Can hate win an election?

Light overcomes darkness eventually. So no, hate won’t win this election cycle but that won’t completely stop hate.

 

Hate is being confused fir restoring class in Washington. I don’t regret my vote a single bit, but ignorance can drive a nation into the gutter like it did in 2016.

 

We think Biden is pretty awesome. You're obviously projecting your own seething hatred on to ethical people. It's a standard conservative deflection technique. If you want to know how they think, just watch what they accuse liberals of. Works every time.

Evidence? This board, filled to overflowing with spittle-flecked bug-eyed red-faced hatred of Biden and Harris. I didn't think conservatives could possilbe get more consumed with hatred than they did with Clinton, but they're managed it. It appears that another 4 years of hate-practice has really honed their hate-skills.

None of the Trump cultists hated Biden or Harris a year ago. They've all descended into their madness of unhinged hatred of those two just recently. That demonstrates how they just hate who they're told to hate.

That's one big reason why Trump is losing so big. The majority of Americans are not morally depraved, so they reject the sick hate-based lifestyle of the Trump cult.

 

Help us out is a cult like a little boy praying to Obama before he goes to sleep?

 

If you're praying to Obama, you're in a cult. I don't want to know any more, because praying to Obama, or saying Trump is chosen by god, that's all just weird cult behavior.

 

No. I have no formal education in the law. While it would be nice for me to be able to take your comment as a compliment on my orderly, methodical way of presenting an argument, your addition of the words, "for the criminals," makes your meaning quite clear (in this case) & you weren't expressing a compliment.

I think it is worthwhile, nonetheless, for us to examine my previous reply to try to see what I said that produced your metamorphic interpretation.

I started my post, "There are so many inaccuracies in your reply..." and then immediately began correcting them, the first being the foundational statement of your, "reasoning," for why your complaining about the Democrats' actions, if they win both the Presidency & the Senate majority, could not be compared to any Democrat complaining about the actions of Trump, McConnel, or the Republican caucus, as a whole, or any part thereof. You argued:

Yes, the rule is relatively simple, & yet you misstate it: civil rights are not forfeited just because a police officer or anyone else sees you in what appears to be the commission of a crime; to lose any of one's civil rights, one must be convicted of a crime. Is this what makes me sound like a defense lawyer, knowledge of something I would think any adult American should know? You, in fact, began your reply saying you know this fact (see next quote excerpt). So how do you explain your misstatement? Was it only to make it seem to better support your rationale for being able to rail at the Democrats, despite telling Democrats that they should take their medicine in silence, w/o making you a hypocrite?-- in other words, because you were knowingly putting forth a false argument? Or was it because you feel that the way you stated it is the way it should be? Complete loss of civil rights as soon as the police, or some law-abiding citizen who wants to help the police, sees (what they think is) someone breaking the law?

Or was it my reply's next point, that, even in prison, a person does not lose ALL their civil rights, that makes me seem, to you, to be on the side of the criminals? My simply stating a fact about the law, again, that one would presume most people are aware of; for the purpose, once more, of giving an example of the inaccuracies with which I claimed your reply was replete-- to show there was a basis to my evaluation, that I wasn't just making things up.

And if you were also aware of the fact that criminals don't forfeit all their civil rights, why did you misstate that? Disingenuous argument, or wishful thinking on your part?

I stopped quoting you there because I judged it overdue for me to point out that what you are supposedly defending is your unilateral ability to decide that Democratic Congresspersons were criminals, therefore have lost all their civil rights, which apparently would make it all right (if not, perhaps laudable?) for you to decry any of their LEGAL legislative actions with which you disagree, without being a hypocrite for telling Democrats the opposite: that what goes around, comes around, basically, & so THEY are NOT justified in complaining about the actions of Trump & Company (even though some of THEM would also contend that various Republicans were committing crimes and/or eroding our American liberties by under-cutting the democratic intents of our Constitution). And your argument for that, involves you pushing a potential intruder, who you've shot & whose fallen backwards, back in through your window, from the lawn, before the police arrive????

I emboldened your 2 sets of lines, above, about Legality & Fairness, to point out that one can't both, "try to live by (our laws, as imperfect as they are) and, simultaneously, say that, "REGARDLESS OF WRITTEN LAWS...one's natural sense of what is just is invariably that when you run reckless over the rights of others- you have no rights, and they have every right to run over you.

What you are advocating there is VIGILANTISM, which is, in all cases, definitely NOT abiding by the law. (And I suppose my pointing this out only confirms, for you, that I must favor criminals, those who break the law). Forgive my redundancy in saying that I would think any sensible person would understand this simple principle. Either we all go by a common set of laws (though naturally, we will none of us be in complete accord with every aspect of our legal system), OR we go by our OWN SENSE of what is just. If we all felt the same about what is, "just," you of course understand, there'd be no reason it wouldn't be reflected in our laws. (And, aside from whether one believes in taking personal vengeance in cases of unsatisfactory legal remediation or recompense, for one trying to maintain their moral superiority, it hardly seems a helpful point to mention, let alone emphasize.)

Since a big part of our legal system is predicated on the principle of, "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW," if you don't accept that, whole-heartedly, & instead think people outside of that group of legally-convicted persons, based on only your own judgement, deserve to suffer consequences-- or, as you say, should have no rights, & that those who feel that their rights have been, "run reckless," over, have every right to run over those they deem the offenders, sans trial-- then YOU are advocating criminal activity, &, despite your claims

you do not support law & order, if that destruction of private property is OK, in your eyes, if its owners had run reckless over someone's rights, in the destroying -person's opinion. In fact, how do you know, in the minds of those looters, that the people they were looting from hadn't run reckless over their rights? I guess, maybe you think it should be your sole prerogative to make these decisions. But his is not law & order: it is ANARCHY. I would note that one of your allegations against the Democratic leadership was that they supported the destruction of the police & law & order. But you don't see your arguing in favor of extra-judicial, "justice," as adversely affecting law & order? I suppose I could chalk it up your argument coming out of an extreme lack of perceptive ability, except that you admit that you understand this, & that you do not put stock in the law!

Your argument is specious, baseless, self-contradictory, & sickening.
It is self-justification of your hypocrisy, & nothing more.

Oh wait. It is one thing more: insincere.

What does that have to do with Democratic leaders-- did you leave out being physically attacked by Chuck Schumer?

<COMMENTS EDITED>

 

Leftists simply cannot conceive of the idea that yes, America is not perfect, but no, it is still better than anywhere else.

Why else do so many foreign medical students choose to remain here to begin practices? That clinic in Bombay pays nothing compared to just staying here.

Why else do so many hundreds of thousands of foreign-born people go through the rigors of applying for citizenship? No, America isn't perfect. But if we keep the fools and incompetents and criminals down to a minimum in our government, we just might have a chance to survive.

 

you do not support law & order, if that destruction of private property is OK, in your eyes, if its owners had run reckless over someone's rights, in the destroying -person's opinion. In fact, how do you know, in the minds of those looters, that the people they were looting from hadn't run reckless over their rights? I guess, maybe you think it should be your sole prerogative to make these decisions. But his is not law & order: it is ANARCHY. I would note that one of your allegations against the Democratic leadership was that they supported the destruction of the police & law & order. But you don't see your arguing in favor of extra-judicial, "justice," as adversely affecting law & order? I suppose I could chalk it up your argument coming out of an extreme lack of perceptive ability, except that you admit that you understand this, & that you do not put stock in the law!

QUOTE="spiritgide, post: 1072163122, member: 70923"]There are legal rights- and moral rights. The moral rights came first, and they were not invalidated by the feeble attempts of legality to define them after the fact, which usually just muddies things up.[/QUOTE]

Your argument is specious, baseless, self-contradictory, & sickening.
It is self-justification of your hypocrisy, & nothing more.

Oh wait. It is one thing more: insincere.



What does that have to do with Democratic leaders-- did you leave out being physically attacked by Chuck Schumer?



Spoken like a true Jihadist.[/QUOTE]


You are certainly doing your best to avoid the reality here. People manufacture different kinds of worlds- invariably to allow the kinds of actions they wish to take to be legitimized. Regardless of what you convince yourself of, reality remains unchanged. Possibly unseen, but not unchanged. Law- is a human social construct, or in some cases a declaration by human dictator. Law does, and always has, failed to fully regulate any society. We have those that break the law- legal criminals. We have those that use the laws to do wrong- in other words, to do dishonest things legally. That group generally includes lawyers and politicians, but of course includes savy private citizens too. Generally speaking, any honorable man is offended by acts that ore offenses against others- done either way. It's just harder to do anything about legalized dishonesty. But of course, law being a human construct, it is hardly complete at providing a true and just regulating force. While politicians want you to believe it is, a wise man knows it's not. We try to make law work, so good men follow it if possible.

Now I've been here 79 years. I've never been arrested or charged with anything, have always paid my own way, paid all my taxes which have become considerable- and have a reputation for unquestionable integrity and being a generous person. I founded the first of 8 businesses in 1968, I still run a manufacturing business with clients in more than 100 countries. IF your presumptions were in any way accurate, I doubt that would be the case.

The nature of my businesses has resulted with my meeting many very successful people; mostly entrepreneurs. Household names. Being a person who has studied how people think and what makes us who we are most of my life, I always made it a point to use those opportunities to ask people who have achieved a great deal about their secrets- and most are glad to share that, if you ask with respect and don't insult them first, as so many would do. I also ask probing questions of people in special positions. One was a professor of political science who had spent a lot of time in Washington. He was a customer first, but became a close friend and then a consulting source for a legislative action I wanted to initiate. He knew the ins and outs of congressional process; what goes on behind closed doors- and what it takes to open them. That was a totally new perspective for me, and one that would make most any citizens face turn pale. Politics, including the legal side, is a very dirty and unscrupulous business. It shouldn't be- but it is.

Another such person who became a close friend was an acclaimed district court judge of 25 years. We would talk about the more unusual cases he had tried, the people, the motivations- and generally how and if the law could change things. One day, he told me: "The best regulator is the self-regulator. We only need law because some people refuse to self-regulate. If they all did, I'd be out of a job."

We extended the discussion of self-regulation- covering the fact that most all people know the difference in right and wrong (moral law) but criminals lack the character and self-respect to respect it. His point, particularly in the serious felony cases, is that when that person is committing such a crime, they have discarded all law- in effect left the game; thus to the criminal, there is no law. Civil rights are part of the law we constructed- part of the law he rejects. At the point of a violent crime, the criminal HAS rejected all law. Law may come along after the fact and attempt to second guess events, restore a regulated condition, attempt to make some kind of restitution- but in fact, usually does that poorly. During the commission of a violent crime, the law of survival, and the moral law or lack of it in the individuals control events. The criminal ignores moral law as well as civil law. This is why a person killed in the process of committing a violent crime results in justifiable homicide rulings. Only a fool worries about the "civil rights" of a person whose immediate intent is to kill you. Soon to be a dead fool, because all laws and rights have been suspended at that moment in time and he doesn't know it.

A competent and wise human being knows how to identify and play the game he is in. When the rules of the game change, he must change. It's not about rejecting laws or rules, it's about being aware of the conditions and acting according to the reality you face. The game of life is changing right now- dangerously. We have a growing element of our society that has no idea what the game is, and is grossly unprepared to handle it.

I doubt you will understand any of this.

 

Is it humanly possibly to miss the point of a post more than you have? Nah. Didn't think so.

 

You have it wrong. We pity Biden. This is his third time to fail at becoming President, this time by outliving his political shelf life. Harris might as well be Katy Hill. Same morals. Same party.

 

A good indication of how the vote will go is after slavery Democrats couldn’t win an election for many many years it wasn’t until about the 1920s and 30s when they started offering welfare did they start winning elections.. in 2020 the media has stop reporting negative news against Democrats. This is never happened before it’ll be interesting to see what happens. Back in the early 2000s I switched from the Democrat to Republican because of the media constantly lying about George Bush

 

Would it be ok for citizens to disagree with this law?

 

IF more people were as capable as you are in discussions like these- my hopes for the future would be vastly better than they are. I sincerely appreciate the honesty you approach this with. That said, let me answer some points.

I think the most comprehensive issue of all, the thing that affects how people see things so differently- is information. How and where we get it, how honest and legitimate it is.
"propaganda" is the word for the process of manipulating what people believe by controlling what they think they see. Few of us have any real contact with the world at large, our perspectives are formed by what we still call "news". I think that in today's world, most news is now propaganda. The sacred trust of the press, the journalistic ethic of the past- is no longer with us. Of the major news outlets, most are owned by people with other primary agendas who find having their own news company very beneficial. Not too much different than the multitude of "independent product review" sites that are owned by the company whose products are getting independently endorsed.

The easiest way to create a lie is to tell a half-truth. One side of a story. Kind of like reporting that John Smith shot and killed Bill Brown, without mentioning that Brown was an armed robber. Thus- John Smith becomes a murderer to the people reading the story. While that is a simplistic example, it is what is happening everyday in todays news media. Half truths, sometimes the enhancement of one side of a story and the denigration of the other. Illustrating the same act using alternate light depending on which side you are speaking of. Flat out not mentioning some stories as if they had no value, then making a strong case for others that may be less relative- because they reinforce the message you wish to send. They are telling you what to think rather than allowing you to see the full story and think for yourself. That is the exact objective of propaganda .

Your communications professor gave you good advice. I hope it included learning to look past what you are told to see what you have not been told. Be a skeptic about everything, intentionally look to corroborate it before you believe it. Many years back, I used CNN as a news source and felt relatively confident about it. Today, I find it appalling; I fully expect every story they report to be misrepresented to their political bias- and without a shred of concern for morals or ethics. If you watch the MSM channels, you may have noticed the way that a new buzzword will appear over and over on a variety of shows and networks, all at the same time. That of course is not accidental, it's- propaganda driven, canned scripting to reinforce a label or view.

I consider FOX news today as the most reliable news source. I'm not alone, they surpass CNN and all others consistently. They generally are supporters of Trump and the right, but they also criticize Trump with some frequency. I also use some of the more independent sources like Reuters to verify their stories when appropriate.

Here's what I would ask you to do. Watch a couple of FOX shows, perhaps a few times each. First is Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8 pm eastern. When he speaks to an issue, he will generally show the video and documentation of the event, as well as the relevant background, regardless of who it might help. Then he will play CNN's coverage and commentary of the same event, usually with glaring contrast between their implied message and the documentation you had just watched. You will never see CNN do the same; they will pretend that what they say is all there is- it's how they control their viewers perspective. They may have a panel of several people, who all nod and agree, so you see multiple people endorsing the view. The other side of the coin- doesn't exist there, and they don't want you looking for it. The MSM seems to be run by the same command, because they follow in line like lemmings.
I say that if you don't question and verify outside your prime source or their associates, you have assisted in your own deception. I think your old professor would agree.

Second show is called Life, Liberty and Levin, later in the evening. Mark Levin is a constitutional scholar who worked for Ronald Reagan and was chief of staff for the attorney general. He has a law degree, has authored many books on politics. Very sharp guy, deep thinker and consistently logical. He coverage is more on the conflict of the philosophies and the moral violations that are currently running rampant is politics, often addressing how things can be so far out of focus. If things are confusing, he will often clear them up. Much quieter format, but addresses things with critical thinking and reasoning.

I added a post about a week ago with a letter that a Canadian put on facebook with his opinion of Trump. Easy to find, and I would suggest you read what he said. It includes that he sees Trump as an arrogant jerk, and that he wishes Trump were his president. He explains why- and he's pretty much spot-on.

Lastly- consider the current conditions. Not the virus, but the radical issues such as people believing that riots are peaceful protests, and politicians allowing it, even cooperating with it. All of the places these things are taking place are governed by liberal democrats. Some time back, we had Congresswoman Maxine Waters, in a public speech, tell people to go out and find Trump supporters wherever they were and run them out, tell them they weren't welcome here. CNN's Don Lemon has just compared Trump supporters to drug addicts. The polls show an increasing acceptance of socialism, even communism philosophies. We have vandals tearing down national statues, blaming their dis-satisfaction with life of people who have been dead for 150 years. We have what fundamentally are organizations using terrorist tactics, such as BLM, getting full and open support from the same kinds of people.

None of that relates to Trump, or anything his supporters want or endorse. These are the things the new left wants to impose on America- and very few democrats have been willing to stand up and oppose it.
I'm not for Trump- I'm for America; I'm for building and improving it as we have been doing for generations. Right now, Trump is the only logical choice, and regardless of the election he won't be here long. But if we allow propaganda to distort our perception of reality, we could easily lose the entire nation, and America become a third or at lease second world country. I don't want my great-grandchildren to think my generation left that legacy to them, and I don't think you would either.

Your professor was wise- Truth matters. It's just getting a lot harder to find today, because a lot of people are determined to hide it.

 

My point is.... that Trump has done something not seen in decades; he gets things done. If he's a "defective cripple", what do you call those who's only achievements were to botch the job of putting new band aids over the old band aids?

Trump isn't perfect, no argument there. IF that was a prerequisite for the job, the office would never be filled.
But at this point in time, he is the best we have for the job by far.

You can argue that, but you know it's true.

 

We are in complete agreement on this. If I am under attack, I will do whatever I deem necessary to protect myself, including killing the attacker. What makes your argument disingenuous is we are NOT discussing the right of physical self-defense. We are talking about your hypocrisy in thinking that when Democrats criticize either the President or the enabling Republican majority in the Senate, you take umbrage, saying that

That's where our conversation started, remember? You saying that Democrats SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN because Repubs are just following Democrats', "game," so what goes around, comes around, and now the shoe is on the other foot. Fine. I replied, cogently, that, in that case, YOU shouldn't complain if Biden wins the Presidency, & Democrats get a Senate majority, & they proceed to operate by the rules of the, "game," that McConnell & his Senate Minions have made clear they are following: to do whatever their position ALLOWS them to do. Anyone who was not a hypocrite to the core would have to, at that point, acknowledge the consistency of that view:
what's good for the goose is good for the gander; therefore, would understand that the, "rules," that they had just stated would mean that they, that is, YOU, should not complain at the Dems following suit. Or, alternately, a less than total hypocrite could revise their thinking: since they could see how they would want to complain at what they would see as an abuse of power, concede that other perspectives could be valid for other people, & so withdraw their prohibition on Democrats' complaining. But instead, you have taken the tack that, because natural law allows a person to defend himself in the case of physical threats to their person (& law is in complete accord w/ this idea of self-defense), that somehow means that Democratic leaders have lost their civil rights (huh?) which then gives you the freedom to criticize them w/o any hypocrisy on your part. WTF?

No Democrat has attacked you, is that correct? So then your analogy is complete crap, yes? Besides the fact, that the reason you said Democrats should not complain, had nothing to do with CIVIL RIGHTS!

No, you are doing your best to avoid the point we are actually discussing. It is absolutely non sequitur for you to try to extend the idea of self-defense to political objections, to the point that those politicians w/ whom you have qualms have lost their civil rights; but the same IS NOT TRUE, in your view, of the politicians you like, despite others feeling the same way about them as you feel about Democratic leaders. This is HYPOCRISY, as pure as it gets.

I understand fully: you believe only your opinion is valid. It justifies whatever you wish, including your right to complain, despite suggesting that Democrats did not have that same right; or if they exercise that right it is because they are sore losers, whereas nothing of the sort would be true of you. Is that about right?

For the record, I believe EVERYONE has the right to complain: it's called, "freedom of speech." But that innate sense of justice you speak of, also makes me feel that a person should follow the same rules he stipulates for others. Isn't that a funny coincidence?

 

You can disagree all you want. It's still the law. It's still the truth.

 

Well I’m glad your ok with it

 

Yeah, I'm pretty okay with the Constitution. Didn't realize that was suddenly controversial.

 

Remember we the people

 

What is your disagreement? What would you prefer basing citizenship on?

 

Culture, ability to assimilate like we did up until the 60’s

 

Cool beans. I'll still go with what the Constitution has to say about people born here. Thanks. You keep making up something else.

 

Absolutely Not

 

Lol, no hun. Citizenship by birth was around well before the 60s.

 

Kamala is not Natural Born so your premise is flawed.