Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate

[Dashinka 23,242]

By 

Shelby Steele

Sept. 23, 2018 1:19 p.m. ET

 

Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride. 

 

For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-left-is-consumed-with-hate-1537723198

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Because everything they thought they knew and believed in has been proven false. Its just what they do. Prior to the election everybody in the MDl was saying he would wreck the economy. Well that was proven wrong so now they are saying this is Obamas economy. So ponder this, how could the liberals predict he had the power to wreck the economy but know that he has set it on fire, its obama's doings. Do this people really believe what they say.

 

How President Donald Trump will wreck the world economy

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/president-donald-trump-dollar-failing-financial-crash-a7404816.html

 

 

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

Why is the right always given a pass, but the Dems are hateful ones. 

When the right holds Nazi rallies, they get angry with the left for protesting them. 

[Dashinka 23,242]

13 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Why is the right always given a pass, but the Dems are hateful ones. 

When the right holds Nazi rallies, they get angry with the left for protesting them. 

Take a step back and look at their actions in an unbiased manner.  When was the last time the GOP attempted to destroy any nominee from a Democrat President for either a jusdgeship or executive office?  Heck, they could have tore Hillary a new one with all of her skeletons when she was under confirmation for SoS.  You say the GOP should compromise, why don’t the Dems do a little compromising of their own?

[Póg mo 1,749]

51 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Take a step back and look at their actions in an unbiased manner.  When was the last time the GOP attempted to destroy any nominee from a Democrat President for either a jusdgeship or executive office?  Heck, they could have tore Hillary a new one with all of her skeletons when she was under confirmation for SoS.  You say the GOP should compromise, why don’t the Dems do a little compromising of their own?

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

[Sonea 138]

26 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

There have been a number of forced withdraws, but the only other non vote in the last century that I am aware of is Thornberry. This is not the example people are looking for however as it was similar to Garland's nomination in that conservatives stopped Fortas from becoming Chief Justice which terminated Thornberry's vote.

 

I will say that in the past 100 years, far more republican nominations have been torpedoed than democrat nominations. This could be viewed as democrats doing more against republicans, or republicans simply not naming sound candidates (as with most things, both are probably true.)

 

 

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

There have been a number of forced withdraws, but the only other non vote in the last century that I am aware of is Thornberry. This is not the example people are looking for however as it was similar to Garland's nomination in that conservatives stopped Fortas from becoming Chief Justice which terminated Thornberry's vote.

 

I will say that in the past 100 years, far more republican nominations have been torpedoed than democrat nominations. This could be viewed as democrats doing more against republicans, or republicans simply not naming sound candidates (as with most things, both are probably true.)

 

 

How many didn't get an up or down vote?

[Sonea 138]

4 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

How many didn't get an up or down vote?

Just Thornberry. (A democrat nomination)

 

Most of the republican nominations that were torpedoed involve either a no vote or a withdraw.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Sonea

[Dashinka 23,242]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

I asked you to name me a nominee that a Democrat president sent up that received a character assassination much like a Bork, or Kavanaugh?  You first.

[Sonea 138]

By the way, regarding Kavanaugh - in a normal world, the vote would be postponed for an investigation. But the rule book was thrown out years ago by both parties so under the current system, I don't see how that could happen. Republicans must force a vote either late this week or next.

 

Feinstein should have chosen a course of action back in July. By waiting this long its basically forcing everyone's hand and clouds the issue. If there is anyone to blame regarding this process its squarely with Feinstein. Whatever legacy she may have had will be stained by how she handled this in my opinion.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

and both sides agreed to wait and let the next President do it, and the reason the dems did not put up a fight ?

 

Cause they 100% believed she who walks behind the corn would win. Trump was not supposed to win, the deep state on both sides did not want it

[Póg mo 1,749]

32 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I asked you to name me a nominee that a Democrat president sent up that received a character assassination much like a Bork, or Kavanaugh?  You first.

It seems to me that Kavanaugh made his own bed.

You guys sure suddenly love elitist ex-frat boys who loved to get drunk and use women as sexual play things. Do you really think for a second that if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would not be jamming the airwaves with stories a democratic supreme Court candidate, if one were to exist. Perhaps the reason Republicans haven't done this before, is because Democrats have the good sense to avoid ex-frat boys for appointment to the supreme Court. 

 

The right has been attacking everyone on the left for years, even Bernie Sanders, was accused of taking payoffs from Hillary/Democratic party.

 

 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

57 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

It seems to me that Kavanaugh made his own bed.

You guys sure suddenly love elitist ex-frat boys who loved to get drunk and use women as sexual play things. Do you really think for a second that if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would not be jamming the airwaves with stories a democratic supreme Court candidate, if one were to exist. Perhaps the reason Republicans haven't done this before, is because Democrats have the good sense to avoid ex-frat boys for appointment to the supreme Court. 

 

The right has been attacking everyone on the left for years, even Bernie Sanders, was accused of taking payoffs from Hillary/Democratic party.

 

 

The only bed he has made so far is accepting the nomination there is no proof that he has done anything illegal. I think if there is any real proof then it's fair game for either side but at the moment there is nothing. 

 

The left seems to think that just because there is an accusation he should step aside. Can you imagine how frustrating it will get in the future, all the opposition party will have to do is find some have baked story to shut the other side down. 

 

Gutter politics at its best, the dems make it easy to not vote for them that's assuming I was allowed vote to begin with.

[Sonea 138]

20 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The only bed he has made so far is accepting the nomination there is no proof that he has done anything illegal. I think if there is any real proof then it's fair game for either side but at the moment there is nothing. 

 

The left seems to think that just because there is an accusation he should step aside. Can you imagine how frustrating it will get in the future, all the opposition party will have to do is find some have baked story to shut the other side down. 

 

Gutter politics at its best, the dems make it easy to not vote for them that's assuming I was allowed vote to begin with.

I sort of agree (especially regarding Feinstein and the gutter she crawled out of)  that there is no solid evidence of wrong doing and at the same time there is enough info out there now to realize the guy is an absolute douchebag.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Sonea

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Sure let's talk about compromise, just as soon as you tell me the names of a nominee to the supreme Court, who failed to even receive a hearing, and in the last one hundred years, one who couldn't even get a up or down vote. I'll wait.

So when Joe Biden, while as head of the judiciary committee,  said that no president should appoint a nominee during an election, was he joking ?

Quote. …it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/22/joe-biden-1992-no-supreme-court-pick-until-after-election/

Edited September 26, 2018 by Marty Byrde