jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (44 posts)

Guiliani either has a big mouth or the goal is GOP nominee 2016

  1. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    As my stomach turn listening to former NY Mayor, Guiliani blame the President and the current mayor for the deaths of the 2 officers in Bed-Sty, New York City, I had reason to pause. I think for myself and the insinuation that all the people involved in PEACEFUL protests were incited beyond reason with anti-law enforcement rhetoric seems racist to me. White folks are always individuals and what mayhem occurs under their control is the exception. But, blacks, well blacks, are impressionable like children and can be counted upon to be easily incited into mobs. Meet the newest David Duke, racism sanitized. As much as our law enforcement , for the most part,  does a good job there is always room for improvement. The cases of blacks killed by police over the last few months and the circumstances surrounding the shootings do make the case for better judgment on the part of police departments regarding policy and procedure. IMHO. Why is it that I cannot expect an adult, the  Bed-Sty shooter, to be responsible for his acts of murder and not be treated as an impressible child manipulated by the 'liberal media' and such. The man, the shooter, harbored irrational anger which culminated in his suicide. This man was criminally insane, but peaceful protesters are within their rights. I  also have a right to an opinion without the 'political right' insinuating, that  without the reporting of 'liberal media' to the extent that they did,  I would have had no basis to protest and criticize police activity and its role in the tragic shootings. From the right's perspective, it would have been better if these events, shootings, and the controversy that followed never got into the airwaves. And, for them, that is typical.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I have no way of knowing the story/broadcast that was the fire that lit your fuse, but here are the ones I read to see what you were talking about:

      Thinkprogress.org (not my cup of tea)

      Huffington Post (also not my cup of tea for straight perspectives)

      I found these two quotes that might be the source of your angst:

      "We've had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate the police," said Giuliani during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care how you want to describe it -- that's what those protests are all about."

      "The protest are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don't lead to violence -- a lot of them lead to violence -- all of them lead to a conclusion: The police are bad, the police are racist," said Giuliani. "That is completely wrong. Actually, the people who do the most for the black community in America are the police."


      It appears you have a point you want to make, but the event you are using to make it doesn't look like the best choice you could have made. In my opinion of course.

      For instance;
      His accusations, read in the context of his comments, appeared to me to be including Pres. Obama, and Mayor DeBlasio, (among others mentioned),  as persons of influence whose public comments may have contributed to the inflamed passions of "protesters" and other like-minded souls.

      After reading the killers social media comments:
      "Brinsley, allegedly wrote in an Instagram post, “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner #RIPMikeBrown.” He concluded with, “This May Be My Final Post.”

      Do you think he was wrong thinking that the protests and their chants were on his mind and perhaps even prompted his actions?

      Do you think Giuliani is wrong to consider the apparent condoning of the protest's message that the police are bad guys is wrong?

      You say you can think for yourself, and that is how we all should guide our actions, but it sure looks like Giuliani was right about this guy being influenced by the media's presentation of the protests and their message.

      And then... you went off the deep end. Where did he say "ALL" protesters? Of course your next point - pulling the racism card, needed the "ALL" to give you even the narrowest of ledges to stand on, but without the assumed "ALL" - your inclusion of a racism motivation turns the pointed finger back to you. speaking of rhetoric, yep, I agree, but I don't think we are talking about the same source.

      Most telling was your comment:
      "...But, blacks, well blacks, are impressionable like children and can be counted upon to be easily incited into mobs. Meet the newest David Duke, racism sanitized."

      I tried reading between the lines, (as it appears you did also), but nothing in his comments lead me to a thought such as yours. That is a wellspring you might want to look a little deeper into. Those were your thoughts - not his.

      As for your question about proper consideration of the shooters motives...

      "...Why is it that I cannot expect an adult, the  Bed-Sty shooter, to be responsible for his acts of murder and not be treated as an impressible child manipulated by the 'liberal media' and such."

      I think his social media comments, already mentioned, should have answered your question, as I think they pretty clearly indicate his thinking was just what Giuliani was claimed - influenced by recent protests.

      I have found that a Pepto-Bismal, (and depending on the cause), a little contemplative thought does wonders for an upset stomach.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I give due consideration to your thoughtful comments. I resent Giuliani implying that the comments encouraged people to hat the police. Those comments are inflammatory in themselves from so prominent an individual.

        Could I really find a direct correlation between Vietnam protests and assaults on unformed military personnel during the period? The cause an effect relationship is faulty.

        We all have the right to peaceably assemble. People have the right to protest representing a myriad of causes and advocate on one side or the other. Regardless, all communities cannot say that the police department has done the 'most' for the black community. I consider Ferguson a case inpoint. New York City circumstances are not true everywhere, lets look a Cleveland, for example. The conclusion of the protest; police are bad or racist is not necessarily connected to an insane killer, executing two law officers. Do I attack 2nd Amendment rights after a man slaughters a crowd in a movie theatre with automatic weapons. Conservatives are quick to make certain that this connection is never considered.

        The man (shooter), a mad dog, was homicidal maniac, looking for an excuse to kill regardless of the rationale. Surely, we could see that the rationale was an excuse. I don’t believe that the protesters messages were condoned by those in authority. Ted Bundy, up to the day of his execution blamed pornography for his crimes, did we believe his explanation of cause and effect?  I could and did criticize the president and attorney general for getting too close to all of this when it needed to be handled by local officials.  But, what comments they did make were hardly incendiary. ‘ All’ is an unfortunate word, I stand corrected.

        "...But, blacks, well blacks, are impressionable like children and can be counted upon to be easily incited into mobs. Meet the newest David Duke, racism sanitized."
        Ok, I overreached here, the direction is that if this information regarding police shootings were not available that would have been insurance that these protests would not have occurred , but that does not change the fact that these tragedies needed to be aired so that problems can be recognized, prompting those in authority to offer correction and solutions. The best way to avoid the protests is to keep the cases of the Ferguson, Rice’s etc out of the press and keep the ‘race hustlers’ from stirring up trouble? Guiliani has been strident about this issue lately, blaming the black community’s crime problems to the point that incidents of police misconduct or procedural problems in the departments when identified should be downplayed. There are lots in protest, and downplaying may not be the answer
        I am a ‘Tums” guy, thanks for the offer

        1. GA Anderson profile image84
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          It appears the train is back on its track now.

          I can agree that Giuliani's public comment was a rhetorical flourish that detracted from what would have been a point I can agree with. If he had not pointed fingers at the pres. and mayor as examples, I think his intended context, (as I read it), that the media's sensationalizing of these protests, and the apparent agreement of public figures in positions of authority, exacerbate the problem in unnecessary ways, is a valid one.

          That does not mean silencing the protesters, or the media's coverage, or even public figures censoring their remarks. But I think it does mean they should take a step back and start the engine of their brain before they engage the clutch of their mouth. (I suppose most youngsters won't know what a clutch is so they won't get it)

          The media knows the difference between news coverage and sensationalizing, and public figures of authority know their comments can have consequences. I would not have put it as starkly as Giuliani did, but I don't think his point is beyond reason.

          "Could I really find a direct correlation between Vietnam protests and assaults on unformed military personnel during the period?..."

          I disagree. It is just different actions for different times. Have you forgotten the news coverage of protesters spitting on and throwing eggs and feces on returning soldiers? Don't you remember the news segments about lone Vets being confronted and verbally and physically abused by anti-war folks?

          That was forty years ago. Today the "mob" mentality is the same, but the sensationalized coverage has generated different tactics. Of course I mean that generally. I am not equating the actions of this murder to ALL, or even many protesters or protest supporters. I am just trying to illustrate my disagreement with your denial of cause and effect.

          GA

        2. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          But the words "stay the course" in the midst of violent protest from the PRESIDENT are not inflammatory?
          The fact that he held a news conference in both instances of Garner & Brown but couldn't stop playing golf to address the slaughter of 2 policemen doesn't send a message?
          Oh he did finally issue a statement, through the WH website, 22 hours later.
          The fact that he met with people burning, looting and attacking police doesn't send any kind of message?
          "What do we want? Dead cops!" and the President meeting with people within that chanting crowd sends a very powerful message to people just like this suspect. In his mind he did exactly what his President said didn't he?
          I wonder, will the President take the time out of his busy golf schedule to attend their funerals? Or send a WH rep? Like he sent Holder to attend the funerals of Brown & Garner? Just curious.
          Giuliani has a lot less pull and prominence than the President and he has been sending all kinds of inflammatory messages, covert though they may be through his very actions and words. Not to mention what he doesn't say.
          So when someone stands up and tells you the truth that you don't want to acknowledge you want to say THEY are the ones playing political games? Please.
          He's 100% correct. This President, Holder, the Mayor, all sent very powerful messages. "Criminals are angels. Cops are Devils!" and it was heard loud and clear by people just like this shooter.
          This is what happens when you make criminals into angels and don't hold them accountable for their own actions that led to their deaths.  They threw all law enforcement under the bus and now they're trying to backpedal because it just blew up in their faces.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Have you an impartial source, not Fox News, with a link to the statements regarding Obama's reaction to this tragic event?

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You cant google it?

              Try this experiment. Google President Obama/Holder on Michael Brown & Eric Garner. Then do the same for the murdered policemen. See the difference.

              Here are the statements they put out, 22 hours AFTER it happened:

              "The officers who serve and protect our communities risk their own safety for ours every single day — and they deserve our respect and gratitude every single day. Tonight, I ask people to reject violence and words that harm, and turn to words that heal — prayer, patient dialogue, and sympathy for the friends and family of the fallen."

              — President Barack Obama

              "Our nation must always honor the valor — and the sacrifices — of all law enforcement officers with a steadfast commitment to keeping them safe. This means forging closer bonds between officers and the communities they serve."

              — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

              No addressing the nation. No "this is an American problem" . The President in fact, called it a local issue. Huh. Too bad he didn't understand that about Brown & Garner right?

              Why don't you see if you can find a video of the President addressing their murder? Because I can provide plenty of video of him on Brown & Garner.

              Two criminals shot while resisting arrest and after attacking an officer in his cruiser deserve the President's undivided attention. Two officers assassinated inside their patrol car deserve a blurb from the WH website. Seeing the difference there?

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                OK, I will check into it.

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Joe Biden is attending the funeral of one of the slain officers. Someone said it is simply because the WH realizes the hole they've dug themselves into. I prefer to believe that their eyes were opened to how their words and actions were perceived by the public at large, certain protestors specifically, and now are trying to turn that tide.

              2. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I guess I see it differently

                http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/22 … kil/201978

                I really don't see a difference on how the tragedies were handled, with your implication that the president is not sympathetic with the deaths of law enforcement officers when compared with that of the  assailants.

                I have said before that I am uncomfortable with the President getting involved in too many of these matters, best handled by local officials. Much of this because of the fact he is African-American people are going to assume he going to take side of the black community over the betterment of everybody and the nation at large. This assumption not supported by reality.  Because of this, I ask him to be careful. I don't see that the president, the attorney general nor the mayor of New York has encouraged lawlessness and they certainly have not been a source of provocation in troubled communities.
                While the Attorney General was sent to Ferguson, the President sent Joe Biden to New York. Instead of trying to find something sinister behind it, I see the president having his right hand man on the scene as showing  concern of the Administration and to  deliver the appropriate message.

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  lol In other words, given the propaganda post from media matters, you were unable to find a single video of the President addressing the deaths of these policemen.

                  Compare that to this:
                  <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/embed/75676" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

                  then this:

                  <embed src="http://www.cbsnews.com/common/video/cbsnews_video.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#000000" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="pType=embed&si=254&pid=qdryKTNOVqUX&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/obama-speaks-out-on-heartbreaking-ferguson-shooting/" />

                  then on the slain policeman:

                  .................

                  Intent? I don't think there is a sinister intent by the President. I think it is appeasement and poor judgement due to pressure from the Black community, not the white community, because he is Black.

                  Blasio: I've often told my son to be careful around policemen.

                  I think that sends a certain kind of message.

                  Sharpton led protests: "what do we want? dead cops!"


                  Holder and Sharpton are quite another matter.

                  I don't know how to do the videos correctly here - I never do them. Apologize for that.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
                2. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la … olumn.html

                  He makes a lot of sense and the only thing I might disagree on is Holder. I think he has an agenda. That is just my opinion based on this and other reactions of his though.

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Tell me why you think that Holder has an agenda, what do you think that it is?

  2. mio cid profile image38
    mio cidposted 2 years ago

    He is positioning himself to run or be a prime  choice for vp whether the nominee is a moderate or a right wing extremist

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That is what I think, as well. We will see soon.

  3. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 2 years ago

    Pretty much as typical as you calling anything conservative racist? I just got done watching the Mayor's interview, he stated that he does not think that De Balsio is responsible for the killings. What he IS responsible for is allowing, and even encouraging, their lawless behavior. Allowing the environment to fester that incited these murders.

    "What do we want? DEAD COPS!! When do we want it? NOW!!"

    Spare me the 'peaceful protester' BS --They were not and have not been from the start. Ask any of the black owned businesses they burned down in Ferguson if they think them peaceful. Many of the same commie agitators and inciters then went to NYC to ply their trade.

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, Superkev, I overreached. If by lawless behavior, you are referring to rioting, I agree. But there is no relationship to that and the murders committed by this man. You choose to murder, you are not incited.
      Most of the protests around the nation have been peaceful, and you know it. But the right considers it crime just to have all those leftist radicals on the street, loose.

      1. profile image61
        retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        This is hardly true. Many conservatives support the concerns over Eric Garner's death at the hands of police. Just as many have been concerned about the tone of the rhetoric from people like Al Sharpton, who appear to foment unrest not protest. You may wish to make all of this black versus white; left v. right; liberal v. conservative; Democrat v. Republican - when it has always been about the very things you want to see change in police procedures - training, competence, conflict reduction, etc....

        President Obama has inserted himself into LOCAL policing issues before with little compunction about denouncing police action before knowing facts. De Blasio set the police on illegal cigarette vendors and then leveled accusations after the recent grand jury decision in the Garner Case.

        If Giuliani accused Obama and De Blasio of anything but bad judgement, he is mistaken. The incitement has come from the likes of Sharpton, to the point the even a NYPD 911 operator said that the murdered police officers "deserved it."

        Is that a reaction we should just dismiss? Is it the rantings of a deranged mind? OR is it the outcome of rhetoric by those whose goals are less than laudable? Is this racial animus aimed at corralling the "black vote" for 2016 in light of Obama's desire to water down black voting power by legalizing heretofore illegal Hispanic voters just in time for 2016?

        There is plenty of rotten politics to go around.

        If white conservatives can all get lumped together as racists, why can't black liberals get lumped together as blind followers?  It seems to me that both accusations are narrow minded and flawed.

        Seems to me that the very anger you have expressed serves the purposes of some very cynical politicians on the left whose goal is to keep black voters turning out at the poles and turning away from any rational consideration of reasonable arguments for abandoning the Democrats.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          If conservatives are concerned, too many of their voices appear muted. For many of us, Al Sharpton serves a purpose, bringing to the forefront issues of national import that might otherwise remain in dark. A valuable national dialogue on the "Stand Your Ground" law, how its being used by citizens, the criminal justice and legal system is a debate we need to have. The Trayvon Martin shooting and his involvement has help force attention on these things. While I find these endless reports about what appears to be race related shootings between the police departments and citizens irritating, those leaders of large municipalities, if they are on the ball,should take the opportunity to review procedures as to police confrontation, arrests etc., to see where poor judgment on the part of law enforcement agencies at least in that mayor's perspective jurisdiction can be minimized to the greatest degree if not eliminated. No one rests on their laurels, and there is always room for improvement. The changes that I am talking about should be palatable to every responsible participant, regardless of party and ideological affiliation.  Instead of sensationalism, perhaps the press could goad our leaders to pay attention to the big picture providing more encompassing solutions. So, I blame them as well. 

          I don't believe the President was taking sides, but he should remember that anything he says, having the great bully pulpit, can and does get misinterpreted. In a passion charged environment, that gets to be a problem. I don't think that asking for justice, and calm in how this handled is out of line.

          After the Denver shooting in a movie theatre 2 years ago, there was a cry to restrict access to firearms. But calmer heads prevailed. If people are not smart enough to sort rhetoric from the truth, which is the case for inflamed and impassioned individuals what can you do? Al Sharpton did not say "the cops deserve it" How do we get from his presence and what he did not say to a statement from a 911 operator?

          It is the same deranged mind that was responsible for the near fatal shooting of the representative (Giffords), in Arizona in 2011. We don't link that and other shootings to  provocations from public officials, so why now?
          I do remember the 'lock and load' comments from Sarah Palin, many of the left said the same thing about her, and her role in the shooting as the right is saying about prominent officials now.

          The black vote is democratic in the face of or in  the absence of such events as these shootings. We all know that Blacks have ALWAYS been overwhelmingly democratic voters on the national scene since the thirties. So Obama and most proposed democratic hopefuls need to fear nothing on that score.  Obama's proposed 'call off the dogs' for a temporary period of time does not automatically confer citizenship and I doubt that the numbers of undocumented are going to acquire the vote in less than 2 years. But, the president in dealing with the issue or attempting to do so will firm up the Hispanic citizen base of the democratic party constituency. That is something that will happen.

          'Conservatism' in America never seem to have the concerns of the black community built into any of its precepts. No more than the Christian right or the old anglo southern male constituency are tied into the GOP, what are their motivations? As a result, neither have a use for liberals or progressives. I will not say racist, but lets say that Blacks and minorities are ignored by the GOP, in favor of economic and financial interests.

          I express frustration, I have many reasons to vote against the GOP besides the perceived racial issue. It looks toward economic fairness, militarism, and disagreement with most of their stand on social issues.
          Rather than abandoning the democrats, the GOP has not given us a reason to 'embrace' them or their philosophy.

          I quote from an article on the related subject I hubbed 2 years ago

          "The bottom line being that until we can support ourselves and our families, everything else is scenery along the side of the road. If Republicans want to do better with Blacks it needs to show me and us how their unfettered free-market capitalism philosophy will lift all boats and not just the yachts. Even most of the wealthiest of us do not support the GOP, because we know that the progressives’ approach of seeing that the door of opportunity was opened was more important to success than conservative ideology and rhetoric, which never seems to hold water in reality."

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "...Rather than abandoning the democrats, the GOP has not given us a reason to 'embrace' them or their philosophy.

            I quote from an article on the related subject I hubbed 2 years ago

            "The bottom line being that until we can support ourselves and our families, everything else is scenery along the side of the road. If Republicans want to do better with Blacks it needs to show me and us how their unfettered free-market capitalism philosophy will lift all boats and not just the yachts. Even most of the wealthiest of us do not support the GOP, because we know that the progressives’ approach of seeing that the door of opportunity was opened was more important to success than conservative ideology and rhetoric, which never seems to hold water in reality."


            Excellent points. I too think this is a major problem with the Republican party.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              If they(GOP) could resurrect the late Jack Kemp, or someone who really is looking hard, there need be no conflict between the free market capitalist approach and credible ways to address our concerns with an environment that would promote economic opportunity in our communities. I know that, much like the urban enterprise zones of the 1980's, if they wanted to put some emphasis here, they could do it. The effort would go a long way in changing perceptions.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Kemp was a rock ribbed supply side free marketer from the womb. He understood that it is only through freedom that minorities will ever find prosperity. Kemp was NO BODIES liberal. He adored Reagan.

                It made precious little difference when it was happening. Black voters ignored the most conciliatory Republicans and awarded their vote to Democrats. The Black Vote belongs to the Democrats. Blacks are a shrinking demographic. Is it practical for Republicans - I am not saying right or moral - to bother with aiming significant effort and capital at the Black Vote when there has never been a crack in that vote? Isn't it far more practical to focus efforts on consolidating and expanding the ranks of reliable Republican voters?

                In practical terms only, don't the Democrats and Republicans both act as if the Democrats own the Black Vote and that fact will never change?


                http://www.jackkemp.us/tag/supply-side-economics/

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Good line of questions, I may have found someone with the cojones to actually ask them.

                  Regardless, there were many of us during the period that saw Kemp's program of walking the virtue of  'free market' capitalism rather than just talking about it. It was short lived during the Reagan years and never really had a chance to flower. Imagine if the GOP had identified itself with the innovation represented by Kemp and his ideas  and incorporated him and them as part of their brand. Alliances and affiliations can change like they did in 1932, nothing is written on a clay tablet.  If Dole, a relative moderate, had won in 96 with Kemp as VP????

                  Conservatism does not have to be anti-black. The GOP are behind with Hispanics, Jews and Asian Americans, the young adult, single females as well, so the image problem is not all about economics. But, I confess they have a better chance of moving these other demographics their way than they have with black folks. But, how much trouble was it to move the early Democratic Party, the party of Confederate sympathizers, to the position they are in today with minorities.

                  In the short term, your suggestion that the GOP would benefit by consolidating and expanding ranks of reliable GOP voters, would be a viable solution except for the fact that those ranks are already getting smaller (White male, older, southern). To survive they need to attract more from the Democrats growing demographics, the Hispanics for instance. They don't do this by antagonizing and giving the perception of not listening in regard to the immigration issue for example.

                  Successful managers of the GOP need to recognize that they must continue to try because other like minded demographics could be influenced by their attitude of change and adjustment within their larger theme. Any little bit helps.

                  I said that during the Reagan administration, the Christian right represented by the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had high expectations of this conservative president to move their agenda forward. Reagan for practical reasons and personal reasons was not prepared to go the full length. The things that they were asking for was simply not palatable politically. The only reason this group clings to the GOP, is that nothing is being offered to them from the other side.

                  The only fact is that change is the fact, economic parity is going to be more of a concern among a poorer demographic of the population. I would not want the GOP to give up, but become innovative, like Kemp did and put the innovation in the platform, no one says they have to be like Democrats. The principle of less government, freedom, etc, are not seen as palliative toward the current  ills in our communities. But, it always sound good. Show me a working model under the theory....

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Though both Kemp and Reagan were both Republicans, the party was hardly populated with fans of either. The GOP resisted Reagan and Kemp, they have increasingly distanced themselves from conservatives since 1988. GHWB - moderate, "pragmatist" who abandoned the successes of low marginal tax rates precipitating the minor down turn that elected Clinton. Dole - moderate who selected Kemp to bring on the conservatives. GWB - sold himself as a Reaganite by touching the tax stone but created the greatest expansion of the entitlement state prior to Obamacare. McCain and Romney, squishy moderates with no attachment to the conservative/Reagan/Kemp  base and added darlings of conservatives to, ostensibly, bring sufficient support for success. They both miscalculated.

                    Now the GOP is offering moderate goofs like Jeb, Christie, Huntsman and Romney, again. The GOP is not what Democrats believe them to be nor are conservatives. If you like Kemps ideas then you have some rudimentary understanding of what actually constitutes progress.

                    Again, it is really simple. Why bother with the black vote when white Republican voters send black representatives to Congress time and again to merely be dismissed by the morally superior white Democrats. There is nothing a lefty, white, elitist hates more than a run away black, ask Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Ken Blackwell, Janice Rogers Brown, Herman Cain,Ward Connerly,Mia Love,Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Tim Scott and J.C. Watts. White Democrats and lefties treat black conservatives as race traitors.

                    There is nothing anti-black about conservativism, this is the lie.

          2. profile image61
            retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It is a shame that Al Sharpton enjoys any support. He is a liar, a fraud, a tax cheat and a man whose primary purpose appears to be filling his pockets with gold and the streets with angry people ready to burn, destroy and kill.

            The Trayvon Martin Case was NEVER about the "stand your ground" law, yet another Sharpton led attempt to distort for no purpose but to gain supporters. The "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws serve minorities far more frequently than it they do whites. Why, because minorities tend to live in communities more frequently plagued by crime. That doesn't appear to be the concern of scoundrels like Sharpton.

            If the Democrats are the party of the poor and downtrodden, it is just because they need all those votes. They already have the money.

            http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dcc576de … s-midterms

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Agree 100% with this. And the money is the problem in politics on both sides of the isle issues and muddies the water when trying to determine justice.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                What does money in politics have to do with a charlatan like Al Sharpton, who holds no elected office - though he is the White House expert on race relations. I am still amused by people who believe that money is the problem and not character.

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ....If the Democrats are the party of the poor and downtrodden, it is just because they need all those votes. They already have the money.....

                  You mentioned the money not me. roll

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    and then you proceeded to intentionally ignore the fact that money is flowing to the Democrat's biggest supporters - the very rich and very liberal

                2. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Money and character are the problem. Big money is the culprit on both sides that circumvent the proper consideration that our representatives give to those that they are elected to serve. There are plenty or examples in public life of wealthy people that serve others without the consideration of lining their own pockets, Edward Kennedy was one of those.

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Was a disgusting, womanizing killer. Check the history of that airturd the F35 joint strike fighter. Kennedy forced a revision to the existing plans solely to funnel defense money to Massachusetts.

                  2. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    There is an internal logical inconsistency in what you have written here. Money does not corrupt men of sound character. Money is a tool to a man of good character. To a man of low character, like Ted Kennedy(and many others) it is the means to an end - maintaining political power.

            2. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, Al is no angel, the Tawana Brawney thing many years ago attests to that. Here in Florida, anyway, there has been more than few discussions as to how this has been used. What justifies the use of lethal force, if you stalk someone and later use a weapon on the object of the stalk is it self defense? Stand your ground is part of a larger discussion on the principle behind all this. Can you take the initiative and engage with a shotgun two unarmed criminals who trespasses on a neighbors property and steal their TV? Even after you were advised by law enforcement to stay in your home and let them handle it. Both men were shot dead, when they tried to flee. According to Texas law, this was justified. But many of us were concerned about the implications surrounding the case.
              You may well be right about the benefit to the minority community, but questions still remain.

              The democrats are the party of the poor and downtrodden and probably the middle class too, because their policies, ideology and voting records reflect more interest in the welfare of these groups than those of the other party. Ted Kennedy also had a lot of money, but having met him earlier in my life, I never could find a more dedicated advocate for the needs of those on society's margins.

              1. profile image61
                retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The Democrats must be the party of the poor, they sure have been successfully creating more of them and cementing their dependency on the Democrat Party.

                The Welfare State - Democrat Idea, destroyed the black family. Check, they must be so proud.

                The Public/Federal Education State - Democrat Idea, destroyed black literacy. Check, they must be so proud.

                The Federal College Action State - Democrat Idea, destroys the young black person, who would have succeeded at a state or community college, by over promising high end success and setting them up for failure.

                Brilliant accomplishments all.

                I met my former Senator, Richard Lugar. He was a nice man. Politicians are professionally nice and con enough people into believing that they know best how to run everyone's life.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Then the issue of 'character' in politician from your own admission must be a contradiction in terms. There is a need and purpose for government.

                  As for the brilliant accomplishment, poverty, joblessness, discrimination were not being recognized and corrected by the other party. So, you could simply have people starve and attempt to pull themselves up by non existent boot straps, that would solve the problem? The 'cement' can be broken but the GOP need to present their viable alternatives to the problems that prompted the need for the social programs in the first place.
                  If they have a solution other than doing nothing, I am all ears....

                  1. profile image61
                    retief2000posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It doesn't matter what the GOP does, the most basic (and clearly false) assumption is the GOP is racist. That is the first and last description aimed at conservatives by liberal, Democrat and black leaders of all kinds, from Obama and Holder to the NAACP to Sharpton and to the Congressional Black Caucus. The GOP is damned and well damned and thrice damned by all of these regardless of the color blind message that the greatest benefactor of minorities is small government, the rule of law, a civil social order and liberty. Not an all encompassing government, the rule of elites, the grievance state and dependency.

                    The black vote is lost to the GOP because it is the black vote. If it was transformed into the the American vote it would not be lost. So long as the self perception of blacks is apart from America it will never be open to any GOP effort. This division harms blacks, harms America and fills the pockets of race baiters like Eric Holder, Barrack Obama and Al Sharpton. Find one voice among prominent conservatives that seeks to call out a person's skin color or reproductive organs as the primary reason for supporting, opposing or differentiating.

                    For the Democrat it is an absolute necessity to keep the GOP "white" and "christian" because it keeps Blacks and Jews married to the Democrat Party.

                    "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
                    and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
                    they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
                    they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
                    and pay them out of their public treasury;
                    they may take into their own hands the education of children,
                    establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
                    they may assume the provision of the poor;
                    they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
                    in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
                    down to the most minute object of police,
                    would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
                    of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
                    it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
                    of the limited Government established by the people of America.
                    "

                    James Madison,father of the Constitution.

  4. lone77star profile image85
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    Giuliani is a corrupt politician.

    NY firemen hate him for the shoddy 2-way radios he forced on them that led to the deaths of so many firemen on 9/11. Giuliani also forced firemen to curtail their search efforts at one point and firemen clashed with police over Giuliani's heartless orders.

    Giuliani also facilitated the destruction of crime scene evidence which started on the evening of 9/11, trucking tons of evidence from the crime scene every hour. That's a felony!

    Every politician who makes it to the Corporate Party ticket (Dems & Reps) for president is corrupt. How do we know? Behavior. Obama, a constitutional scholar, once infamously said that those who are incarcerated at Gitmo should stay there forever, even if found innocent. Having 2 parties keeps alive the illusion of choice. I wouldn't be surprised if Giuliani makes it; he's the right kind of corruption. Everything the psychopathic elite would love in a puppet.

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I cannot deny the corruptible native the system at the whole. Giuliani needs to attack key Democratic constituencies to rid himself of that squishy liberal image that, up to now, he has had with hard right who will probably prevail in GOP politics for the near future. He will need to cozy up to them if he wants to be taken seriously, but his social issues stance might sink his ship before launch.

  5. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 2 years ago

    That was good track maintance GA Anderson.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I did have plenty of help.

      GA

  6. Kevin Mitchell profile image59
    Kevin Mitchellposted 2 years ago

    The media is only concerned with what will get them the best ratings. They understand that immorality along with skewed demographic conveyance is propagating the minorities. The words that are used, conveyed ambiguity, and implicit knowledge of minority intelligence is the targeting being used. It's disgusting the way our media exploits the publics naivety.  When an asian or caucasian person experiences legitimate victimization it rarely makes headline news and when it does it becomes quickly dismissed and deemed an exploitation of racial favoritism. When poverty level individuals don't receive their free benefits, essentially causing malnourishment to their children, you won't find a crowd of protesters outside of the respective benefits office. My main point here is the unfortunate lack of education, interpersonal abilities, and fundamental compassion for others renders the omission of an intelligent approach. Lastly, we are masters of our destinies, lest we embrace knowledge without challenge.

 
working