The argument from those on the left defending recent activity like the Red Hen restaurant and other street activity is this. The right did not treat Obama right, the birthers and others never accepted him.
Well, since you thought that action by some was wrong, then how can you justify what some are doing now? If wrong is wrong, then it’s wrong, no matter what side you are on. Are you really trying to defend things today by saying what you saw for eight years was wrong, therefore you can do wrong?
That my friends is a poor argument and you might be better taking the high road or finding another reason.
To the young intern for N.H. Senator Hassan who shouted on live TV at the President,“F*** Trump”, you should have been fired and not just suspended for a week. At twenty-one years old what makes you think you are capable of judging what others have chosen? Why don’t you take the lucky “week only” you got and go learn some manners. Obviously you weren’t taught before now.
To Senator Hassan, your defense of a week only is a disgrace as well. To say “well it was Trump” is beyond belief. Here’s what she said:
“This behavior shouldn’t be equated with the president’s destructive and divisive actions … this young woman immediately accepted responsibility for her actions and is facing consequences for them. The president is doing neither.”
Senator you need to be better as one of one hundred members of the chamber.
How come the manager of the Red Hen was not fired? Let me see, you throw a family with kids out because they work for the elected President of the U.S. Then you followed them so they would be harassed at the next restaurant. Who do you think you are? Who made you moral judge for the rest of us?
While on the subject, how come the left wants to boycott Chick-fil-A because their ownership had a viewpoint but serves all? The mere fact they had a view was good enough to boycott. Yet you support the Red Hen who refused to serve a family because the Mom works for the President? Is this real in America today?
Tell me again who is tolerant and understanding.
Is there someone on the right who would survive, in the media, in office or for election if they said what Maxine Waters did? No way, only a tolerant left leaning person could survive. Think about that.
Did you hear on the MSM this story? You know the media that said Kim won the meeting with Trump because Trump showed up.
North Korea is skipping its annual “anti-US imperialism” rally marking the start of the Korean War as it tones down the rhetoric following the summit between Kim Jong-un and President Trump.
The month long event generally concludes on July 27 with a national holiday to celebrate the “Victory in the Fatherland Liberation War.”
More than 100,000 people turned out for last year’s rally in Kim Il-sung Square in Pyongyang chanting anti-American slogans.
The regime also issued special anti-US postage stamps for the occasion.
Imagine this news under Obama or Clinton. It would be big, wouldn’t it? Under Trump it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Here’s another N.Korea story from the BBC, you didn’t hear about:
Over the past few months, it seems, North Korea’s propaganda has been changing its tune.
Banners and posters displayed across the capital and other towns have typically featured the US as a brutal imperialist aggressor and South Korea or Japan as Washington’s willing allies. But visitors to the country say they’ve seen those posters replaced by propaganda pushing economic progress and the inter-Korean rapprochement.
Leading newspapers in the tightly controlled country have also seen a shift in tone, a sign the country is starting to reflect its recent diplomatic thaw to the people.
Can it be that the administration is making real progress with them? The media is waiting for a negative to report, these good signs are not newsworthy.
We continue to hear about how bad the tariffs will be, and the MSM played up the Harley Davidson news this week. Just for perspective here’s another side. Bloomberg ran this yesterday:
China Begins to Question Whether It’s Ready for a Trade War
Xi Jinping vowed to match Donald Trump blow for blow in any trade war. Now as one gets closer, some in Beijing are starting to openly wonder whether China is ready for the fight — an unusually direct challenge to the leadership of the world’s second-largest economy.
In recent weeks, prominent academics have begun to question if China’s slowing, trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump, which is already started to weigh on stock prices. The sentiments are being expressed in carefully worded essays circulated on China’s heavily censored internet and — according to interviews in recent days with ministry officials and foreign diplomats who asked not to be identified — repeated in the halls of government offices, too.
The essays have raised concerns that the ruling Communist Party underestimated the depth of anti-China sentiment in Washington and risked a premature showdown with the world’s sole superpower. Such views push the bounds of acceptable public debate in a nation where dissent can lead to censure or even jail time, and are particularly bold given Xi has amassed unrivaled control while leading China to a more assertive role on the world stage.
“It seems like Chinese officials were mentally unprepared for the approaching trade friction or trade war,” Gao Shanwen, chief economist for Beijing-based Essence Securities Co., whose biggest shareholders include large state-owned enterprises, wrote in one widely circulated commentary. “Anti-China views are becoming the consensus among the U.S. public and its ruling party.”
Gao’s article — first published May 10 on his WeChat social media account after a trip to Washington — has amassed millions of hits across multiple platforms. He couldn’t be reached for comment.
The essays have been noticed by key officials. Gao’s piece was circulated last week among bureaucrats at the Commerce Ministry, which has been on the front lines of the trade dispute, said one agency official, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private.
Other officials expressed skepticism about the senior leadership’s strategy in discussions with Bloomberg News last week. One Finance Ministry official said the country had made a “major misjudgment” of the U.S.’s commitment to a long-term confrontation with China.
China’s Finance Ministry and Commerce Ministry didn’t respond to faxed questions about the sentiments expressed in the essays.
In official statements, China has remained defiant since Trump’s decision earlier this month to levy tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports and push ahead with additional restrictions on foreign investment. China vowed to retaliate immediately and “forcefully,” prompting even more threats from Trump that have brought the world’s two largest economies to the brink of a trade war.
The risk is that the two sides, having misjudged each other’s intentions, find themselves in an escalating series of attacks and counterattacks. Xi, like Trump, is a nationalistic leader who has emphasized his strength and decisiveness and can’t afford to look weak in a confrontation with China’s biggest rival.
There are signs that both sides may be posturing. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average down more than 400 points on Monday, White House Trade adviser Peter Navarro sought to ease investor concerns that a Treasury Department report later this week on foreign investment restrictions would stifle economic growth.
Even so, the rhetoric is intense on both sides. Last week, Xi told a group of mostly American and European multinational CEOs that China planned to strike back at U.S. trade measures, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people briefed on the remarks. In public comments at the event, Xi issued a veiled rebuke of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for calling the country’s pledges of economic reform “a joke.”
Xi has a lot at stake personally. He cast aside former leader Deng Xiaoping’s maxim to “hide” China’s strength and “bide” its time, and last year outlined a vision to complete China’s rise as a global power by 2050. That included building a “world-class” military and boosting clout through his Belt-and-Road Initiative to finance infrastructure from Asia to Europe and beyond. Presidential term limits were also removed, allowing him to rule indefinitely.
Yu Zhi, an economic professor from Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, questioned the wisdom of a more assertive foreign policy in a recent article published in Singapore’s Lianhe Zaobao newspaper. He confirmed the comments when reached by phone.
“Has China completed the task of ‘getting rich’? Has China completed the primary stage of socialism as Deng Xiaoping described? Can you begin to compete directly with the United States and other Western countries?” Yu wrote. “China should rethink its general strategic direction.”
China’s attempts to settle the dispute by promising to buy tens of billions of dollars of U.S. energy and agriculture products have so far ended in frustration. Xi’s chief economic aide, Liu He, returned from Washington and declared the trade war over last month, only to see Trump escalate tensions again shortly afterward.
To the U.S., the problem is more than just deficits. The White House last week issued a scathing 36-page report accusing China of “economic aggression,” following on from the Pentagon’s decision earlier this year to brand the country a “strategic competitor.”
The U.S. decision to penalize telecommunications equipment-maker ZTE Corp. — ostensibly for violating Iran nuclear sanctions — complements a broader Trump administration effort to roll back Xi’s ambitious program to dominate several strategic industries. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has subsequently advanced legislation to block an agreement to spare the company has fed fears that the fight over the U.S. trade deficit is headed to an all-out struggle for dominance.
“If mismanaged and the China-U.S. trade war is fully upgraded, it could expand into a financial war, an economic war, a resource war, and a geopolitical war,” Ren Zeping, chief economist at China Evergrande Group, wrote in one popular commentary published on June 5.
“The U.S. will use its hegemonic system established since World War II from trade, finance, currency, military and et cetera, to stop the rise of China,” said Ren, a high-profile economist who made headlines last year for earning a hefty paycheck.
The dispute threatens Xi’s attempt to guide China into an era of slower growth without a recession that could loosen the Communist Party’s 69-year grip on power. The country’s industrial output, retail sales and investment all fell below forecasts last month and economists predict that the trade conflict could cut as much as half a percentage point from annual economic growth.
Chinese stocks have fallen recently, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index down about 20 percent from its peak in January. The slide has fueled warnings about a repeat of the market’s collapse in 2015, the last time China saw such open criticism of economic policymakers.
“People are going to look back at this year as the pivot point when Xi Jinping overreached and sparked an international backlash against the party and China’s development model on multiple fronts,” said Jude Blanchette, China practice lead at Crumpton Group in Arlington, Virginia, and a former Conference Board researcher in Beijing. “There can’t be a domestic backlash because most of what they spend their time doing is thinking about how to stop that.”