If the Left, now Leftists in America keep getting their way, as they have incrementally gotten over the last 50 or so years, all American males at some point will be legally required to be genetically altered or castrated to make them less of a threat to every other living thing on the planet. Masculinity in all of its forms will be banned.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/american-psychological-association-deems-traditional-masculinity-harmful-could-lead-to-sexual-harassment

One of the many, many problems with this so very Liberal, Leftist and practical new diagnosis by the American Psychological Association, who I am certain is populated by a very large majority of so very practical Liberal and Leftist women and politically correct beta males who might as well be woman minded professionals is that as men lose their rights to be men there will be no more men. And then what will you do?

And women, whether they are fully indoctrinated and brain washed SJW feminists or whether they are just regular full blooded regular ladies with that 50 Shades Of Gray scenario bouncing around in their heads, and you know most of you women, Liberal, Leftist or full blooded normal regulars have exactly that and your drive for a better life style, safety and family structure with an actual man as primary drivers of your life and actions will never be satiated by some version of a man in a beta male or a robot. I suppose that at that point women will then have to also be genetically modified to no long think and desire such things? A slippery slope has got nothing on this scenario.

Can you imagine a world where there are only full blown politically correct beta males and “Liberated” SJW feminist women in it? Sounds like one hell of a scary horror movie. In the movie to make everyone “equal” I suppose the politically correct beta males will be required to also menstruate? Now we are talking pure terror! :)

I write this tongue in cheek, but not really.

So you think. You have yet to defend why you think that no one else could have beaten such a poor candidate as Clinton — so poor that Democrats were crossing party lines by the millions in order to vote against her. She was such a poor candidate that she made Mondale look like a good candidate. But maybe you consider it axiomatic after all, thus it needs no defense; you believe it to be true merely because you said it, and you think we should think so, too, merely because you said it.

I suspect that the reason that you wanted my counter argument to be lame is because you cannot defend your position against it. Thus, you reverted to the Democrat tactic of using insults in place of reason.

“I need an apology from you because you stated that I was a promoter of violence and hate”

Well, that is how your statement sounded. Once again, you do not argue well.

“I am neither of those things”

I didn’t think so. This — again — is why I proposed the better, non-hateful and non-violent analogy. Which you rejected, leaving us with your doubling down on the “hateful and violent” analogy.

“there is nothing that you could find to substantiate that, anywhere.”

Except for your analogy of — while the topic was hate and violence from the left — fighting fire with fire. That was something that I found without having to go looking.

“You choose to properly do (or not do) what ever you think appropriate, as you wish.”

I did, but you, Cotour, complained about it. You called it lame and demanded an apology. Somebody’s feelings were hurt, but they weren’t mine.

You have yet to clarify what it was that you meant. If the “fire” to be fought with “fire” is not “hate and violence,” then what is it? What do you think needs to be fought? This cannot be such a difficult question to answer, because you must have had something in mind. If you are not promoting hate and violence, then what is it that you are promoting?

Final apology: I am sorry that you do not know what you mean, when you argue. It makes discussing things with you very difficult.

Now if you will excuse me for the evening, I will go off and not drink wine, because I am not the one who needs it. No safe space is needed on my end.

(But a clarification from you, Cotour, would be appreciated.)

You choose to properly do (or not do) what ever you think appropriate, as you wish.

That does not show that he is the only one who could have beaten Hillary. You are unable to support your ludicrous position.

“This is far, far below you and it may be the lamest thing you have ever written.”

Actually, the reverse may be true, because your original statement makes no sense in any context in this thread. That was my point. That is why I questioned your statement in the first place. That is why I suggested the alternate, more peaceful analogy.

“I expect an apology from you.”

I am sorry that you are such a poor debater. Since you say that it is far below me to debate you, then perhaps I should stop. Just remember that you are wrong about Trump. We all know, because you cannot defend your position on him. Instead, you resort to saying that I am lame and that you expect me to apologize for your poor arguments. I also apologize for hurting your feelings by pointing out your poor debating skills. Finally, I apologize that I cannot offer you a safe space.

Garry wrote: “many on the left will continue to redefine anything we do as violence, including our words, our proposals on dealing with illegal immigration, etc.”

Indeed, the left has defined whites as being genetically racists. How racist and hateful is that? Apparently it justifies death for whites, because such hateful statements and feeling makes it become easy to declare whites both inhuman and a$$4073s (I hadn’t realized that either one or the combination of these were capital offenses, but I guess they are, in hate-land):
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/trinity-college-professor-calls-for-death-of-whites/

Remember the coverage of the Tea-Party protests versus the Coverage of the Occupiers? Even when photos and police reports proved it was the Occupiers who were the violent ones, and the ones who trashed every venue, the media still pushed the opposite story, and many of their viewers/readers still believe that Fake News….

It’s the same with the BLM and Antifa idiots. They can do no wrong as far as the MSM is concerned, but let one counter-protester say or do the wrong thing and it’s all over the network news that night.

The Leftists knew what they were doing: control the schools, especially the Journalism Schools, and you will shortly control the culture and ultimately the country.

Hopefully the right will remain non-violent, and enough on the left (and in the middle) will see things for what they are.

But they have not accepted that evidence yet and instead have devolved into anger and hatred. Anger from almost all of them, hatred from a huge portion, and this actually fuels and, in their minds, justifies the violence from the minority or them.

We can only prove to them that no amount of violence with change the facts.
And the only way to prove to them that we are not the violent ones is to not physically fightback. To not answer violence with violence.

Passively interrupt their gatherings and actively boycott their corporate supporters.

Who is the president? (This is a very weak position you have taken. This is much like the “wine” discussion we have had, its not going to go well for you.)

“Then what did you mean by that terrible analogy that you insist is the preferred one? Fighting fire with fire. The topic is hatred and violence, so you must have been advocating fighting hatred and violence with hatred and violence.”

This is far, far below you and it may be the lamest thing you have ever written. I do not promote violence nor do I promote hatred. In all of the reams of pages that I have written here you will not find anything to support your position.

I expect an apology from you.

I did, and even better than you did in proving it. You merely state your point, as though it must be true by virtue of you having stated is, but I gave examples. Indeed, you merely and continually repeat your point without evidence, as though it were an axiom. It is not. Repeating your point over and over again and again does not make it any more true than the first time that you were wrong.

“Trumps disruption of Washington in what ever form it takes is well worth the ride IMP.”

But that is the opinion of few others. Most of us realize that what you think is disruption contains very little change. Thus, for you, any of the other, better, candidates should have been good enough for you. They were willing and capable of better change and better leadership.

“If he does nothing else his beating Hillary is more than enough for me.”

Too bad your poor choice in candidate has left us with him for the next three and a half miserable, progressive, life-long liberal Democrat years. Outside of not being Hillary, there is not as much difference between Clinton and Trump as you think. Despite his claims to the contrary, he has made very few actual changes, even changes that would make America great again. People are figuring out this sad fact, and they are not reacting to Trump the way they did a few months ago, back when Trump had so much promise. The economy is starting to react poorly, too. The reality of Trump is not as good as the promise of Trump. Any of the other Republicans would have been better — including Jeb Bush (I shudder at the thought!); at least he is not a lifelong liberal Democrat.

Trump has still dropped the string, which you said leaves us truly lost.

“And I have never suggested to fight hate with hate”

Then what did you mean by that terrible analogy that you insist is the preferred one? Fighting fire with fire. The topic is hatred and violence, so you must have been advocating fighting hatred and violence with hatred and violence.

The only other topic that you could have been referencing would be finding it sad that “the discussion here has shifted from the hate exuding from the left” but that makes no sense. Shifting from the hate exuding from the left by shifting from the hate exuding from the left? No. It makes no sense.

“We need to intellectually beat them until they realize that they must bend.”

We already have intellectually beaten them. They did not bend. They respond to emotion, not logic or facts. Logic and facts only get in the way of their emotions. Why do you think that they have resorted to hatred and violence? Why do you think that they embrace their hypocrisy? Because their facts and logic have been so entirely disproved that they have nothing left to argue. They have gone from “join us or be shunned” (hate) to “join us or die” (a typical tyrannical position of violence), hoping that fear will overwhelm our intellects.

This is why there is so much hate exuding from the left. They have nothing but hatred remaining to them, thus that is what they exude. It rouses the leftist rabble, and it always has. Class warfare is turning to actual warfare, complete with gunfire and Democrats advocating for the hunting of Republicans.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/judge-napolitano-comey-testimony-laid-out-a-case-for-misconduct-against-loretta-lynch/

Now let a Democrat leader dare to grab it and begin to pull.

Could this Senator be our universal American hero that dares to grab the string and begin pulling it to once again bring our system back to some semblance or equality and order?

““I think we need to know more about that,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on a June 11th episode of CNN’s State of the Union. “And there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.””

Reach up to your destiny Diane Feinstein and pull.

This one is highly informative as well:

“War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East”
Victor Davis Hanson
UC Santa Cruz’s Jewish Studies Lecture
(August 2004)
https://youtu.be/ZiXXn-8hZjQ
(1:16:40)

We need to intellectually beat them until they realize that they must bend. The Hillary indictment would be a point that not many could argue against with a straight face. Find common ground and work it from their.

Ghandi is another not so good analogy.

We still have several other options.

Besides, beating someone in combat only teaches them you know war better.
But defeating them like Gandhi did, passive aggressively, teaches them their philosophy is wrong.

Dis prove it.

Reality indicates the opposite of your conclusion. Your insisting that anyone could have beaten Hillary is ridiculous, the only one who could have beat her has beat her and from that perspective he has already served his purpose for our collective purposes. Non of the other republican candidates would have beaten Hillary, none of them. The Democrats that crossed the line did so because of Trumps unique and audacious style and ability to reach them. Do not fool yourself.

“Trump sucks”

Trumps disruption of Washington in what ever form it takes is well worth the ride IMP. If he does nothing else his beating Hillary is more than enough for me. And as far as going after Hillary, I think that if she attempts to continue her drive to once again run for president in 2020 the democrats will be inspired to take her out with an indictment. As it is right now some of the democrat leadership, like Diane Feinstein is talking about it just based on Comey’s testimony alone. Its coming, give it time.

And I have never suggested to fight hate with hate, never (I expect an apology for you suggesting it). When you fight fire with fire (political fire) you must have a strong no holds barred leadership that is not worried about being politically correct or afraid to take unpopular steps as in undoing Obama’s offences to our country. And Trump has demonstrated that he is more than willing to do just that.

I have never promoted hate of any kind or violence, just strength, commitment and the stones to get things accomplished.

(PS: Its a crappy analogy)

I prefer my analogy, because your analogy is to fight hatred and violence with hatred and violence rather than defuse the situation with reason and sanity.

It would be too bad if the shooting of a few Republican legislators results in the shootings of a whole lot of legislators, politicians, and members or advocates of all parties.

You wrote: “Defeating Hillary, and he was the only one that could accomplish that essential thing.”

You keep trying to tell us this incredible (unbelievable) lie, as though you think that if you repeat it enough we will eventually believe it. We were there; we know the truth.

Trump was a terrible choice for presidential candidate. The only reason he was able to win was because he ran against Clinton. Anyone could have beat Clinton. My long-dead cat could have beaten her, because there were so many Democrats who crossed party lines to vote against Clinton that anyone could have beat Clinton. Even Sanders could only be defeated by rigging the Democratic primary.

Accept it: Trump sucks. It is just that we are stuck with him for the next three and a half miserable, progressive, life-long liberal Democrat years.

You wrote: “If this string is picked up and then just dropped and not followed to its reasonable conclusion we are truly lost. The indictment of Hillary and her associates and Loretta Lynch and the complicit actions of James Comey to accommodate them all (and he did accommodate them) in their manipulation of the system must be taken care of by leaders in both party’s.”

That Trump has dropped this issue is one of the many reasons why he is a terrible choice for president. You, Cotour, continue to defend Trump, even though Trump will let these crimes go unpunished. Justice is denied. The string has been dropped, and we are truly lost, according to you.

I specifically mean the two sets of laws that were created by James Comey when after he laid out for 13 minutes the offences committed by Hillary Clinton and her associates he head scratchingly came to the conclusion that she had not “intent” so therefore he could not recommend indicting her. These are the two sets of laws that must be reconciled.

The other perceived or actual inequities in the law that you cite are a whole nother subject.

“When this issue of the two sets of laws that now exist in America is attended to that is when the healing or reconciliation can begin.”

I agree, but the liberals will counter by saying that laws and law enforcement are stacked against blacks, and they’re not entirely wrong. Some will commit the classic error of saying that unfavorable treatment of the other side is the fairest thing that can be done.

The classic example liberals will cite is the contrast in mandatory sentencing and the sentencing guidelines for possession of cocaine (indulged in by many white professionals) vs. possession of crack cocaine (indulged in by many blacks).

Eisenhower warned us against the military-industrial complex, and unfortunately we also have a legal-prison complex (and a government-education complex). Our prisons and what happens to people upon release tend to drive criminals towards more crime rather than rehabilitation, and over time this has contributed to a destructive subculture among the poor.

Partially as a result of a variety of programs and actions over the years (some well-intentioned, some disguised as well-intentioned, some just making the playing field uneven), many poor minorities seem to think that

(1) they will face bias in every situation they’ll find themselves in
(2) they have to be tough and nasty, and resist the system (education, police, etc.) to avoid being taken advantage of
(3) people only get ahead because they are members of favored groups
(4) the only chance they have is to cheat the system, or to get lucky, or to become the next star athlete or musician

I’ve been part of some educational programs to boost poor minorities, and for the most part the people running them perpetuate the myths, intentionally or not. In many cases, the myths become self-fulfilling prophesies. However, there are grains of truth to the myths.

I say we do things to fix both situations: apply the law equally to Loretta Lynch and Trump, and at the same time work to prove the myths wrong.

How do we do this? I don’t know, but I’ve found that many people gain a new perspective when they see how different people actually live and the challenges they face.

Seeing that today is father’s day, I feel especially obligated to say that having a father at home is the best predictor of future success, and we should do our best to stop making government the surrogate father and find ways to get fathers more involved.

On a tangent, I would like to recommend a book my daughter bought me for my birthday: “The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace.” I liked it a lot at first read; it’s a true story about a poor black kid who grew up in Newark (with his father in prison), applied himself as a scholar and athlete, and eventually got a free ride to Yale, from which he graduated, but while there he secretly ran a drug dealing operation from his old neighborhood and was eventually murdered because of it.

I like the book, because it doesn’t advocate any particular point of view or social action. I’m amazed at the author’s ability to get literally hundreds of people from all walks to life to open themselves up to tell their parts in the story and what they observed (the author needs to learn better crafting of sentences, but that’s merely an annoyance). He tells the stories of many people in great detail; some escaped the horrible situations they grew up in, others, like Robert Peace, never escaped despite having great opportunities.

My takeaway is that one has choices that can potentially determine one’s life, but there are no guarantees, and some people have (or believe that they have) very limited choices because of how they grow up. It’s not up to the government or society as a whole to fix all of the factors that go into this, but we should be aware of them and should stop enabling many of them.

From the book I was able to get new perspectives on race, crime, poverty, drugs, and just about every other social issue of our time. In some cases I already knew the perspectives, but didn’t realize how many people apparently hold them, or why.

I’m going to have to read it again; there’s so much in it that a second read will bring more insights.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/338237-senate-gop-turns-focus-on-lynch

When this issue of the two sets of laws that now exist in America is attended to that is when the healing or reconciliation can begin. It must be fair and based on evidence we mostly already know, but it must be flushed from our system. This is the point where some level of agreement can be had and we can then move into the future.

If this string is picked up and then just dropped and not followed to its reasonable conclusion we are truly lost. The indictment of Hillary and her associates and Loretta Lynch and the complicit actions of James Comey to accommodate them all (and he did accommodate them) in their manipulation of the system must be taken care of by leaders in both party’s.

Comeys actions should have been as follows if he wanted go down in history as a stand up American: I resign!

Comey attempting to massage his way through Hillary’s offences and Lynches surrendering of her fiduciary responsibilities as Attorney General turned him into a politician. He was the FBI director, he was the Attorney General and he was the president, all of whom are culpable in this further perversion of our system.

This must be reconciled.

This pit bull is loose, there is no calming it down its having a fit, it is out of control and is not able to be put back in its stall, it has no stall. (bad analogy)

And Trumps first positive monumental accomplishment?

Defeating Hillary, and he was the only one that could accomplish that essential thing. What accomplishments come after that monumental accomplishment remains to be seen, its a work in progress.

Actually, Trump is doing a lot that Democrats desire. Just because the left is so hate filled that they do not recognize it does not change this sad fact. The difference is that Democrats expected Hillary to be president.

That is the actual frustration that Democrats have. It wouldn’t matter if it were someone other than Trump, they are disappointed that their favorite candidate missed out on being president, and they now regret putting Obama in rather than Hillary in 2008. Had it been Hillary, back then, they would have been able to use the same guilt campaign to get Obama in place last year.

Democrats screwed up, and that is what they are angry about. Trump, Cruz, even McCain, it does not matter who beat out Hillary, they are pissed off and would be just as hateful for any other non-Hillary president. Look how poorly they treated both Sanders (who ran) and Biden (who wisely didn’t).

All this hate is how we know that Hillary didn’t win the presidency, rather than how Trump is doing anything positive.

LocalFluff wrote: “Why don’t you simply kill the leftists in their homes at night?”

How “Night of the Long Knives.” It isn’t very American, however. It is an attitude as hateful as that coming from the American left. They aren’t being very American, either, which is why so many Americans are complaining about this bad, anAmerican attitude.

LocalFluff wrote: “The nazis did succeed in killing off the communists.”

Not really.

LocalFluff wrote: “And they did in the end save a third of Germany and about 80% of the population from socialism”

Actually, the NAZIs were the socialists. They were the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Robert wrote: “I will not have my work tarnished by those advocating genocide. I have lost too many relatives on such beliefs.”

Please reconsider and follow your previous policy of allowing all opinions to be expressed, even those that you disagree with. Freedom of speech is important, and it includes disagreeable speech. Otherwise your site could become an echo chamber of the same ideas.

Cotour asked: “If not Trump than who?”

I have explained this one on numerous occasions, but Cotour does not bother to listen and continues to ask the same question, as though it has meaning.

Cotour wrote: “You do not fight a bit bull with a beagle.”

No. Instead of fighting him, calm him down and put him back into his stall in the barn. Killing off all the livestock destroys the farm or ranch, and only a terrible farmer or rancher (a tyrant) would do so.

While pointing out the insanity of the * DEMOCRAT * party as of late is an essential part of this discussion, having the proper leadership in dealing with them is just as important.

If not Trump than who? You do not fight a bit bull with a beagle. You have got to fight fire with fire and Trump is just as unreasonable and as manic and as focused as our opposition, so I take issue with you here.

The conversation tracks to where it usually has to track to.

Living in the shadow of a major left wing center of agitation and listening to their “news” reports becomes particularly troubling. Ithaca, New York is locally described as 10 square miles of liberal utopia surrounded by reality. Lack of honest reporting just stirs the pot.

As an example of the reporting, they had an illegal taken into custody by ICE, and within an hour there was an organized protest in the center of Ithaca. Never mind that the perp was wanted on felony assault charges as well as missing court dates, etc, but he was an oppressed, aggrieved minority, so we must support him. It’s just another reminder from experience that what gets reported and what actually happened are two entirely different things. They believe their own propaganda, to the detriment of all.

I find it sad that the discussion here has shifted from the hate exuding from the left, which desperately needs to be underlined and noted, to arguing over whether Trump is the right man or not for President.

Trump is President. There is no real gain arguing over this. Noting however how the Democratic Party and its supporters have allowed their worst possible emotions take control of their actions to the detriment of the nation, and themselves, seems a much more important topic of conversation.

The Democratic Party and its supporters today seem only interested in anger and hate. No one seems willing to say this. We need to, if only to get voters to recognize this and reject them.

And he has correctly set the battlefield as a war between the normal, hard-working people and a rising liberal aristocracy that views them as deplorables and wants to crush them.

That wasn’t long going to be tolerated, and the sooner the needed reform happens the less likely bloody revolt and civil war will be.

https://youtu.be/Q-CJ-oHs4SU

We all know what we will be experiencing if we do not confront it.

http://www.france24.com/en/20170617-macrons-party-course-landslide

Macron’s party looks for a “Landslide” in coming elections. There will be sliding but it will just be towards oblivion IMO. Macron from what I can see is just an EU tool and a Merkle sycophant . France, as is the EU is doomed, this sickness that is political correctness and Socialist utopia where they continuously import the means of their destruction, Islam.

France as well as England appear to be too far gone as far as Islam and their culture goes.