer. (OK, one contributing factor to that is that police have bulletproof vests and get an edge in a shoot-out. Crooks used to pull a gun on a cop while fleeing a lawful arrest and shot the cop in the heart or lungs, killing the cop... but doing so now causes the bullet to bound off the bullet-proof vest and the cop gets a shot at the offender's heart or chest and then empties his revolver upon the dying offender. If the crook tries to shoot the cop in the face, then the cop shoots the perp in the chest before the crook can aim for the unprotected face or head  Technically that is police brutality, but if it is a choice between someone who pulls a gun on a cop dying in an electric chair or being killed in the field, I prefer that the cop survive).

You make it sound as if gun owners are all anti-liberal people set on defending themselves from some left-wing nightmare. You are wrong. Most gun owners are sport hunters, and those are generally well-behaved people. They own expensive, high-powered, highly-accurate rifles. Well-behaved, all right -- unless you are "Bambi" or some game bird. Many of the guns are in possession of gun collectors who are more interested in antique firearms for their beauty than for their fire-power. Sure, an AK-47, and Uzi, or an AR-15 may be beautiful for its firepower, but nothing else, and if a collector has any of those he needs only one. They have their historical roles. Those collectors may have plenty of muskets grossly obsolete as military weapons or criminal arms. It would be easy to fashion gun-control legislation that leaves their deer rifle or their antique collection alone. 

If you are scared of Black Lives Matters -- then at least recognize its narrow purpose of making police forces more responsible in treating African-American suspects right. The right way to deal with an African-American suspect is the same as dealing with a white suspect: overpower the alleged offender, put the offender in lawful custody, and let the legal system do its work. Should the offender have breathing problems, then the suspect goes to the hospital for treatment. Black Lives Matters does not have a purpose of allowing black people to get away with crime for having been deprived in youth or having had ancestors 'oppressed' in slavery or Jim Crow practice. There are good people in the most dreadful ghettos, and black crooks usually victimize such people if they get the chance. Black Lives Matters clearly does not ask for black people to get any 'race card' that gets them out of jail free. I am for law and order (which explains my disdain for drugs, homophobia, and sex crimes), but not for inexcusable manifestations of police brutality. Yes, self-defense, however inexcusable, is as brutal as inexcusable crime that it is intended to thwart. 

If you want to know what the real brutality in the human soul is, then just look to the neo-Nazi and neo-Klan (the distinction between the Klan and neo-Nazis is at most style). We all know what Nazis did, and anyone affecting Nazi symbols and ideology connects himself to confiscations of assets, torture chambers, shooting pits, concentration camps, and fake showers that dispense Zyklon-B. Because Klan groups share the same hatreds as Nazis and have a known proclivity for murderous violence, I can easily imagine Kluxists doing much the same thing. Those who shout "Jews will not replace us!" -- as far as that goes, I wish that Jews really would replace them. (Jews have the decency to recognize Harvey Weinstein, Bernie Madoff, and Jeffrey Epstein as rogues worthy of hatred much as I as a German-American see John Dillinger as a rogue deserving of hatred).

I'm not that scared of Black Lives Matter. I have a teenage daughter and a wife and a sister and family friends and close friends who go places where Black Lives Matter does/ could show up and do what they do or do more and go further than they normally do. which is an obvious concern and considered as bad enough for most people these days. I think its pretty clear that the majority of blacks who support Black Lives Matter don't want any armed cops policing going on in their neighborhoods (which are now expanding in Minneapolis right now) or bothering them and so forth. The black people that you don't see, that we rarely see( a quick snip it of them voicing concerns and discontent) are up in arms. Of course, you don't care about them, all you care about are the votes that Black Lives Matter can deliver in November. Are you sure that you aren't a racist? You don't view what's going on in left wing cities as left wing nightmares. I heard a young right winger was killed in Portland last night. I listened to some Democratic desk jockey Democrat giving a lecture and blaming Trump or blaming us as usual without thinking or understanding where we at as far as talking as usual since he's not paid do that as usual.

Riots have happened now and then in our USA history, and in other countries too. There are angry young people, and there are provocateurs and boogaloo boys. There is much to be angry about. Police should not violate our rights and shoot and execute us, and there should be no racial profiling and discrimination and no racial wealth gaps. Young people should be more considerate of business owners and not break their windows or start fires on their property. They should heed Dr. King and be non-violent. Presidents and politicians should not threaten violence and repression of our rights, and they should not gas us for photo ops. Militia men should disband and not train for civil war, and people should not buy guns, and people should not go out and shoot innocent people. But some people misbehave, are violent and commit crimes because we are not perfect yet. 

So we need police, and we need them well trained to keep their cool and not be violent except in self-defense. Many police may have to be fired, and their unions dissolved and immunity removed. Police should come from the community they serve. We need social and mental health workers too and others to do the work that neo-liberal Reaganomics has put only on the police to do, who are not educated to do those jobs. Some funds should be transferred if necessary so that these community workers can be hired. If a community wants to hire more police, that is their decision, if they can afford it and also do the other things to reform the profession and the work.

I don't see why Biden should be blamed for riots in the cities. It is happening on Trump's watch, and he has stoked the racism and the riots. If some white people are convinced that black lives matter, and the movement has moved them to do so, and therefore they vote for Biden, then that is all good. Sure, we want their votes. But that does not mean we don't care about the people: the black and white people getting hurt and killed and rising up, the business owners white and black who have to clean up and restore, police who get killed and/or are scared of guns and are poorly trained and caught up in racism, and so on. 

We care, and that's why we support Democrats too, because Democrats and Progressives and Greens and Socialists and so on have and offer the policies and programs that help the people, while Republicans and Libertarians and Constitution Party members have policies that hurt the people.

[Mikebert]

(08-29-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You better think harder than you normally do  because you're response may determine whether you live or die because it's pretty clear that it's my group who are going to be the decision makers because you've already determined that we are the strongest group in the United States of America today. I see a political party that's now mainly Progressive that seems to be of on the verge of imploding and I see the other party seems to have transitioned enough to take its place and stabilize most of the country.

I think you do not see clearly. But that is not what I want to ask. First, imagine this situation:

************************************************************************
You hold title to $450K ($900K if you are married) of income-generating property. You have good reason to believe that a radical faction has taken control of the opposing political party that if allowed to come to power will pass laws that will invalidate that legal title, stripping you of that property (with no compensation) and the income you derive from it. You are not alone. There are 16 million others in the same situation as you, some have more to lose some have less but the average is $450K per individual (collectively over $7 TRILLION).

The issue may be well be decided in the next election and tensions are understanding very high, political polarization is off the charts. Your side loses. Influential people you respect (who have lots more to lose than you) are calling for armed resistance. Would you join them? (I would). Where my wife and I live $900K is enough for for 6 rental units, that would allow us to collect rent on five apartments and live in the sixth rent-free, freeing up y salary for buying the good things in life.

If you were forced to give up your property you would be reduced to a lower class existence.
*************************************************************************************

This is the situation faced by slave owners in 1860. The scenario above is designed to show why the South seceded over the slavery issue. The Southern affluent and upper classes feared they faced real losses from the results from the election. Their fears were valid; five years later emancipation stripped them of those assets.

In the excerpt above, and in other things you have written, you imply that violence will arise out of the political polarization of our times. So I ask, what do you fear losing that is worth risking your life and everything you hold dear in such an endeavor?

[Classic-Xer]

(08-30-2020, 04:05 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-29-2020, 12:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You better think harder than you normally do  because you're response may determine whether you live or die because it's pretty clear that it's my group who are going to be the decision makers because you've already determined that we are the strongest group in the United States of America today. I see a political party that's now mainly Progressive that seems to be of on the verge of imploding and I see the other party seems to have transitioned enough to take its place and stabilize most of the country.

I think you do not see clearly. But that is not what I want to ask. First, imagine this situation:

************************************************************************
You hold title to $450K ($900K if you are married) of income-generating property. You have good reason to believe that a radical faction has taken control of the opposing political party that if allowed to come to power will pass laws that will invalidate that legal title, stripping you of that property (with no compensation) and the income you derive from it. You are not alone. There are 16 million others in the same situation as you, some have more to lose some have less but the average is $450K per individual (collectively over $7 TRILLION).

The issue may be well be decided in the next election and tensions are understanding very high, political polarization is off the charts. Your side loses. Influential people you respect (who have lots more to lose than you) are calling for armed resistance. Would you join them? (I would). Where my wife and I live $900K is enough for for 6 rental units, that would allow us to collect rent on five apartments and live in the sixth rent-free, freeing up y salary for buying the good things in life.

If you were forced to give up your property you would be reduced to a lower class existence.
*************************************************************************************

This is the situation faced by slave owners in 1860. The scenario above is designed to show why the South seceded over the slavery issue. The Southern affluent and upper classes feared they faced real losses from the results from the election. Their fears were valid; five years later emancipation stripped them of those assets.

In the excerpt above, and in other things you have written, you imply that violence will arise out of the political polarization of our times. So I ask, what do you fear losing that is worth risking your life and everything you hold dear in such an endeavor?

Are we on the verge of going to war over slaves right now? Did you know that its illegal to protect your property in Minneapolis or confront someone who is stealing your stuff in Minneapolis? You have rights, I have rights and everyone we know have rights. You tell me, are your rights worth risking your life to keep and keep everything that you hold dear in such an endeavor or not? No more games I hope your smarter/wiser than Eric and understand the country that you live in and understand the history pf our country. If not, you may find yourself in a tough spot having no rights or say in matters pertaining to you or your property.

So, how much is a piece of shit property located in a really shitty part of town with people who don't care about property or feel obligated to pay rent going to be worth? In short, you can choose to live out your as an American like me with all your rights intact with a government that respects them or live out your life as a peasant. It's your choice but if make the wrong choice now it will most likely be the last choice that you make as an American. Personally, I believe the USA is worth defending and waging a multi faceted war with today's Left to keep the bulk of the country intact myself. I don't know how a bunch of Democratic city states and a Democratic group of islands in the Pacific are going to survive as group but that's not up to me to figure out. That's going to be left for you or your government to figure out after we make it clear that we're going to split with the Democrat's altogether.

[pbrower2a]

(08-30-2020, 01:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 11:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er, I have seen copious talk of nebulous violence from you. Americans are becoming less tolerant of racist, religious, homophobic, and domestic violence. Even executions are becoming rarer. (OK, one contributing factor to that is that police have bulletproof vests and get an edge in a shoot-out. Crooks used to pull a gun on a cop while fleeing a lawful arrest and shot the cop in the heart or lungs, killing the cop... but doing so now causes the bullet to bound off the bullet-proof vest and the cop gets a shot at the offender's heart or chest and then empties his revolver upon the dying offender. If the crook tries to shoot the cop in the face, then the cop shoots the perp in the chest before the crook can aim for the unprotected face or head  Technically that is police brutality, but if it is a choice between someone who pulls a gun on a cop dying in an electric chair or being killed in the field, I prefer that the cop survive).

You make it sound as if gun owners are all anti-liberal people set on defending themselves from some left-wing nightmare. You are wrong. Most gun owners are sport hunters, and those are generally well-behaved people. They own expensive, high-powered, highly-accurate rifles. Well-behaved, all right -- unless you are "Bambi" or some game bird. Many of the guns are in possession of gun collectors who are more interested in antique firearms for their beauty than for their fire-power. Sure, an AK-47, and Uzi, or an AR-15 may be beautiful for its firepower, but nothing else, and if a collector has any of those he needs only one. They have their historical roles. Those collectors may have plenty of muskets grossly obsolete as military weapons or criminal arms. It would be easy to fashion gun-control legislation that leaves their deer rifle or their antique collection alone. 

If you are scared of Black Lives Matters -- then at least recognize its narrow purpose of making police forces more responsible in treating African-American suspects right. The right way to deal with an African-American suspect is the same as dealing with a white suspect: overpower the alleged offender, put the offender in lawful custody, and let the legal system do its work. Should the offender have breathing problems, then the suspect goes to the hospital for treatment. Black Lives Matters does not have a purpose of allowing black people to get away with crime for having been deprived in youth or having had ancestors 'oppressed' in slavery or Jim Crow practice. There are good people in the most dreadful ghettos, and black crooks usually victimize such people if they get the chance. Black Lives Matters clearly does not ask for black people to get any 'race card' that gets them out of jail free. I am for law and order (which explains my disdain for drugs, homophobia, and sex crimes), but not for inexcusable manifestations of police brutality. Yes, self-defense, however inexcusable, is as brutal as inexcusable crime that it is intended to thwart. 

If you want to know what the real brutality in the human soul is, then just look to the neo-Nazi and neo-Klan (the distinction between the Klan and neo-Nazis is at most style). We all know what Nazis did, and anyone affecting Nazi symbols and ideology connects himself to confiscations of assets, torture chambers, shooting pits, concentration camps, and fake showers that dispense Zyklon-B. Because Klan groups share the same hatreds as Nazis and have a known proclivity for murderous violence, I can easily imagine Kluxists doing much the same thing. Those who shout "Jews will not replace us!" -- as far as that goes, I wish that Jews really would replace them. (Jews have the decency to recognize Harvey Weinstein, Bernie Madoff, and Jeffrey Epstein as rogues worthy of hatred much as I as a German-American see John Dillinger as a rogue deserving of hatred).

I'm not that scared of Black Lives Matter. I have a teenage daughter and a wife and a sister and family friends and close friends who go places where Black Lives Matter does/ could show up and do what they do or do more and go further than they normally do. which is an obvious concern and considered as bad enough for most people these days. I think its pretty clear that the majority of blacks who support Black Lives Matter don't want any armed cops policing going on in their neighborhoods (which are now expanding in Minneapolis right now) or bothering them and so forth. The black people that you don't see, that we rarely see( a quick snip it of them voicing concerns and discontent) are up in arms. Of coarse, you don't care about them, all you care about are the votes that Black Lives Matter can deliver in November. Are you sure that you aren't a racist? You don't view what's going on in left wing cities as left wing nightmares. I heard a young right winger was killed in Portland last night. I listened to some Democratic desk jockey Democrat giving a lecture and blaming Trump or blaming us as usual without thinking or understanding where we at as far as talking as usual since he's not paid do that as usual.

Black Lives Matter is not pro-crime. White people have nothing to fear from it. I did go to one rally and left scared -- but then only for the paucity of masks. 

Most crime is intra-racial or else does not involve racial distinctions. I would suppose that people in Black Lives Matter would do the obvious if they witnessed a crime: they would call the police. 

A suggestion that I have is community policing -- the old beat system in which police are largely limited to a community in which they get to know the people, good and bad. Cops on such a system would learn which black man driving a Cadillac is a physician and which one is a pimp or pusher.  Cops would generally not be pulled from one beat to another except in emergencies. The cops who know the community can build trust. That is good for dealing with such emergencies as family arguments.

[Bob Butler 54]

It seems that a police union and the governor of Texas are against free speech.  A teacher gave an assignment to collect political cartoons on how blacks have been treated historically, and the results could easily be considered critical of their personal positions and actions.  The result?  Censorship.

[pbrower2a]

(08-30-2020, 07:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems that a police union and the governor of Texas are against free speech.  A teacher gave an assignment to collect political cartoons on how blacks have been treated historically, and the results could easily be considered critical of their personal positions and actions.  The result?  Censorship.

I am surprised that criticism of pure plutocracy (which is about what the Texas GOP stands for) doesn't get a similar response.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-30-2020, 03:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 01:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 11:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er, I have seen copious talk of nebulous violence from you. Americans are becoming less tolerant of racist, religious, homophobic, and domestic violence. Even executions are becoming rarer. (OK, one contributing factor to that is that police have bulletproof vests and get an edge in a shoot-out. Crooks used to pull a gun on a cop while fleeing a lawful arrest and shot the cop in the heart or lungs, killing the cop... but doing so now causes the bullet to bound off the bullet-proof vest and the cop gets a shot at the offender's heart or chest and then empties his revolver upon the dying offender. If the crook tries to shoot the cop in the face, then the cop shoots the perp in the chest before the crook can aim for the unprotected face or head  Technically that is police brutality, but if it is a choice between someone who pulls a gun on a cop dying in an electric chair or being killed in the field, I prefer that the cop survive).

You make it sound as if gun owners are all anti-liberal people set on defending themselves from some left-wing nightmare. You are wrong. Most gun owners are sport hunters, and those are generally well-behaved people. They own expensive, high-powered, highly-accurate rifles. Well-behaved, all right -- unless you are "Bambi" or some game bird. Many of the guns are in possession of gun collectors who are more interested in antique firearms for their beauty than for their fire-power. Sure, an AK-47, and Uzi, or an AR-15 may be beautiful for its firepower, but nothing else, and if a collector has any of those he needs only one. They have their historical roles. Those collectors may have plenty of muskets grossly obsolete as military weapons or criminal arms. It would be easy to fashion gun-control legislation that leaves their deer rifle or their antique collection alone. 

If you are scared of Black Lives Matters -- then at least recognize its narrow purpose of making police forces more responsible in treating African-American suspects right. The right way to deal with an African-American suspect is the same as dealing with a white suspect: overpower the alleged offender, put the offender in lawful custody, and let the legal system do its work. Should the offender have breathing problems, then the suspect goes to the hospital for treatment. Black Lives Matters does not have a purpose of allowing black people to get away with crime for having been deprived in youth or having had ancestors 'oppressed' in slavery or Jim Crow practice. There are good people in the most dreadful ghettos, and black crooks usually victimize such people if they get the chance. Black Lives Matters clearly does not ask for black people to get any 'race card' that gets them out of jail free. I am for law and order (which explains my disdain for drugs, homophobia, and sex crimes), but not for inexcusable manifestations of police brutality. Yes, self-defense, however inexcusable, is as brutal as inexcusable crime that it is intended to thwart. 

If you want to know what the real brutality in the human soul is, then just look to the neo-Nazi and neo-Klan (the distinction between the Klan and neo-Nazis is at most style). We all know what Nazis did, and anyone affecting Nazi symbols and ideology connects himself to confiscations of assets, torture chambers, shooting pits, concentration camps, and fake showers that dispense Zyklon-B. Because Klan groups share the same hatreds as Nazis and have a known proclivity for murderous violence, I can easily imagine Kluxists doing much the same thing. Those who shout "Jews will not replace us!" -- as far as that goes, I wish that Jews really would replace them. (Jews have the decency to recognize Harvey Weinstein, Bernie Madoff, and Jeffrey Epstein as rogues worthy of hatred much as I as a German-American see John Dillinger as a rogue deserving of hatred).

I'm not that scared of Black Lives Matter. I have a teenage daughter and a wife and a sister and family friends and close friends who go places where Black Lives Matter does/ could show up and do what they do or do more and go further than they normally do. which is an obvious concern and considered as bad enough for most people these days. I think its pretty clear that the majority of blacks who support Black Lives Matter don't want any armed cops policing going on in their neighborhoods (which are now expanding in Minneapolis right now) or bothering them and so forth. The black people that you don't see, that we rarely see( a quick snip it of them voicing concerns and discontent) are up in arms. Of course, you don't care about them, all you care about are the votes that Black Lives Matter can deliver in November. Are you sure that you aren't a racist? You don't view what's going on in left wing cities as left wing nightmares. I heard a young right winger was killed in Portland last night. I listened to some Democratic desk jockey Democrat giving a lecture and blaming Trump or blaming us as usual without thinking or understanding where we at as far as talking as usual since he's not paid do that as usual.

Riots have happened now and then in our USA history, and in other countries too. There are angry young people, and there are provocateurs and boogaloo boys. There is much to be angry about. Police should not violate our rights and shoot and execute us, and there should be no racial profiling and discrimination and no racial wealth gaps. Young people should be more considerate of business owners and not break their windows or start fires on their property. They should heed Dr. King and be non-violent. Presidents and politicians should not threaten violence and repression of our rights, and they should not gas us for photo ops. Militia men should disband and not train for civil war, and people should not buy guns, and people should not go out and shoot innocent people. But some people misbehave, are violent and commit crimes because we are not perfect yet. 

So we need police, and we need them well trained to keep their cool and not be violent except in self-defense. Many police may have to be fired, and their unions dissolved and immunity removed. Police should come from the community they serve. We need social and mental health workers too and others to do the work that neo-liberal Reaganomics has put only on the police to do, who are not educated to do those jobs. Some funds should be transferred if necessary so that these community workers can be hired. If a community wants to hire more police, that is their decision, if they can afford it and also do the other things to reform the profession and the work.

I don't see why Biden should be blamed for riots in the cities. It is happening on Trump's watch, and he has stoked the racism and the riots. If some white people are convinced that black lives matter, and the movement has moved them to do so, and therefore they vote for Biden, then that is all good. Sure, we want their votes. But that does not mean we don't care about the people: the black and white people getting hurt and killed and rising up, the business owners white and black who have to clean up and restore, police who get killed and/or are scared of guns and are poorly trained and caught up in racism, and so on. 

We care, and that's why we support Democrats too, because Democrats and Progressives and Greens and Socialists and so on have and offer the policies and programs that help the people, while Republicans and Libertarians and Constitution Party members have policies that hurt the people.

An idle Liberal government doing nothing, issuing stand down orders and enabling rioters is new compared to the riots we saw during the 90's. Do you want to start a  war or what? I'm telling you dude, we are directly related to the people who won World War II and your side is messing with a giant that is going to unravel whatever sense of stability that's left on your side and watch as Rome burns. Do you really want to go there because we will go there and there is nothing that Pelosi will be able to do once it starts.

You've been telling me for years that the Liberal policies aren't helping the poor and the high taxation and high costs of living related to them are taking their toll and the state that you live in is more or less a banana republic these days and a play ground for the rich and famous and blaming us because California is like that today.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-30-2020, 07:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems that a police union and the governor of Texas are against free speech.  A teacher gave an assignment to collect political cartoons on how blacks have been treated historically, and the results could easily be considered critical of their personal positions and actions.  The result?  Censorship.

You act as if the Democratic side isn't guilty of censorship.

[Eric the Green]

(08-30-2020, 11:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 03:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 01:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 11:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Classic X'er, I have seen copious talk of nebulous violence from you. Americans are becoming less tolerant of racist, religious, homophobic, and domestic violence. Even executions are becoming rarer. (OK, one contributing factor to that is that police have bulletproof vests and get an edge in a shoot-out. Crooks used to pull a gun on a cop while fleeing a lawful arrest and shot the cop in the heart or lungs, killing the cop... but doing so now causes the bullet to bound off the bullet-proof vest and the cop gets a shot at the offender's heart or chest and then empties his revolver upon the dying offender. If the crook tries to shoot the cop in the face, then the cop shoots the perp in the chest before the crook can aim for the unprotected face or head  Technically that is police brutality, but if it is a choice between someone who pulls a gun on a cop dying in an electric chair or being killed in the field, I prefer that the cop survive).

You make it sound as if gun owners are all anti-liberal people set on defending themselves from some left-wing nightmare. You are wrong. Most gun owners are sport hunters, and those are generally well-behaved people. They own expensive, high-powered, highly-accurate rifles. Well-behaved, all right -- unless you are "Bambi" or some game bird. Many of the guns are in possession of gun collectors who are more interested in antique firearms for their beauty than for their fire-power. Sure, an AK-47, and Uzi, or an AR-15 may be beautiful for its firepower, but nothing else, and if a collector has any of those he needs only one. They have their historical roles. Those collectors may have plenty of muskets grossly obsolete as military weapons or criminal arms. It would be easy to fashion gun-control legislation that leaves their deer rifle or their antique collection alone. 

If you are scared of Black Lives Matters -- then at least recognize its narrow purpose of making police forces more responsible in treating African-American suspects right. The right way to deal with an African-American suspect is the same as dealing with a white suspect: overpower the alleged offender, put the offender in lawful custody, and let the legal system do its work. Should the offender have breathing problems, then the suspect goes to the hospital for treatment. Black Lives Matters does not have a purpose of allowing black people to get away with crime for having been deprived in youth or having had ancestors 'oppressed' in slavery or Jim Crow practice. There are good people in the most dreadful ghettos, and black crooks usually victimize such people if they get the chance. Black Lives Matters clearly does not ask for black people to get any 'race card' that gets them out of jail free. I am for law and order (which explains my disdain for drugs, homophobia, and sex crimes), but not for inexcusable manifestations of police brutality. Yes, self-defense, however inexcusable, is as brutal as inexcusable crime that it is intended to thwart. 

If you want to know what the real brutality in the human soul is, then just look to the neo-Nazi and neo-Klan (the distinction between the Klan and neo-Nazis is at most style). We all know what Nazis did, and anyone affecting Nazi symbols and ideology connects himself to confiscations of assets, torture chambers, shooting pits, concentration camps, and fake showers that dispense Zyklon-B. Because Klan groups share the same hatreds as Nazis and have a known proclivity for murderous violence, I can easily imagine Kluxists doing much the same thing. Those who shout "Jews will not replace us!" -- as far as that goes, I wish that Jews really would replace them. (Jews have the decency to recognize Harvey Weinstein, Bernie Madoff, and Jeffrey Epstein as rogues worthy of hatred much as I as a German-American see John Dillinger as a rogue deserving of hatred).

I'm not that scared of Black Lives Matter. I have a teenage daughter and a wife and a sister and family friends and close friends who go places where Black Lives Matter does/ could show up and do what they do or do more and go further than they normally do. which is an obvious concern and considered as bad enough for most people these days. I think its pretty clear that the majority of blacks who support Black Lives Matter don't want any armed cops policing going on in their neighborhoods (which are now expanding in Minneapolis right now) or bothering them and so forth. The black people that you don't see, that we rarely see( a quick snip it of them voicing concerns and discontent) are up in arms. Of course, you don't care about them, all you care about are the votes that Black Lives Matter can deliver in November. Are you sure that you aren't a racist? You don't view what's going on in left wing cities as left wing nightmares. I heard a young right winger was killed in Portland last night. I listened to some Democratic desk jockey Democrat giving a lecture and blaming Trump or blaming us as usual without thinking or understanding where we at as far as talking as usual since he's not paid do that as usual.

Riots have happened now and then in our USA history, and in other countries too. There are angry young people, and there are provocateurs and boogaloo boys. There is much to be angry about. Police should not violate our rights and shoot and execute us, and there should be no racial profiling and discrimination and no racial wealth gaps. Young people should be more considerate of business owners and not break their windows or start fires on their property. They should heed Dr. King and be non-violent. Presidents and politicians should not threaten violence and repression of our rights, and they should not gas us for photo ops. Militia men should disband and not train for civil war, and people should not buy guns, and people should not go out and shoot innocent people. But some people misbehave, are violent and commit crimes because we are not perfect yet. 

So we need police, and we need them well trained to keep their cool and not be violent except in self-defense. Many police may have to be fired, and their unions dissolved and immunity removed. Police should come from the community they serve. We need social and mental health workers too and others to do the work that neo-liberal Reaganomics has put only on the police to do, who are not educated to do those jobs. Some funds should be transferred if necessary so that these community workers can be hired. If a community wants to hire more police, that is their decision, if they can afford it and also do the other things to reform the profession and the work.

I don't see why Biden should be blamed for riots in the cities. It is happening on Trump's watch, and he has stoked the racism and the riots. If some white people are convinced that black lives matter, and the movement has moved them to do so, and therefore they vote for Biden, then that is all good. Sure, we want their votes. But that does not mean we don't care about the people: the black and white people getting hurt and killed and rising up, the business owners white and black who have to clean up and restore, police who get killed and/or are scared of guns and are poorly trained and caught up in racism, and so on. 

We care, and that's why we support Democrats too, because Democrats and Progressives and Greens and Socialists and so on have and offer the policies and programs that help the people, while Republicans and Libertarians and Constitution Party members have policies that hurt the people.

An idle Liberal government doing nothing, issuing stand down orders and enabling rioters is new compared to the riots we saw during the 90's. Do you want to start a  war or what? I'm telling you dude, we are directly related to the people who won World War II and your side is messing with a giant that is going to unravel whatever sense of stability that's left on your side and watch as Rome burns. Do you really want to go there because we will go there and there is nothing that Pelosi will be able to do once it starts.

You've been telling me for years that the Liberal policies aren't helping the poor and the high taxation and high costs of living related to them are taking their toll and the state that you live in is more or less a banana republic these days and a play ground for the rich and famous and blaming us because California is like that today.

Police and national guard, and whatever else is needed, is stopping the rioters and they doing what they can. "Democrat-run cities" have always been "Democrat-run cities." Cities are liberal and Democratic, and have been forever. And Pelosi and Biden are not the mayors of all those cities. Your side conflates, exaggerates and lies shamelessly, because guys like you will accept whatever you are served up from them, even though what is being served up to you is shit like this:





Trump is golfing as America burns. And California is burning. My sky is full of smoke and thousands have lost their homes, because your side has imposed climate change upon us, and for no other reason. We had a few blackouts because of our 106-degree heat wave, and that also happened years ago before we had solar energy too. Most of the blackouts were cancelled, but that didn't stop your own purveyors of cancel culture like Kimberly here and Trump himself to exaggerate for effect. The only planned blackout we had here in my place must have been at least 25 years ago.

There is no limit to the damage your side has inflicted, and inflicted even more severely on their own red states. Our costs of living remain high in CA because people are well paid to work here, and because it's such a desirable place to live. I've been telling you THAT forever. We still have some burdens, because of past rule here by Reagan and his kind, but it was CA that offered free education for years, which I benefited from, and which created the wealth in CA that makes the state so expensive today.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-30-2020, 01:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 12:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 08:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not obsessed with violence...

You don't think so?  Try not regularly threatening others with violence.  I am doubtful that you are capable of refraining yourself.

You don't like warnings. You don't view giving warnings as a good/nice gesture. You don't prefer to give or receive warnings in advance. Are you a terrorist or some kind of radical?

I would care about the threats coming from most people, but from you they are a joke.  Braack, buck buck buck.

I suppose my view of history is unusual.  That might brand me as a radical. but if so most S&H fans would be radicals.  Somehow it is hard to picture Strauss and Howe as radicals, wearing Hawaiian shirts and carrying long arms.  Still, most of my expressing myself on history takes place on this site.  You would know where I stand as well as anyone, or would if you had been paying any sort of attention.  It is hard to get labeled a terrorist when I say use violence as a last resort which we have not reached yet.  Just asking that question shows how you are not absorbing what I say and writing without thinking.

Well, I do live over a thousand miles away from you and present no immediate threat to you or your life. So, you can get away with braak, buck buck buck here. In real life, it would be the other way around and you would be at my mercy. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand right now. You're right, I read what you have say and think about it and try to make sense of it but I'm not absorbing it or considering changing my mind. I think it's pretty clear that you and others on the Democratic side don't seem like or appreciate our people in uniforms and view them as a major threat. I'd say most of the people that I've tangled with over the years were radicals who weren't prepared for a real fight or planning on having to fight themselves. I say that because most of them didn't know what to do when I openly displayed a willingness to be mean, play rough and kick some ass so to speak.

[Eric the Green]

(08-31-2020, 12:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 01:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 12:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 08:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 04:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not obsessed with violence...

You don't think so?  Try not regularly threatening others with violence.  I am doubtful that you are capable of refraining yourself.

You don't like warnings. You don't view giving warnings as a good/nice gesture. You don't prefer to give or receive warnings in advance. Are you a terrorist or some kind of radical?

I would care about the threats coming from most people, but from you they are a joke.  Braack, buck buck buck.

I suppose my view of history is unusual.  That might brand me as a radical. but if so most S&H fans would be radicals.  Somehow it is hard to picture Strauss and Howe as radicals, wearing Hawaiian shirts and carrying long arms.  Still, most of my expressing myself on history takes place on this site.  You would know where I stand as well as anyone, or would if you had been paying any sort of attention.  It is hard to get labeled a terrorist when I say use violence as a last resort which we have not reached yet.  Just asking that question shows how you are not absorbing what I say and writing without thinking.

Well, I do live over a thousand miles away from you and present no immediate threat to you or your life. So, you can get away with braak, buck buck buck here. In real life, it would be the other way around and you would be at my mercy. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand right now. You're right, I read what you have say and think about it and try to make sense of it but I'm not absorbing it or considering changing my mind. I think it's pretty clear that you and others on the Democratic side don't seem like or appreciate our people in uniforms and view them as a major threat. I'd say most of the people that I've tangled with over the years were radicals who weren't prepared for a real fight or planning on having to fight themselves. I say that because most of them didn't know what to do when I openly displayed a willingness to be mean,  play rough and kick some ass so to speak.

Were you arrested for assault for this behavior by one your people in uniform? You think this is any different from the rioters you and your side go on and on about? Do you think you guys playing rough, and kicking radical leftists in the ass, will decide who rules the country? Do you realize that Trump and McConnell are the ones holding up relief funds for the police? Do you realize the police are public sector workers that require "socialism" to pay for?

[Classic-Xer]

(08-31-2020, 12:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Police and national guard, and whatever else is needed, is stopping the rioters and they doing what they can. "Democrat-run cities" have always been "Democrat-run cities." Cities are liberal and Democratic, and have been forever. And Pelosi and Biden are not the mayors of all those cities. Your side conflates, exaggerates and lies shamelessly, because guys like you will accept whatever you are served up from them, even though what is being served up to you is shit like this:





Trump is golfing as America burns. And California is burning. My sky is full of smoke and thousands have lost their homes, because your side has imposed climate change upon us, and for no other reason. There is no limit to the damage your side has inflicted, and inflicted even more severely on their own red states. Our costs of living remain high in CA because people are well paid to work here, and because it's such a desirable place to live. I've been telling you THAT forever. We still have some burdens because of past rule by Reagan and his kind, but it was CA that offered free education for years, which I benefited from, and which created the wealth in CA that makes the state so expensive today.

I missed her speech. Did you notice that I've been saying what she said about the Democratic party for last 15 years. I guess my views are as mainstream today as Bernie Sanders. Of coarse the difference is that my views are main stream American vs mainstream Democratic. As I also mentioned before, God works in mysterious ways.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-31-2020, 12:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Well, I do live over a thousand miles away from you and present no immediate threat to you or your life. So, you can get away with braak, buck buck buck here. In real life, it would be the other way around and you would be at my mercy. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand right now. You're right, I read what you have say and think about it and try to make sense of it but I'm not absorbing it or considering changing my mind. I think it's pretty clear that you and others on the Democratic side don't seem like or appreciate our people in uniforms and view them as a major threat. I'd say most of the people that I've tangled with over the years were radicals who weren't prepared for a real fight or planning on having to fight themselves. I say that because most of them didn't know what to do when I openly displayed a willingness to be mean,  play rough and kick some ass so to speak.

In my karate and kung fu days, I picked up a few thoughts on violence.  If you actually know stuff, you don’t have to prove it.  Picking a fight with an unknown opponent proves nothing.  Thus, your constant reference to how you would use violence gives you away.  No one I knew at either school talked like that, but anyone but a beginner could likely enough kick your rear if they had to.

These days I am handicapped and still am threatened.  I find it amusing.  It is not the dog that is usually yapping and noisy that is the threat.  My tenant keeps a St Bernard called Big Charley on the back porch.  He is there so much that everyone assumes he is chained there.  Um, no.  He is just obedient.  One day someone came after my tenant with intent to rape.  Her response was to yell a little loudly the word, "Charley".  The guy learned the difference between chained and obedient, and suddenly decided to leave the property. 

The military I respect.  The civilians?  The KKK?  The Neo Nazi?  The Boogaloo Bois?  The militia?  They have not given any reason to respect them.  

Yes, the liberals have mostly discovered that protest and legislation is a more effective route than violence.  As I’ve said many a time, insurgent war and nukes have made conflict much less cost effective than it used to be.  Lately, non violence is usually effective against most opponents.  Then again, most opponents listen to the people.  There are more than a few autocracies that don’t listen.  The Soviet Union finally gave up without violence, but that is no guarantee that all autocratic regimes will.  

But I haven’t any real hope you will think things through.  You let your hunter gatherer emotions control you.  You don’t listen or think things through.  But, hey, COVID leaves me far too much time.  Might as well waste it here.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-31-2020, 01:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 12:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 01:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 12:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 08:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You don't think so?  Try not regularly threatening others with violence.  I am doubtful that you are capable of refraining yourself.

You don't like warnings. You don't view giving warnings as a good/nice gesture. You don't prefer to give or receive warnings in advance. Are you a terrorist or some kind of radical?

I would care about the threats coming from most people, but from you they are a joke.  Braack, buck buck buck.

I suppose my view of history is unusual.  That might brand me as a radical. but if so most S&H fans would be radicals.  Somehow it is hard to picture Strauss and Howe as radicals, wearing Hawaiian shirts and carrying long arms.  Still, most of my expressing myself on history takes place on this site.  You would know where I stand as well as anyone, or would if you had been paying any sort of attention.  It is hard to get labeled a terrorist when I say use violence as a last resort which we have not reached yet.  Just asking that question shows how you are not absorbing what I say and writing without thinking.

Well, I do live over a thousand miles away from you and present no immediate threat to you or your life. So, you can get away with braak, buck buck buck here. In real life, it would be the other way around and you would be at my mercy. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand right now. You're right, I read what you have say and think about it and try to make sense of it but I'm not absorbing it or considering changing my mind. I think it's pretty clear that you and others on the Democratic side don't seem like or appreciate our people in uniforms and view them as a major threat. I'd say most of the people that I've tangled with over the years were radicals who weren't prepared for a real fight or planning on having to fight themselves. I say that because most of them didn't know what to do when I openly displayed a willingness to be mean,  play rough and kick some ass so to speak.

Were you arrested for assault for this behavior by one your people in uniform? You think this is any different from the rioters you and your side go on and on about? Do you think you guys playing rough, and kicking radical leftists in the ass, will decide who rules the country? Do you realize that Trump and McConnell are the ones holding up relief funds for the police? Do you realize the police are public sector workers that require "socialism" to pay for?

I've heard Pelosi was playing hardball and she won't settle for less than what she wants and feels she needs to maintain the status quo. So, I guess the blue states, blue cities. blue schools and what's left of their police forces have to go without until she becomes more reasonable  or scared about the aftermath. Like I said, we're mainly dealing with COVID19 and the financial aftermath is still yet to come.

[David Horn]

(08-31-2020, 02:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I've heard Pelosi was playing hardball and she won't settle for less than what she wants and feels she needs to maintain the status quo. So, I guess the blue states, blue cities. blue schools and what's left of their police forces have to go without until she becomes more reasonable  or scared about the aftermath. Like I said, we're mainly dealing with COVID19 and the financial aftermath is still  yet to come.

So far, neither Mitch McConnel nor Mark Meadows has offered an alternative, so what does that imply?  Other than handouts to his rich buddies, it appears that Trump isn't interested in helping anyone -- not surprising for a Gilded Plutocrat.

[pbrower2a]

(08-31-2020, 02:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 01:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 12:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 01:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2020, 12:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You don't like warnings. You don't view giving warnings as a good/nice gesture. You don't prefer to give or receive warnings in advance. Are you a terrorist or some kind of radical?

I would care about the threats coming from most people, but from you they are a joke.  Braack, buck buck buck.

I suppose my view of history is unusual.  That might brand me as a radical. but if so most S&H fans would be radicals.  Somehow it is hard to picture Strauss and Howe as radicals, wearing Hawaiian shirts and carrying long arms.  Still, most of my expressing myself on history takes place on this site.  You would know where I stand as well as anyone, or would if you had been paying any sort of attention.  It is hard to get labeled a terrorist when I say use violence as a last resort which we have not reached yet.  Just asking that question shows how you are not absorbing what I say and writing without thinking.

Well, I do live over a thousand miles away from you and present no immediate threat to you or your life. So, you can get away with braak, buck buck buck here. In real life, it would be the other way around and you would be at my mercy. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand right now. You're right, I read what you have say and think about it and try to make sense of it but I'm not absorbing it or considering changing my mind. I think it's pretty clear that you and others on the Democratic side don't seem like or appreciate our people in uniforms and view them as a major threat. I'd say most of the people that I've tangled with over the years were radicals who weren't prepared for a real fight or planning on having to fight themselves. I say that because most of them didn't know what to do when I openly displayed a willingness to be mean,  play rough and kick some ass so to speak.

Were you arrested for assault for this behavior by one your people in uniform? You think this is any different from the rioters you and your side go on and on about? Do you think you guys playing rough, and kicking radical leftists in the ass, will decide who rules the country? Do you realize that Trump and McConnell are the ones holding up relief funds for the police? Do you realize the police are public sector workers that require "socialism" to pay for?

I've heard Pelosi was playing hardball and she won't settle for less than what she wants and feels she needs to maintain the status quo. So, I guess the blue states, blue cities. blue schools and what's left of their police forces have to go without until she becomes more reasonable  or scared about the aftermath. Like I said, we're mainly dealing with COVID19 and the financial aftermath is still  yet to come.

The status quo is Donald Trump, a logical consequence of a plutocratic culture  that holds that the common man exists solely to enrich, indulge, and obey the asset-holders and power-wielders. 

The only good that I can see in red "reforms" of education are that they tend to level the educational experiences to prepare people for low-paying dead-end jobs in an economic order that uses poverty as a tool of control. The red "reforms" might be good for people best described as on the borderline of mental retardation, which is the bare minimum for participating in the consumer economy -- you know, grocery shopping, watching mindless TV, maybe taking in an occasional movie, perhaps 'enjoying' a cigarette, and every five years or so going to an amusement park. One listens to the radio for country music if white, or rap if black. 

Note well: all despotic and dictatorial regimes fare best when people learn to an elementary level and don't go on. Propaganda on behalf of an anti-human society is most easily accepted literally and with minimal thought. What an authoritarian regime does not need is people capable of reading between the lines. Any blockhead can learn to read a highly-phonetic language that he uses all the time, as was so in the Roman Empire until about AD 300*   but reading (Latin legere) between (Latin inter) takes some intelligence. Such is the source of of the words intellect, intelligence, and their derivatives: reading between the lines, which is recognizing that there might be more to the story than is told. 

If you want to know what doomed the Soviet Union, it was of all things the engineering vital to its sophisticated weaponry. Dimwits can work on an assembly line or clerk in a shop with a sporadic supply of wares all day and go home to watch (with vodka)  low-brow programming that for most people ended with the news program Vremya, which might have as its closing story that the potato crop was coming in. A political system suited for the level of economic development of early capitalism can make a story that the potato crop is coming in a big thing. On the other hand, rockets and guidance systems necessary for fending off such from the United States of America requires well-educated engineers who need to learn among other things the formal logic to which smart American kids learn for the first time in geometry. So long as  people dedicate all their attention to mathematics, science, and engineering the system has no problems. But these smart people start using the fine tooth comb of logic to what they are told about the system and they start to see contradictions. Isn't Marxism-Leninism supposed to create a better world faster than capitalism? Add to this something obvious to any smart person: Man does not live by bread alone. Young adults spoon-fed the idea that capitalists and their progeny are vile rakes who exploit workers not only for grossly-underpaid toil but also in sybaritic indulgence of a destructive character to those used in it, they start recognizing that American factory workers live better than Soviet factory workers, and that Soviet culture is fossilized in ways that Western culture in capitalist systems isn't. What those smart people learned in elementary school, that the Soviet Union was the best of all possible worlds, was a hideous failure. 

Heed this well: Donald Trump's idea is perfectly suited to people of low intelligence, which means little ability to "read between the lines". In his ideal world, people would learn little more than bare literacy and numeracy -- enough to read warning signs and labels,  respond as desired to official and commercial communications, do mind-numbing work for the reward of sitting on a sofa to watch some mind-numbing and soul-rotting prolefeed, and perhaps have a trip every five years or so to an amusement park. Nobody would be troubled by global warming, social inequities, the witlessness of country music and the awfulness of rap... war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. We will end up with a fossilized low-brow culture and an educational system that prepares people to be the working poor who cannot rebel but also cannot improve their lives. That is what Trump stands for -- if you can read between the lines. 

I will say this -- part of the Good Life includes knowing how to live, which means that one must develop some curiosity to keep life from getting boring.  

*which is about when the Roman vernacular speech started to diverge sharply among Latin speakers from the classical standard to an extent that confusion was possible with certain grammatical necessities of Classical Latin... when "vulgar" Latin largely supplanted Classical Latin except in official communications. High-ranking Roman officials were oblivious to this change except to judge it when they encountered it within their insular world. Those elites failed to adjust to other changes in the world, but that is one of the most blatant and damaging.  "Vulgar Latin" was fully suited to sophisticated discourse, but it somehow never got used for such.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-31-2020, 10:59 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The status quo is Donald Trump, a logical consequence of a plutocratic culture  that holds that the common man exists solely to enrich, indulge, and obey the asset-holders and power-wielders. 

PB, there is no hope for you to figure out what you're doing, saying or which side you're actually supporting at this point. Like him or not, Donald Trump represents the values of traditional American culture and the core principles that the United States of America was founded on and you and others are on the plutocratic side that wants the power to dismantle and establish themselves as rulers. You're not thinking clearly because if you were you'd understand that we have an American President, an American government, an American army, an American economy and an American Constitution that we will be defending as we are waging war with what's referred to as the Democratic party and the plutocracy that it represents today. So, get ready and be prepared to accept the consequences for being an imbecile.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-31-2020, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 02:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I've heard Pelosi was playing hardball and she won't settle for less than what she wants and feels she needs to maintain the status quo. So, I guess the blue states, blue cities. blue schools and what's left of their police forces have to go without until she becomes more reasonable  or scared about the aftermath. Like I said, we're mainly dealing with COVID19 and the financial aftermath is still  yet to come.

So far, neither Mitch McConnel nor Mark Meadows has offered an alternative, so what does that imply?  Other than handouts to his rich buddies, it appears that Trump isn't interested in helping anyone -- not surprising for a Gilded Plutocrat.

She wants 2.5 trillion to cover all sorts of wants and needs and they're at 1 trillion for needs only. Fuck her, we'll make do on own until she comes around to our way of thinking or finds herself coming to grips with the reality a pending financial disaster and an economic upheaval on her hands. So, other than social security payouts and medicare coverage and an ideological preference, what do you have in common with a power hungry, greedy stuck up rich bitch from San Francisco? You forget that Trump was a rich man who took a major pay cut and lifestyle change to become our President unlike Obama who lived pay check to pay check before entering office as a US Senator and got richer and richer as he was in office. America knows, it's only some Democrats that haven't come to grips with what Americans have been telling them about their party for years.