There a glimmers of hope. I think the number of people who see how Democrats contributed to where we are now are starting to outnumber those that don't. It's starting to look like we might have an honest to God progressive as mayor of New York, and the establishment has got to hate that.
It's still a real fight in front of us, but we are seeing the cracks start to form. What we really need now is a presidential candidate. Pritzker is the best I've seen so far, but I'd really like to do better.
The lines between corporate America, the American government, and organized crime are thin to non-existent.
I attended a No Kings rally in a small suburb that nobody here has probably ever heard of. We easily beat Trump's numbers. LOL
You just had a comment in this thread
Mods will mod. I don't think that comment should have been removed, but I'm not going to protest it.
You trying to get your comments removed for slapfighting too or what?
I'll go with "what". I'm not sure the mods will penalize me for not following your commands.
let it go
It may go whenever it wants.
You don't get to decide when others disengage, only yourself. If you don't want more replies, just stop commenting.
What is this, an Abbott and Costello bit? The words in a sentence are important - all of them. There are differences between people being for violence (as if that's a thing), people recognizing that violence is sometimes necessary, people thinking that violence is appropriate in response to this issue, and people calling for violence. Those all mean different things. Maybe you throw them all in the same mental bucket, but they are not the same. This is a symptom of thinking in thought terminating cliches. That used to be a Republican thing, but its sad how often I'm seeing it now on the left.
And I disagree.... You and I are not going to agree on the violence thing.
Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with us disagreeing on that. The problem is when you mix that in with accusations that I (and others) support violence in cases where we don't, or claim we are calling for violence in response to this incident when we have done no such thing.
Please disengage from this conversation.
Sure, I have no doubt that you can keep it going all by yourself. You really don't need me for it.
What does "violence is not the answer" exactly mean? I see several people pointing out that it sometimes is the answer. I don't see anyone calling for violence as a reaction to this incident, which is what you claimed.
Current New York Post headline: Former appointee of Tim Walz sought in ‘politically motivated assassination’ of lawmaker and husband
I agree with outrage. I don’t agree with violence as a reaction though.
Who called for violence as a reaction? Anyways, it doesn't seem like this guy is likely to come quietly when the cops find him, so I do have to wonder what you think the cops should do if he is armed and refuses to negotiate or surrender? Some level of violence may just end up being the correct reaction. We shall see.
Be sure let us know how your FBI interview goes after they read this thread.
Uh, OK. I'll stay by the phone.
We need the get there yes, but not all on "the day after". This is also the reason I suggested Pritzker as the best so far. He doesn't seem to be shying away from the needed rhetoric. My biggest concerns are that he is just being opportunistic, and that he is a billionaire. Then again, FDR was super wealthy too, and whomever it is needs to be at least a little psychotic - which at least suggests a billionaire.