Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
True, and as our friend Yehren pointed out above, BLM has a 62% approval rating. Now, that's just scary!!! It shows that young Americans are being indoctrinated toward Marxism (i.e. communism).
Who do you think will win Trump or Biden or Kanye?
- Thread starter Josho
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Mate i hate cancel culture but u have to be honest... I cancelled him... LoL... Only person iv cancelled but i just had to...
Im sure these pages are littered with his posts but i don't see them Hahaha... Cancel culture
Reagan didn't think so. He supported it. So opposition to it, is far off the scale.
On the Clinton crime bill, Biden, as chairman of the judiciary committee, addressed crime, including opening community centers on the weekends to give teenagers a place to hang out that wasn’t the streets. Republicans ridiculed it as “midnight basketball.” But it worked.
Yep. Let's take a look at crime rates since then...
Worked better than anything else anyone has done. Problem was that conservative prosecutors and judges found ways to use some of the law to incarcerate more people for minor crimes. That's one reason sentencing reform took some of their discretionary power to abuse the law, away from them.
As vice president during the Obama years, Biden was actively involved in the passing of the Affordable Care Act and hugely influential in shaping the stimulus package, which helped pull the economy out of the Great Recession with traditional liberal Keynesian borrowed money to build infrastructure and invest in sustainable energy.
That's a testable belief. Let's take a look...
You think Trump was president in 2009? Seriously? C'mon.
Polls show voters want leaders who can work with the other side. That kind of good will and greatness of spirit is offensive to the extremists who seek to divide us. But the American people recognize that those are exactly the qualities that will be needed to heal America. And that is why Biden has opened up an increasingly large lead over Trump, who can only succeed by further dividing us.
Trump is only the most obvious person tearing down America. The far left also has some blame here. Everyone knew that the election of the first black president was going to stir the white nationalists out of their sewers, but the very reason extremists and the racists who peddle hate fear Biden is that he can and will reach out to those who disagree with him, to get things done for America.
There's really no point in denying the fact. People know what Trump has done. And they're sick of it. It's why Biden is doing so well now. And now, as Trump's mental and physical state continues to decline, there's really not much he can do to turn things around.
In his opinion, it was federal overreach over local government. In 2000, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, challenging a lower court removal of busing as a desegregation policy. So Biden was correct.
Indeed, during the civil rights legislation, Biden reach across the aisle to racist republicans like Thurmond, and engaged them in the difficult process of coming to an effective compromise. Although he and Thurmond disagreed on many things, Biden's respectful disagreement and willingness to hear him out, made a friend of Thurmond. When Strom Thurmond died, his widow asked Biden to do the eulogy.
Extremists find that puzzling and even infuriating, but it's a clue to the kind of person Biden is. He could find common ground even among his political enemies. This is precisely why he's the right person to heal the divide we are now experiencing.
Joe Biden refused calls to apologize Wednesday for saying that the Senate "got things done" with "civility" even when the body included segregationists with whom he disagreed.
Biden not apologizing for remarks on segregationist senators
You were lied to about that. Biden limited the accusations against Thomas, and refused to filibuster against him, assuring Thomas' confirmation.
Biden didn’t allow corroborating witnesses to tell their stories to support Hill’s claim. And he, together with the Democratic leadership, declined to filibuster the nomination, allowing Thomas to win confirmation with 52 votes, including 11 from Democrats.
Joe Biden’s History of Accomplishments Is Coming Back to Haunt Him
Turns out, America disagrees with you. This is another reason Biden is leading Trump by such a large margin:
Poll: Obamacare More Popular Than Ever
The Affordable Care Act wins 55% support among the public for its “highest rating” since becoming law nearly a decade ago, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll released Friday.
Kaiser said the “clear majority” of support is the highest in more than 100 polls the nonprofit health foundation has conducted. The ACA was signed into law in 2010 by President Barack Obama and has expanded health insurance coverage to more than 20 million Americans.
“The recent uptick reflects strong support among Democrats, 85% of whom now express favorable views,” Kaiser said in its analysis. “A narrow majority (53%) of independents also view the law favorably.
Poll: Obamacare More Popular Than Ever
(unsupported conspiracy theories)
Yes, wouldn't be complete without those, would it?
Your presentation would have been more effective if you could have gathered some facts to support it.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
How Black Lives Matter Is Bringing back Traditional Marxism
Marxist theory could be making a comeback. That means less trigger warnings and safe spaces, but more entrenched racial conflict.
It isn’t surprising that Black Lives Matter is a communist organization—but the type of communism they subscribe to is. They are conservative communists attempting to fold the progressive movement back into traditional Marxism.
BLM has turned its back on intersectional theory, the modern conflict theory that birthed safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the Oppression Olympics. Instead, BLM is rebirthing the traditional class struggle, reframing it in terms of black and white.
The policy platform proposed by BLM in August did nothing to hide this traditionalism. Its calls for collective ownership of resources, banks, and businesses, a highly progressive income tax, a guaranteed minimum income, and government jobs are lifted straight from the pages of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto.” Here are two excerpts for comparison:
But more important is BLM’s use of the black versus white dichotomy. While race has a long history as a wedge issue, BLM incorporates nearly all forms of modern marginalization—“including but not limited to those who are women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, differently-abled, undocumented, and immigrant”—into blackness. Conversely, whiteness represents all forms of privilege (economic, social, and legal) throughout the platform.
BLM has simply substituted Marx’s class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie for class conflict between blackness and whiteness. But unlike income and wealth, blackness and whiteness are not temporary states: while 56 percent of American households occupy the top 10 percent of the income bracket at some point during their lives, such transience does not occur with an immutable characteristic like race.
The black vs. white dichotomy creates a permanent enemy class, to which defection is always incomplete. And unlike the proletariat class consciousness, race consciousness already exists, making mobilization easier. This can be seen in the comments of a Milwaukee protester from August: “We do not want justice or peace anymore. We done with that sh-t. We want blood. We want blood. We want the same sh-t ya’ll want. Eye for an eye. No more peace. F–k all that. Ain’t no more peace. Ain’t no more peace. We done. We cannot cohabitate with white people, one of us have to go, black or white. All ya’ll have to go!”
Why Black Lives Matter Rejects Intersectionality
Where Marxism prioritizes the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (or between black and white), the modern theory of intersectionality prioritizes differences between identity politic groups. It posits that while white women face marginalization for their sex, they gain privilege from their race. Conversely, black men gain privilege from their sex while facing marginalization because of their race. Black women experience “double jeopardy,” suffering from both sex and race. This creates a hierarchy of oppression that is in constant flux as new forms of marginalization are recognized. Intersectional theory fractures the class conflict from two opposed groups into an unlimited number of conflicts within the hierarchy of oppression.
This is why the LGBTQQIAAP coalition is beginning to segregate itself by race. For example, some elements of the community argue that “white cis gay men are relative enablers, rather than victims, of oppression.” Intersectionality has created similar instability in the feminist movement. At a National Women’s Studies Association Conference in 1992, American Enterprise Institute Scholar Christina Hoff Sommers observed the effects of intersectionality on feminist solidarity:
Could Communism Be Making a Comeback?
While this sounds like a scene out of Portlandia, it exemplifies why BLM is shifting toward traditional Marxism. Devotees of intersectional theory are too triggered by the lack of gluten-free cupcakes to organize and fight capitalism.
BLM treats intersectional conflicts and “non-black people of color” much the same way Marx treated the reserve army of labor and petty bourgeoisie: as auxiliaries to the proletariat and bourgeoisie conflict. In their glossary, BLM defines the term “non-black people of color” as intended “to provide greater context to the distinct and unique oppression imposed on Black people, while recognizing the struggles of other people of color.” Which is to say that while intersectional conflicts exist, the Black vs. White conflict takes priority.
On one hand, the thought of trigger warnings and safe spaces falling out of vogue is uplifting. However, early 20th century Communist parties were highly effective in the political sphere. If BLM is successful in winning the progressive movement over to traditional Marxism, they may garner significant political power and send us further down the road to serfdom.
Thurston Powers is a second year MPA candidate at NYU Wagner and public policy analyst. In his academic life and work as an analyst he focuses on Austrian economics and criminal justice reform. However, having a front seat to the campus culture war, he cannot help but observe cultural Marxism as well.
Source: How Black Lives Matter Is Bringing Back Traditional Marxism
Marxist theory could be making a comeback. That means less trigger warnings and safe spaces, but more entrenched racial conflict.
It isn’t surprising that Black Lives Matter is a communist organization—but the type of communism they subscribe to is. They are conservative communists attempting to fold the progressive movement back into traditional Marxism.
BLM has turned its back on intersectional theory, the modern conflict theory that birthed safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the Oppression Olympics. Instead, BLM is rebirthing the traditional class struggle, reframing it in terms of black and white.
The policy platform proposed by BLM in August did nothing to hide this traditionalism. Its calls for collective ownership of resources, banks, and businesses, a highly progressive income tax, a guaranteed minimum income, and government jobs are lifted straight from the pages of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto.” Here are two excerpts for comparison:
“Communist Manifesto”: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Black Lives Matter: A right to restored land, clean air, clean water and housing and an end to the exploitative privatization of natural resources — including land and water. We seek democratic control over how resources are preserved, used and distributed and do so while honoring and respecting the rights of our Indigenous family.
Black vs. White Is the New Proletariat vs. BourgeoisieBlack Lives Matter: A right to restored land, clean air, clean water and housing and an end to the exploitative privatization of natural resources — including land and water. We seek democratic control over how resources are preserved, used and distributed and do so while honoring and respecting the rights of our Indigenous family.
But more important is BLM’s use of the black versus white dichotomy. While race has a long history as a wedge issue, BLM incorporates nearly all forms of modern marginalization—“including but not limited to those who are women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, differently-abled, undocumented, and immigrant”—into blackness. Conversely, whiteness represents all forms of privilege (economic, social, and legal) throughout the platform.
BLM has simply substituted Marx’s class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie for class conflict between blackness and whiteness. But unlike income and wealth, blackness and whiteness are not temporary states: while 56 percent of American households occupy the top 10 percent of the income bracket at some point during their lives, such transience does not occur with an immutable characteristic like race.
The black vs. white dichotomy creates a permanent enemy class, to which defection is always incomplete. And unlike the proletariat class consciousness, race consciousness already exists, making mobilization easier. This can be seen in the comments of a Milwaukee protester from August: “We do not want justice or peace anymore. We done with that sh-t. We want blood. We want blood. We want the same sh-t ya’ll want. Eye for an eye. No more peace. F–k all that. Ain’t no more peace. Ain’t no more peace. We done. We cannot cohabitate with white people, one of us have to go, black or white. All ya’ll have to go!”
Why Black Lives Matter Rejects Intersectionality
Where Marxism prioritizes the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (or between black and white), the modern theory of intersectionality prioritizes differences between identity politic groups. It posits that while white women face marginalization for their sex, they gain privilege from their race. Conversely, black men gain privilege from their sex while facing marginalization because of their race. Black women experience “double jeopardy,” suffering from both sex and race. This creates a hierarchy of oppression that is in constant flux as new forms of marginalization are recognized. Intersectional theory fractures the class conflict from two opposed groups into an unlimited number of conflicts within the hierarchy of oppression.
This is why the LGBTQQIAAP coalition is beginning to segregate itself by race. For example, some elements of the community argue that “white cis gay men are relative enablers, rather than victims, of oppression.” Intersectionality has created similar instability in the feminist movement. At a National Women’s Studies Association Conference in 1992, American Enterprise Institute Scholar Christina Hoff Sommers observed the effects of intersectionality on feminist solidarity:
“[P]articipants met in groups defined by their grievances and healing needs: Jewish women, Jewish lesbians, Asian-American women, African-American women, old women, disabled women, fat women, women whose sexuality is in transition. None of the groups proved stable. The fat group polarized into gay and straight factions, and the Jewish women discovered they were deeply divided. … This year’s concern extended to ‘marginalized’ allergy groups. Participants were sent advance notice not to bring perfumes, dry-cleaned clothing, hair spray or other irritants.”
Could Communism Be Making a Comeback?
While this sounds like a scene out of Portlandia, it exemplifies why BLM is shifting toward traditional Marxism. Devotees of intersectional theory are too triggered by the lack of gluten-free cupcakes to organize and fight capitalism.
BLM treats intersectional conflicts and “non-black people of color” much the same way Marx treated the reserve army of labor and petty bourgeoisie: as auxiliaries to the proletariat and bourgeoisie conflict. In their glossary, BLM defines the term “non-black people of color” as intended “to provide greater context to the distinct and unique oppression imposed on Black people, while recognizing the struggles of other people of color.” Which is to say that while intersectional conflicts exist, the Black vs. White conflict takes priority.
On one hand, the thought of trigger warnings and safe spaces falling out of vogue is uplifting. However, early 20th century Communist parties were highly effective in the political sphere. If BLM is successful in winning the progressive movement over to traditional Marxism, they may garner significant political power and send us further down the road to serfdom.
Thurston Powers is a second year MPA candidate at NYU Wagner and public policy analyst. In his academic life and work as an analyst he focuses on Austrian economics and criminal justice reform. However, having a front seat to the campus culture war, he cannot help but observe cultural Marxism as well.
Source: How Black Lives Matter Is Bringing Back Traditional Marxism
And that's happening at an increasing rate. While the existence of cell phone cameras has been a huge help ( hence police unions lobbying to make it a crime to video police on duty), the public and courts are increasingly fed up with the relatively few criminals among the police who kill with what used to be impunity.
I never thought of preventing police from murdering black citizens as a "Marxist" idea. Can you explain how you do?
Admitted that one of their leaders is Marxist. What in their statement of objectives do you think is Marxist? I think you've confused an organization with one if its members.
Because that would be like saying that the republican party is a KKK organization just because David Duke was elected to a republican party chairmanship in Louisiana.
If you are, then one of us is. Is that what you're trying to tell us?
This is kind of an obsession for some people. Often, it's hard to tell whether they're concerned, or happy about it. It's hard to say, with you. Do you actually want this to be happening?
For the relatively few criminals hiding out in police forces, and the unions that enable them, it's probably terrifying. For Americans, it's reassuring that equality under the law is still supported by most of us.
It shows that Americans have finally had enough of the systemic violence against black citizens. Things are going to have to change and it's likely going to involve jail time for a lot of racist cops.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
No, you really should read more carefully. Or better yet, just watch the video for yourself.
The co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Patrice Cullors, in the video above (post #621 at the top of this page) says that she and one of the other organizers are "trained Marxists."
Did you read the article I posted (post #630 on this page)?? It explains very clearly what BLM objectives are Marxist. You should read it!
I am as anti-Marxist/Communist as they come!!! Now, tell us where you stand on this issue.
Last edited:
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
I don't know anyone who favors "systemic violence against black citizens." This statement is a strawman argument. While I don't deny that racism exists, I have not seen any proof from you that systemic racism exists in America. Last time you and I discussed this, you pointed out one small area of the country where it appears to exist, but you didn't prove it.
Show me a federal law or policy that singles out black citizens and allows for violence or discrimination against them. This would be nationwide systemic (i.e. part of the system) racism! To the contrary, over the last 60 years, many anti-discrimination laws and policies have been implemented at the federal level and have been used by the States.
Last edited:
Bobby Jo
Well-Known Member
For me, the most interesting aspect of politics is that liberals (basically Democrats) throw out the most outlandish accusations, characterizations, and defamations. However, the conservatives (basically Republicans) try to be objective and balanced. -- I.e., how may times do liberals call conservatives NAZIS, or visa versa? I see it all the time from liberals, but virtually never from conservatives.
So on a scale of 0 to 10 of baseless political accusations where 0 is flaming liberal, and 10 is flaming conservative, -- I see liberals operating at the 0-2 end of the spectrum, and conservatives operating at the 5-6 end of the spectrum.
And the point being, -- when the media presents the two perspectives, the liberal spokesperson should be ignored, and the conservative spokesperson trusted to present an honest objective perspective. And it's too bad the "host" doesn't call out the liberal liars to that we can ACCURATELY have the two perspectives.
Bobby Jo
Maybe it’s finally time to consider the role that police unions play in perpetuating police brutality. Mayor de Blasio has frequently tangled with his city’s powerful unions, but he’s never challenged their vast political power. And make no mistake, that power is often used to cover up and deflect charges of police misconduct.
“The unions, at least in New York City, outright just protect, protect, protect the cops,” retired NYPD commander Corey Pegues wrote in his memoir, Once a Cop. “It’s a blanket system of covering up police officers.”
George Floyd Death: Focus on Police Unions Protecting Bad Cops | National Review
Even Trump admits it, sorta...
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump acknowledged that there probably is some systematic racism in the country.
"I’d like to think there is not" systemic racism, Trump said according to the Journal, "but unfortunately, there probably is some. I would also say it’s very substantially less than it used to be."
Trump tackles racism, Juneteenth and policing in several interviews
In the sense that mobs no longer publicly lynch black people for trying to vote. But a police officer in Minneapolis thought his blue immunity would allow him to publicly execute a black man with impunity. Notice he looks right into the camera as if to say "You can't do anything about this."
Systemic racism does not have to be legally sanctioned, nor does it have to be nationwide. You know this. Why bother denying it?
Even conservatives now admit we need legislation to crack down on the relatively few criminals in police forces that keep systemic racism alive.
Someone, perhaps in moment of frustration, suggested that I am a Marxist. So we all know better than that.
Would you be offended if someone suggested you are a Marxist? Often, we are more tolerant of smears when they aren't aimed at ourselves. And often we aren't even aware of our prejudices.
Yeah, like that.
Admitted that one of their leaders is Marxist. What in their statement of objectives do you think is Marxist? I think you've confused an organization with one if its members.
Ah, two of them... I asked what in the organization's stated principles, is Marxist. You apparently forgot to tell us. Would you do that, now?
I hear your denial, but it seems that your behavior is more persuasive. What is an "anti-Marxist/Communist?" And what do you guys believe? I realize that not all communists are Marxists, but I don't really see much difference.
Granted, as a left libertarian, I'm about as far from Marx as it's possible to be, so you probably have more understanding of that than I do.
Ah, two of them... I asked what in the organization's stated principles, is Marxist. You apparently forgot to tell us. Would you do that, now?
I hear your denial, but it seems that your behavior is more persuasive. What is an "anti-Marxist/Communist?" And what do you guys believe? I realize that not all communists are Marxists, but I don't really see much difference.
Granted, as a left libertarian, I'm about as far from Marx as it's possible to be, so you probably have more understanding of that than I do.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
I already gave you this information. If you want to know BLM's Marxist ideology, stop being lazy and READ THE ARTICE I POSTED! I even gave you the post number. Aren't I nice?
I've got to hand it to you, Yehren. You're a master of twisting things. When I said that I am anti-Marxist/communist, I was obviously conveying that I am against this political ideology. I wasn't stating what political label I would place on myself. You didn't have to tell me that you fall on the left side of the political spectrum. It's obvious.
Edit: Now, for my questions to you. Why isn't Biden calling BLM out for their Marxist ideology? It certainly runs contrary to our system of government. Why isn't he denouncing their leader who is threatening to burn down the system if they don't get what they want? For that matter, why aren't you denouncing their ideology and the BLM leader's comment?
Last edited:
Ah, two of them... I asked what in the organization's stated principles, is Marxist. You apparently forgot to tell us. Would you do that, now?
Nope. I'm guessing you're refusing to do that, because you already know what the result will be. We'll just note that you declined to answer, and go on.
Don't care what your article says; I want you to take the BLM statment of purpose and show us how that is Marxist.
I've got to tell you, PW. You're not very good at twisting things. When you implied I was a Marxist, you ended up looking like you were the communist. You'd probably be a lot more effective, if you stopped trying to call other people names, and worked on putting together a cogent argument.
Probably because their statement of purpose doesn't seem to have any Marxist points. Possibly because Biden hasn't endorsed everything they are advocating. Stuff like that. As you know I suggested that you show us what in that statement was Marxist, but you declined to do that.
You're probably not good enough at rhetoric to make this work for you. Why not just put a good argument forth for your side, and let it do the work for you? Worth a try, I think.
Nope. I'm guessing you're refusing to do that, because you already know what the result will be. We'll just note that you declined to answer, and go on.
Don't care what your article says; I want you to take the BLM statment of purpose and show us how that is Marxist.
I've got to tell you, PW. You're not very good at twisting things. When you implied I was a Marxist, you ended up looking like you were the communist. You'd probably be a lot more effective, if you stopped trying to call other people names, and worked on putting together a cogent argument.
Probably because their statement of purpose doesn't seem to have any Marxist points. Possibly because Biden hasn't endorsed everything they are advocating. Stuff like that. As you know I suggested that you show us what in that statement was Marxist, but you declined to do that.
You're probably not good enough at rhetoric to make this work for you. Why not just put a good argument forth for your side, and let it do the work for you? Worth a try, I think.
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Here's something that Joe and his Marxist BLM buddies don't get. America's system of government, our constitutional republic, guarantees freedom of speech to them as citizens via a written constitution. If they have their way, though, our constitutional republic will be "burned down," destroyed and our constitution made void. So they lose!!! The PEOPLE ALWAYS lose when a true republic (government by the people) is overturned.
The BIG LIE of Marxism/communism is that all citizens will be on a level playing field. According to them, no one will be richer or poorer, more or less advantaged...than anyone else. But there are always a few elite who get it all--all of the privileges and advantages and comforts that the poor masses can only dream of!
But more importantly, Marxist/communist governments clamp down on all freedoms, including religious freedom. In communist countries, Christians are not as able to live as we are accustomed to living in the West. It's much more difficult to spread the gospel and send missionaries around the world under an oppressive regime.
The BIG LIE of Marxism/communism is that all citizens will be on a level playing field. According to them, no one will be richer or poorer, more or less advantaged...than anyone else. But there are always a few elite who get it all--all of the privileges and advantages and comforts that the poor masses can only dream of!
But more importantly, Marxist/communist governments clamp down on all freedoms, including religious freedom. In communist countries, Christians are not as able to live as we are accustomed to living in the West. It's much more difficult to spread the gospel and send missionaries around the world under an oppressive regime.
Last edited:
GISMYS_7
Well-Known Member
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
You're mistaken. I never implied that you're a Marxist, but I noticed that you have not denounced Marxist ideology. I guess as a libertarian you might not be too crazy about communism, but I don't know what you think about it specifically.
Wrong again.... I could do this all day, lol.
Biden doesn't have to endorse everything BLM stands for in order to denounce their Marxist leadership and ideology. He could just denounce their leader's threat to burn down our system, but I haven't heard that he has done this. Have you? For that matter, I haven't heard you denounce this.
Last edited:
Prayer Warrior
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Poll
