Liveleak does not tolerate racist comments and attacking or impersonating members - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report. Please review our commenting rules here
I've got the REAL scoop for who's planning to run as Democrats!!
2020 Democratic Party Presidential Election Tickets
-- by Rational Db8
Democrats are gearing up for the 2020 presidential election. Notable Democratic Party tickets under consideration or that have been suggested include the leading pair of:
Followed by the honorable pairing of:
Many favorably view the all black female ticket of former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch paired with former First Lady Michelle Obama, for the:
Lynch-Obama ticket (h/t Just(R)ight)...
A very recent development which seems very popular in the press is the pairing of the female black TV mogul Oprah Winfrey on a ticket with Marcia Fudge, Dem congressman from Ohio, for the all woman duo of the:
Winfrey-Fudge Ticket... Who but possibly diabetics could possibly resist?
It should be noted that some are referring to this pairing as the:
O-Fudge Ticket (h/t Renellin), which may be more appropriate, but then I suppose which is more applicable all depends on one's tastes and world view!
There are some, however, who instead suggest that Ms. Winfrey would be better matched with the honorable Representative (D) Hank "Islands tip over if overpopulated" Johnson, for the:
Winfrey-Johnson Ticket... which some voters might find appealing. (h/t to "QEllDefender of the Faith" for the idea of the two "Winfrey" tickets!)
Meanwhile, there have been reports that Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden might team up. This pairing is being referred to as the:
Tom Sawyer or Injun-Joe Ticket....
While others believe the better pairing would be Representative Maxine Waters with Senator Joe Biden. They've decided if they team up they'll call their campaign the "Fury Road" for the:
Mad Max and Crazy Uncle Joe Ticket...
On the other hand, some like the idea of pairing Representative Fredericka "I wear crazy azzz faux-cowboy hats!" Wilson with Elizabeth "I'm an Indian, really!" Warren, as the:
Cowboys and Indians Ticket....
The lesser known possibilities include the pairing of Hawaii's Democratic Party Senator Brian Schatz, with the Democratic Senator from Montana, Jon Tester, for the:
Schatz - Tester ticket...
The wild card tickets getting some consideration is the first vice-chair of dem. party in Oregon, Karen Packer... with Marcia Fudge, Dem congressman from Ohio, for the:
Finally, there's also the possibility of Richard Berry, current Dem Mayor of Albuquerque and two time state representative paired with federal representative Dem. Debbie Dingell of Michigan for the....
wait for it....
The Dingell-Berry ticket.
BOOM! HEADSHOT!!!(from 2012)
Many of these Irish Catholic leaders were protected by their Irish Catholic peers within the local District Attorney offices and other law enforcement agencies. The pedophilia sexual abuses were reported and known for decades by the concerned cities and counties and yet the law enforcement agencies of the respective jurisdictions rarely responded to the dire needs of the sexually abused children. This was often a case of Irish Catholic lawmen fiercely protecting Irish Catholic clergymen. The real face of the clandestine Irish Mafia, then, is the clergy and the lawmen who protected them for decades. What’s the point? Director Comey fits this pattern to the “T”. He protects the rich and powerful, and goes after the vulnerable like Martha Stewart.
I have to say, while I used to like D'Souza, I think he's somewhat embarrassing himself here.
First, he equates the Founders with conservatism, but then he equates the Founding with the more progressive Enlightenment ideas like "all men are created equal." These views have long been anathema to conservatives, and the Founders contained various voices, including those such as John Dickenson and Adams who were more in line with European-style conservatism, less enamored of the Enlightenment, and who believed we have a "better guide than reason."
Second, can we get off the "everyone is a Nazi" thing. This was an event 70 years ago. The Communists were just as bad and existed on both sides of the Nazi episode. And there were other bad things and bad ideas since then and before then that do not neatly fit into the right/left dichotomy. There were right wing and left wing nationalist movements. There were right wing and left wing critiques of capitalism. Is Chesterton a leftist? De Maistre? Belloc? This is just silly.
Three, Spencer's a peculiar guy with peculiar ideas. But he's not a leftist. He's clearly a nationalist of the anti-Enlightenment variety, but also has a modernist streak, akin to the Spanish Falangists. This type of thinking will never get deep roots in the United States, but his love of Democrats like Jackson does not make him a leftist. The Democrats of old were not leftist, and this includes Jackson. Both the Republicans and Democrats of yesteryaer meet the modern definition of "racism," including Lincoln's Republican Party, which wanted to ship the ex-slaves back to Africa.
Ultimately, this meme that the Democrats are the Real Racists is a stupid point. There have been realignments since that time, and there are worse sins than racism. The liberal yardstick that looks at yesterday and asks "who is racist?" and then tries to neatly put everyone into the camp of sinners and saints on that basis is neither conservative nor sensible. Many were undeniably racist; they also weren't promoting transgenderism and abortion. Who is more evil in that contest?
Further, setting aside the historical record, today the Democrats are more self consciously trying to appeal to black wants and interests, including through generous welfare systems and job set asides. Republicans had the Willie Horton ad, Nixon's "law and order" talk, and have rejected social engineering programs like school bussing and demographic war on whites through massive immigration. In their view, Republican opposition to these things is racism, because racism means "what's good for blacks." But so what? Who is right and wrong is a better question, and it's a more complicated question, both in the past and the present, of divining who meets the ever-changing concept of racism.
Dhimmicrats! Same as it ever was.....
The old confederacy possessed a small extremely wealthy class, a tiny middle class, slaves and large numbers of whites and free blacks in poverty. The cotton plantation owners and factors such as Lehman Brothers, who traded in cotton, made up the wealthy class. The small middle class included doctors, lawyers, larger shop owners and few others that catered to the wealthy. Slave labor depressed the wages of most others.
California’s wealthy class are mostly those in IT, show business and a few industries. Lawyers and doctors, who cater to the aforementioned, form the upper middleclass. The wealthy use imported labor to depress IT wages at one end and unskilled labor to keep their lawn, mansions and such, well manicured and spick and span – mimicking slavery of old. Use of such depresses the wages of a dwindling middle class. Add, rising taxes and either those in the middle class become poor or leave the state. California has 12 percent of the nation’s population. But, one-third of the homeless and one-third of those on welfare. Again, a modern version of the old confederacy, complete with rebellious state governments.
And there it is! How MANY "steins," weiners", and "bergs", do you think are involved?
Think of what happened immediately after the murder of Kennedy in Nov 63.
In 64, you had the "civil rights act" and the voting rights act which gave the blacks the vote. Then one year later in 65, you had the immigration act would opened up the borders to the third world for the first time in US history. Then you had America starting the war in Viet nam, foreign wars which continue to this day. Then in 68, you had the murder of his brother, and the race riots, the student protests in Paris, and the age of Aquarius marxist hippy revolution.
Everything bad today, all started months after Kennedy was murdered. The deep state, the cultural Marxism, the ascendance of left wing thought at the highest levels, the Zionist foreign policy, all started immediately after his assassination. America did not have a zionist foreign policy until after he was killed. It started with Johnson and continues unabated to this day. That was when the Jews took over. And being Jews, that was when they instituted their marxist agenda on America in the form of multiculturalism and open borders.
Remember, just before kennedy took office in 61, Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex and their agenda. Kennedy insisted on the monitoring of the Israeli Dimona plant, and within two year, he was dead, and the deep state became the real power in the western world.
Kids: Then and Now
Posted on February 21, 2018 by Fred Reed
OK, so why is the country falling apart? Specifically, why are kids blowing each other away? America has become a source of wonder the world over with its Colulmbines and hundreds and hundreds of dead in Chicago and Baltimore and its burning cities and riots. Other advanced countries don’t do these things.
America didn’t either until recently. Why now? Something has changed, or some things. What? People under under forty have never seen the country when it was sane. Let me point out things that have changed, at risk of sounding like a boilerplate cadger: “By cracky, wen I was a boy, we could amuse ourselves for hours with just a piece of string and a couple of sticks.” Let’s compare today with the Fifties and Sixties. I mean this as sociology, not nostalgisizing.
I think that a combination of social changes have led to tremendous stress on today’s kids that my generation did not suffer. To wit:
In my rural Virginia school, there was no racial tension. We were all white: teachers, students, parents.
The black kids went to their own school, Ralph Bunche. We had virtually no contact with each other. There was no hostility, just no contact. The academic gap didn’t exist in the absence of contact. Inintegration would prove cruel when it came. and the black kids sank to the bottom. The causes can be argued, but the fact cannot.
There was no black crime to speak of or, as far as I knew any black crime. Certainly blacks did not shoot each other, or anybody. Neither did we. The reasons I suspect were similar.
Divorce was extremely rare, so we all had parents. Whether it is better that unhappy couples stay together or that they divorce can be argued, but they then did stay together. It made a large difference in outcomes if one accepts the statistics. The welfare programs of the Great Society had not yet destroyed the black family, which I speculate accounted in part for low crime.
Drugs did not exist. These appeared only with the Sixties. A few of us had heard of marijuana. I read a clandestine copy of The Naked Lunch. That was it. We drank a lot of beer.
In the entire school I remember only one, moderately fat kid. Why? Because, I will guess, we were very physically active. The school had PE classes, football and basketball teams, and so on. In summer kids aboard Dahlgren spent their days at the base swimming pool or swimming in Machodoc “Creek”, it was perhaps three-quarters of a mile wide–bicycling, canoeing- playing tennis. The country kids chopped cord wood, lifted hay. There was ice skating for hours in winter. Gloria, my best girl, got up at four a.m. to help her father pull crab pots on the Potomac, Though feminine, she probably could have thrown a Volkswagen over a four-store building. Again, I offer this not as nostalgia but as biological fact with effects.
Physical fitness has I suspect psychological consequences. For example, ADHD did not exist. Boys are competitive, physical animals full of wild energy and need–need–to work it off. Boredom and enforced inactivity are awful for them. Two or three hours daily of fast-break pick-up basketball did this. If you force boys to sit rigidly in school, with no recess or only physically limited play, they will be miserable. If you then force them to take Ritalin, an approximate amphetamine, they will be miserable with modified brain chemistry. I don’t think this is a good idea.
Sex and, I think, its psychological consequences were different then. We were aware of sex. I am not sure we were aware of anything else. But the culture was such that, first, young girls, middle school, say, were sexually (very) off limits. When barely pubescent girls are taken advantage of by boys of seventeen or of thirty-five, the emotional effects are devastating. By contrast, boys hoped desperately to be taken advantage of.
The de facto social theory was that girls should remain virgins until married. I think few really believed this, and certainly many girls did not. However the necessity of pretending, plus the fear of pregnancy in those pre-pill days, allowed girls to say “no.” if they chose. The Pill, backed up by abortion, would make girls into commodities. If Sally said no, Mary wouldn’t, and boys, churning jhrmone wads, would go with Mary. Thus girls lost control of the sexual economy and the respect that went with it. More stress.
Anorexia and bulimia did not exist. We didn’t know the words. Both look to me like a reaction to stress.
Uncertainty is a formidable source of stress. We had little uncertainty as to our futures in the sense that the young do today. We assumed, correctly, that jobs would be available for us. For kids who were not going on in school, there were jobs at Dahlgren, the local naval base, as secretaries or guards or maintenance personnel, federal jobs with benefits. More remotely, Detroit was paying what seemed to us astronomical wages. Those of us in the college track, which meant those whose parents were grads and those who had high SATs, knew we could work in whatever field we had chosen. Starbucks and living in our parents’ basements never crossed our minds.
Social mobility existed, and girls had not yet been taught they they were victims. Of my graduating class of sixty, two girls became physicists and my buddy Franklin, of non-college family an electronics engineer. Sherry a year behind me, a nuclear biologist. All, I think, of non-college families. There must have been others.
Extremely important, I think, was that the school was apolitical. We didn’t know that it was. School was where you learned algebra and geography, or at least learned at them. The teachers, both men and women, assumed this. The white kids were not endlessly told that they were reprehensible and the cause of the world’s problems. The boys were not told that masculinity was toxic. Hysteria over imaginary rape was well in the future. Little boys were not dragged from school by the police for drawing a soldier with a rifle. The idea of having police in a school would seem insane when it first appeared.
More speculatively: My wife Violeta recently commented that the young today seem about ten years younger than their age. There may be something go this. At least in the media and academic worlds, people in their mid-thirties remind me of the young of the Sixties, displaying what appear to be the same hormonal rebellion and sanctimony. It has also seeped into high school. There is the same anger, the same search for grievance, the same adolescent posturing.
I think feminism plays a large part in the collapse of society in general and specifically in pushing boys over the edge. In my school years boys were allowed to be boys. Neither sex was denigrated. Doing so would have occurred to nobody. Then came a prejudice against boys, powerful today
All of this affected society in its entirety, but especially white boys. They are constantly told that being white is shameful, that any masculine interest is pathological, that they are rapists in waiting. They are subjected to torturous boredom and inactivity, and drugged when they respond poorly. They go to schools that do not like them and that stack the deck against them. Many are fatherless. All have access to psychoactive drugs.
Add it up.
Gazing out over the chaos of America today, the racial and ethnic antagonism, the hostility over sex and faith and politics–I have never seen anything like it. The country is imploding. The main culprit is diversity–in the broad sense, not just the juxtaposition of races, but the mixing of ideas and philosophies with no dominant culture to maintain order. Current policies promoting this mess are insane.
We hate each other.
Countries are happiest when they have one national culture, or at least one dominant culture to which all must perforce conform.
1976 Who's Who among US students, 2600 member, Gen. G.Patton was a family friend(Mom's),167