The pipe bomb distributions to past and present leaders of the Democratic Party has been traced to a marginal human named Cesar a rabid supporter of MOM (aka POTUS) Almost before the hypocritical disavowal of hate and violence could clear MOM’s lips(and speechwriters) another hater armed with four weapons including an AR-15, struck in Pittsburgh at a Jewish synagogue during a religious ceremony..The rise in hate crimes is heartbreaking and clearly related to the selection of scapegoats,e.g muslims,blacks,hispanics etc. for isolation and persecution and the emergence of a theme of making America White ,Christian and Misogynous again.These sentiments have always been available and the calling of them, be it by dog whistle or overt command, is bringing us closer to the helter skelter madness that MOM requires to declare martial law and coupled with recession and foreign war can lead to MOM’s ascension to an Imperial Presidency..Hail Caesar,Heil Hitler and Scaramouche!!Only the naive can fail to see MOM’s call for returning the Death Penalty as an extension of the hate call that imperils liberal democracy.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
Is it “naïve” when a mind can see other rational possibilities? For instance, are there not things that a decent mind SHOULD hate? If so, we need to clarify its appropriateness or not and that means we have to clarify the context in which the “hate” exists. Daedal2207 rightly identifies the hateful killing of innocents. Yes, we should hate those who demonstrate by actions that they hate inappropriately. Perhaps also, we should hate the thinking process of those who with weak evidence are at ease accusing others of having hateful, dastardly motives. But what if they think that the evidence is strong? Then we should hate the processes by which minds are prevented from receiving and then weighing the other probabilities. Daedal2207 wants to compare Trump’s administration to an “Imperial Presidency”. He indicates that the historic examples of Caesar and even Hitler represent the Trump agenda. If anybody actually believed what Daedal2207 is telling us wouldn’t they be obligated to kill this evil before it succeeds in destroying our civilization? This comparison with Hitler has to be one of the purist examples of verbal “hate” on display today. Is it appropriate? Given that Trump has selected two Supreme Court Justices who would stand in the way of such a Socialist Imperial ambition it seems unlikely that he has that agenda. There is a real possibility that he actually wants “to make America great again” – “great” defined as originally conceived by our founders. Now I think that it is true that a great many in our society “hate” the “America” our founders gifted to us and want to “fundamentally transform” it into something else, something with more “social justice”. Which agenda should be hated? To answer that would require our having an accurate understanding of which when winning will best serve the human future. I love the debate as regards this issue (because it reflects the founders’ intent), and hate those who choose not to debate (which tends to reflect the self-proclaimed righteousness of the challengers’ intent).
Logic tells us that crime can be deterred. If it is true that a death penalty, when timely used, would prevent more murders than it might inspire, then objecting to such a policy would be “hateful”-to-the-lives-that-would-be-saved.
DS: “If anybody actually believed what Daedal2207 is telling us wouldn’t they be obligated to kill this evil before it succeeds in destroying our civilization?”
Sir, this is a very, very sick concept coming from your side of the discussion. And, please, do not retreat for having used the word “kill” as figuratively. Your vocabulary is much richer than that. It has never been used by this side. Shameful.
DS: “… — ‘great’ as defined originally conceived by our founders. “
Does that include the “3/5 of a Person Clause”? Or, no direct election of senators during the first 125 years? Again, like gerrymandering, cherry-picking the original intent that tends to squash equality and the reality of over 200 years of evolution, technology (to include communications capacity), and the call for greater justice through evolving education.
We LOVE the America for which we remain vigil. Your language has become more incendiary. Perhaps wrong models?
P. S. I missed the overwhelming count of the word “HATE” … 10?
DS: “I love the debate as regards this issue (because it reflects the founders’ intent), and hate those who choose not to debate (which tends to reflect the self-proclaimed righteousness of the challengers’ intent).”
Sounds like someone only wants affirmation of his own opinions … right or wrong. Once in a while, it’s a good idea to look at one’s self in the mirror and see what stares back … self-righteousness to someone who is vehemently repulsed by it? Since we are relying on the wisdom of scriptures …
Luke 6:41. Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
I go where logic dictates. If some (such as SB) consider that its dictates are “incendiary”, or “sick”, it shows us who is afraid of where logic takes us.
The founders of our Constitution gave us a means by which “the running argument” could most safely be pursued. The “3/5 of a Person Clause” was one of the “arguments” that failed for good reason. However, a costly but necessary Civil War brought us into line with original intent (equal individual rights under the law).
“Self-righteousness” is a concept worthy of analysis: An idea that is better than another is independent of “the self”. This is the un-self position that I try to maintain – that is, I try to establish with empirical and logical evidence which ideas are most worthy. It is when an individual identifies so much with an idea that any criticism of it is taken as a personal affront that it becomes subjectively problematic – as difficult as potential psychological dysfunctions allow. Often they then run away from debate – (“defriend” as they say in Facebook). This is what I mean when I refer to those who are “self-righteous”. Sometimes the self-righteous just deflect from reasoned debate and indulge in insult or demonization of the messenger who brings unwanted criticisms. (SB, by trying to portray my argument as somehow “incendiary” provides such an example).
Indeed, this may explain much (not all) of today’s hatred directed at Donald Trump. By strongly and directly addressing the long-existing conflict of visions regarding America’s future (for example, favoring the Right’s capitalism over the Left’s socialism) he is accused of “hatefully” causing division. And somehow, (I guess because they have harnessed it to Trump) “hate” itself becomes something to be “hated”. The irony seems to be lost.
And finally, it is logical that anyone who actually believes that Trump is identical to history’s mass killer, the man we know as Hitler, should try to kill him. Logically, by choosing not to do so, they must assume some responsibility for all those they believe this “eventual mass killer” will kill. This is why labeling any leader “Hitler” is among the worst examples of inappropriate “hate” imaginable. It is giving all foolish believers an excuse, an incentive to kill that leader.
As for the death penalty, please read Genesis 9:6: Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Anwar Ghali, MD, MPA
Hailing to Old Testament teaching.Pennsylvania and Florida retain the death penalty.Thus MOM’s declaration is irrelevant and pointless and only understandable as another dog whistle.
daedal2207: “Only the naive can fail to see MOM’s call for returning the Death Penalty as an extension of the hate call that imperils liberal democracy.”
Dr. Ghali: “As for the death penalty, please read Genesis 9:6: Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”
There is something incongruous and cruel in cherry-picking religious pronouncements to suit one’s proclivity. Surely the extreme right-leaning evangelical has “problems” with the below?
Proverbs 22:22-23 — Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.
Luke 12: 33-34 —33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also
And, specifically to President Trump:
Proverb 17:7 — Eloquent lips are unsuited to a godless fool— how much worse lying lips to a ruler!
Advocating for an-eye-for-an-eye is a shallow argument. From a layman’s point of view, it would seem that the medical field should be more interested in discussing/advocating for mental health. It may not be a sexy or “red meat” subject, but because of that factor, it is an epidemic that is occurring under the radar.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/depression-the-growing-american-mental-health-storm#2
If our “First” Lady has not been able to find a purpose in her unwanted role, advocating for such a powerful issue would give her status as not merely arm-candy to her sociopathic husband. There are enough causes for the well-being of our population, but it requires the belief by healers in the Hippocratic Oath. Hate begets hate … love begets love. Society can only function with empathy by its side. BTW, has it entered anyone’s mind that the narcissist-in-chief has not held any cultural events in the White House? The Arts are what raises us from the animal world … and I don’t mean “Reality Shows!”
I am taking the liberty of imposing, on the worldwide followers of this blog, the words of Alexander Soros on the understanding and practice of his family’s philanthropy … it was published in The NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/george-soros-mailbox-bomb.html:
Alexander Soros: The Hate That Is Consuming Us
Bombs sent to my father, George Soros, and to former President Obama and Hillary Clinton are a result of our politics of demonizing opponents.
By Alexander Soros
Mr. Soros is the deputy chairman of the Open Society Foundations.
On Monday afternoon an explosive device was delivered to my father’s home north of New York City. An alert member of our staff recognized the threat and called the police. Fortunately, the authorities were able to detonate the device safely. On Wednesday, the Secret Service said it had intercepted similar devices sent to the offices of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
We are all grateful that no one was injured, and grateful to those who kept us safe. But the incident was profoundly disturbing — as a threat not just to the safety of our family, neighbors, colleagues and friends, but also to the future of American democracy.
My family is no stranger to the hostilities of those who reject our philosophy, our politics and our very identity. My father grew up in the shadow of the Nazi regime in Hungary. My grandfather secured papers with false names so that they could survive the onslaught against Budapest’s Jews; he helped many others do the same. After the war, as the Communists took power, my father escaped to London, where he studied at the London School of Economics before embarking on what ultimately became a hugely successful career in finance.
But the lessons of his early life never left him. His biggest philanthropic endeavor, the Open Society Foundations, played a leading role in supporting the transition from Communism to more democratic societies in parts of the former Soviet Union and then expanded to protect democratic practices in existing democracies. My father acknowledges that his philanthropic work, while nonpartisan, is “political” in a broad sense: It seeks to support those who promote societies where everyone has a voice.
There is a long list of people who find that proposition unacceptable, and my father has faced plenty of attacks along the way, many dripping with the poison of anti-Semitism.
But something changed in 2016. Before that, the vitriol he faced was largely confined to the extremist fringes, among white supremacists and nationalists who sought to undermine the very foundations of democracy.
But with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, things got worse. White supremacists and anti-Semites like David Duke endorsed his campaign. Mr. Trump’s final TV ad famously featured my father; Janet Yellen, chairwoman of the Federal Reserve; and Lloyd Blankfein, chairman of Goldman Sachs — all of them Jewish — amid dog-whistle language about “special interests” and “global special interests.” A genie was let out of the bottle, which may take generations to put back in, and it wasn’t confined to the United States.
In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán launched an anti-Semitic poster campaign falsely accusing my father of wanting to flood Hungary with migrants. This included plastering my father’s face onto the floor of trams in Budapest so that people would walk on it, all to serve Mr. Orbán’s political agenda.
Now we have attempted bomb attacks. While the responsibility lies with the individual or individuals who sent these lethal devices to my family home and Mr. Obama’s and Ms. Clinton’s offices, I cannot see it divorced from the new normal of political demonization that plagues us today.
I am under no illusion that the hatred directed at us is unique. There are too many people in the United States and around the world who have felt the force of this malign spirit. It is now all too “normal” that people who speak their minds are routinely subjected to personal hostility, hateful messages on social media and death threats.
It is also all too normal that organizations doing important pro-democracy work face existential threats simply because they accept support from the foundations my father started. And all too normal that political leaders who swear an oath of office to protect all citizens instead pursue politics of division and hate.
We are far removed from the days when Senator John McCain rebuffed his own supporters during the 2008 election to patriotically defend his opponent, Mr. Obama — all because he believed that the health of our democracy was more important than his personal political gain.
We must find our way to a new political discourse that shuns the demonization of all political opponents. A first step would be to cast our ballots to reject those politicians cynically responsible for undermining the institutions of our democracy. And we must do it now, before it is too late.
Yes,Trump and his cult of hate supporters are beyond lacking empathy,which is difficult to employ selectively,apparently embracing hate and disparagement are not.Krystal Nacht is coming closer.The vote is our sole protection.
By failing to be specific as to exactly what “dog whistle” refers to, Daedal2207 is casting generalized dispersions that serve only the cherished feelings of those within his flock, and not the minds of all persons who desire clarity of thought.
As for the death penalty, no matter the number of states that allow it, it may be true that more should. That is, if we TRULY want our system to save more lives than it jeopardizes.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.