Serious Regardless of Election Results, America is GONE CASE Hopeless from now on!

[tun_dr_m]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...leveland-will-put-thriving-country-risk-great


Election 2016
The dividing of America
Donald Trump’s nomination in Cleveland will put a thriving country at risk of a great, self-inflicted wound
Jul 16th 2016 | From the print edition

Timekeeper

FROM “Morning in America” to “Yes, we can”, presidential elections have long seemed like contests in optimism: the candidate with the most upbeat message usually wins. In 2016 that seems to have been turned on its head: America is shrouded in a most unAmerican pessimism. The gloom touches race relations, which—after the shooting of white police officers by a black sniper in Dallas, and Black Lives Matter protests against police violence, followed by arrests, in several cities—seem to get ever worse. It also hangs over the economy. Politicians of the left and right argue that American capitalism fails ordinary people because it has been rigged by a cabal of self-serving elitists. The mood is one of anger and frustration.

America has problems, but this picture is a caricature of a country that, on most measures, is more prosperous, more peaceful and less racist than ever before. The real threat is from the man who has done most to stoke national rage, and who will, in Cleveland, accept the Republican Party’s nomination to run for president. Win or lose in November, Donald Trump has the power to reshape America so that it becomes more like the dysfunctional and declining place he claims it to be.
In this section

The dividing of America
May time
Come back from the brink, Beijing
A floundering titan
Net positive

Reprints

This nation is going to hell

The dissonance between gloomy rhetoric and recent performance is greatest on the economy. America’s recovery is now the fourth-longest on record, the stockmarket is at an all-time high, unemployment is below 5% and real median wages are at last starting to rise. There are genuine problems, particularly high inequality and the plight of low-skilled workers left behind by globalisation. But these have festered for years. They cannot explain the sudden fury in American politics.

On race relations there has, in fact, been huge progress. As recently as 1995, only half of Americans told pollsters that they approved of mixed-race marriages. Now the figure is nearly 90%. More than one in ten of all marriages are between people who belong to different ethnic groups. The movement of non-whites to the suburbs has thrown white, black, Hispanic and Asian-Americans together, and they get along just fine. Yet despite all this, many Americans are increasingly pessimistic about race. Since 2008, when Barack Obama was elected president, the share of Americans who say relations between blacks and whites are good has fallen from 68% to 47%. The election of a black president, which seemed the ultimate proof of racial progress, was followed by a rising belief that race relations are actually getting worse.

What explains the divergence between America’s healthy vital signs and the perception, put with characteristic pithiness by Mr Trump, that the country is “going down fast”? Future historians will note that from about 2011 white and non-white babies were born in roughly equal numbers, with the ageing white population on course to become a minority around 2045. This was always going to be a jarring change for a country in which whites of European descent made up 80-90% of the population for about 200 years: from the presidency of George Washington to that of Ronald Reagan.

Demographic insecurity is reinforced by divisive partisan forces. The two parties have concluded that there is little overlap between the groups likely to vote for them, and that success therefore lies in making those on their own side as furious as possible, so that they turn out in higher numbers than the opposition. Add a candidate, Mr Trump, whose narcissistic bullying has prodded every sore point and amplified every angry sentiment, and you have a country that, despite its strengths, is at risk of a severe self-inflicted wound.

Reshaping politics

The damage would be greatest were he to win the presidency. His threats to tear up trade agreements and force American firms to bring jobs back home might prove empty. He might not be able to build his wall on the border with Mexico or deport the 11m foreigners currently in the United States who have no legal right to be there. But even if he failed to keep these campaign promises, he has, by making them, already damaged America’s reputation in the world. And breaking them would make his supporters angrier still.

The most worrying aspect of a Trump presidency, though, is that a person with his poor self-control and flawed temperament would have to make snap decisions on national security—with the world’s most powerful army, navy and air force at his command and nuclear-launch codes at his disposal.

Betting markets put the chance of a Trump victory at around three in ten—similar to the odds they gave for Britain voting to leave the European Union. Less obvious, but more likely, is the damage Mr Trump will do even if he loses. He has already broken the bounds of permissible political discourse with his remarks about Mexicans, Muslims, women, dictators and his political rivals. It may be impossible to put them back in place once he is gone. And history suggests that candidates who seize control of a party on a prospectus at odds with that party’s traditional values tend eventually to reshape it (see article). Barry Goldwater achieved this feat for the Republicans: though he lost 44 states in 1964, just a few elections later the party was running on his platform. George McGovern, who fared even worse than Goldwater, losing 49 states in 1972, remoulded the Democratic Party in a similar fashion.

One lesson of Mr Trump’s success to date is that the Republicans’ old combination of shrink-the-state flintiness and social conservatism is less popular with primary voters than Trumpism, a blend of populism and nativism delivered with a sure, 21st-century touch for reality television and social media. His nomination could prove a dead end for the Republican Party. Or it could point towards the party’s future.

When contemplating a protest vote in favour of tearing up the system, which is what Mr Trump’s candidacy has come to represent, some voters may ask themselves what they have to lose. (That, after all, is the logic that drove many Britons to vote for Brexit on June 23rd.) But America in 2016 is peaceful, prosperous and, despite recent news, more racially harmonious than at any point in its history. So the answer is: an awful lot.

From the print edition: Leaders

 

[tun_dr_m]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...election-america-will-be-more-divided-than-e/


Whoever wins the US election, America will be more divided than ever

Ruth Sherlock Ruth Sherlock

26 July 2016 • 6:55pm

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrive prior to a campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S., July 5, 2016
Normally candidates start by locking up their base and then moving to the centre. This time, that isn't happening Credit: Brian Snyder/Reuters
US Election Header 2016

This week Hillary Clinton will take the stage formally to accept the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. It is a moment she has dreamed of and fought for. For the party’s establishment, however, it is simply a huge relief.

For months they had feared the same fate as that endured by their Republican rivals, who expected Jeb Bush but got Donald Trump. Throughout the Democrat primary race, renegade voters backed Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian senator for Vermont whose policies seemed better suited to socialist Scandinavia than their free-market nation. So when, tomorrow, the balloons will fall for Clinton in the convention hall, senior Democrats will party with the abandon of those who know they have had a close shave.

But there will be a hangover. Clinton may have won the battle. She has not won the war.
The famous faces backing Hillary Clinton - in quotes The famous faces backing Hillary Clinton - in quotes Play! 01:30

In most American elections, candidates pander to the party base and then tack to the political centre to woo the middle ground. This time Mrs Clinton has had to do the reverse.

She has had the nomination tied up since early June, but since then has had to offer dramatic policy concessions to the Left to avoid full scale rebellion. Behind closed doors, battles have been fought by members of the Sanders and Clinton campaigns lasting into the small hours of the morning. Kathleen Kennedy, niece of the John F Kennedy, was in the room for one of these wrangles, watching her family’s party slug it out before her very eyes.

In a sign of the Mr Sanders’ continuing political clout, the result is the most progressive policy platform to be adopt by a major American political party in recent memory. Mrs Clinton may be the nominee, but she has had to adopt the Vermont senator’s call for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Her party is the first to commit to ending capital punishment. Promises to fight climate change are matched with vows to embrace the legalisation of marijuana.
In quotes | Hillary Clinton

For Mr Sanders, then, losing the primary race was no failure. The Democrats are not tacking to the centre after all. Indeed, we now have two candidates whose manifestos would be unrecognisable to their party mainstream in elections gone by.
"I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order our country"Donald Trump

Take Trump. The Republican nominee can be unrelenting on matters of national security. So far so standard. His nativist view of foreign affairs and economic protectionism is less usual but not unheard of. But on social matters, he is far more liberal than many in his party, and became the first Republican to invoke gay rights from the convention stage.

Despite this bucking of convention, one of these two “fringe” candidates will now win the general election. But their effect of them vacating the political centre will be felt long after they step through the White House front door.

America is already a fractious polity. President Obama is loved by Democrats and despised by Republicans. The result is that Congress is already pretty dysfunctional. No surprise then, that more than ever in this election, Americans want a candidate who stands for change. The problem is that in choosing such unusual nominees, who are so divisive and unpalatable to the other side, they risk deepening the gridlock and division which so angers them.
Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders

 

[tun_dr_m]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...febee6-49d8-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html


America really is more divided than ever

President Obama, joined by Brittany Packnett, of the President's Taskforce on 21st Century Policing, at a White House meeting Wednesday. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
By Joel Achenbach and Scott Clement July 16

“We are not as divided as we seem,” President Obama said at an interfaith service in Dallas for five officers slain by a gunman. His predecessor, George W. Bush, sat a few feet away, on a stage that featured blacks and whites, citizens and police officers, a Methodist reverend, a rabbi and an imam.

“At times, it seems like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together,” Bush said.

But words may not be enough to overcome those fraying forces. This has been a violent and tragic summer, and it follows a period of pronounced divisiveness in American political life. The promoters of national unity may be outgunned, both metaphorically and literally.

Tens of thousands of people will be arriving this weekend in Cleveland for what is poised to be a combustible Republican National Convention. Dozens of groups from across the political spectrum are expected to stage street protests. Water pistols and toy guns will be prohibited, but real guns will be permitted under Ohio’s open-carry law. Wags call this convention the Trumpocalypse.

The sense that America is more divided than it used to be is backed by hard data. There’s been a sharp spike in the contempt that partisans express for their opponents, according to Pew Research Center polling.More than 4 in 10 Democrats and Republicans say the other party’s policies are so misguided that they pose a threat to the nation.

On many racial issues, whites and blacks see different realities. For example, African Americans were far more likely than whites to disapprove of grand jury decisions not to indict police officers in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and of George Zimmerman’s not-guilty verdict in Trayvon Martin’s death.

A separate Pew poll this year showed that 88 percent of blacks think more needs to be done to give blacks equal rights, while 53 percent of whites agreed. A recent CBS News-New York Times survey found that about half of white Americans but three-quarters of African Americans say police are more likely to use deadly force against a black person than a white person.

Barack Obama gained national fame in 2004 when, as a U.S. Senate candidate, he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention and talked of common American values:

“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

After his election in 2008, President Obama was not alone in believing Americans could come together. More than three-quarters of the public thought Obama would unite the country rather than divide it, according to a CNN poll. Six years later, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found a 55 percent majority saying Obama had done more to divide the country than bring it together.

“It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better,” Obama said in January in his final State of the Union address.

Historically, Americans have come together, at least briefly, in times of crisis. There has been minimal evidence of that in this terrible summer of violence. America has experienced the worst mass shooting in its recent history as well as the most lethal attack on law enforcement since 9/11. Americans have also witnessed, in raw video feeds, the deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota, both shot by police officers.

After the Dallas attack, Trump initially used measured, statesmanlike language: “Our nation has become too divided. Too many Americans feel like they’ve lost hope. Crime is harming too many citizens. Racial tensions have gotten worse, not better. This isn’t the American Dream we all want for our children,” he said in a written statement released the morning after the five officers were killed.

He shifted within days to more-incendiary rhetoric. Speaking of protests by Black Lives Matter activists, he said several times, without providing any evidence, that he’d seen people asking for a moment of silence in honor of the gunman who murdered the Dallas officers.

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday spoke in Springfield, Ill., the site of Abraham Lincoln’s historic “House Divided” speech of 1858. She said there is too much violence and hate in America and too little trust and common ground. And she turned confessional:

“As someone in the middle of a hotly fought political campaign, I cannot stand here and claim that my words and actions haven’t sometimes fueled the partisanship that often stands in the way of progress. So I recognize I have to do better, too.”

One common argument in academic circles is that polarization and distrust have been intensified by the Internet, which is awash in misinformation, funnels people into echo chambers, and provides forums for anonymous hate speech.

But the mainstream news media is hardly innocent when it comes to national divisiveness, because journalists typically find conflict more interesting than harmony. “There’s a dominant polarization narrative that is driving coverage,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

Research on “cultural cognition” indicates that people are tribal when it comes to certain issues, such as climate change, gun control, abortion and evolution. People tend to trust the news sources that confirm their beliefs. Those beliefs become statements of identity and community loyalty. When Trump said, “I am not a great believer in man-made climate change,” he was branding himself.

President Obama followed his Dallas appearance with a White House event in which he intentionally seated police officers and community leaders next to Black Lives Matter activists. Dubbed the “White House Convening on Building Community Trust,” the gathering featured the president, with jacket off and shirt sleeves rolled up, performing the role of discussion leader.

Later, Obama posted a summary of the event on Facebook, urging the public to have conversations and find solutions: “That’s the path out of moments like these. Not to withdraw, or shout each other down, but to reach out to each other — even if it’s difficult — and find some common ground.”

But common ground may be unreachable in some cases. Activists with legitimate grievances demand to see changes and social progress before they stand down. Many people feel that their values are under attack and need to be defended vigorously.

And some political leaders and media figures prefer to fire up their ideological bases rather than seek harmony or unity. Divisiveness can be a strategy or even a business model.

“They’re conflict entrepreneurs. They kind of thrive on the pathologizing of our politics,” said Dan Kahan, a Yale professor of law and psychology who studies cultural cognition. “They’re a problem. But most people don’t have an appetite for this. Most people don’t want to ram their values down other people’s throats. They just want to put food on the table.”

The president kept pushing as the week went on — and on Thursday participated in an emotional town hall discussion on race relations, broadcast on national television in prime time.

“Nobody’s more hopeful than me,” Obama said. “I’m — I’m — I’m Mr. Hopeful when it comes to these issues. I’ve said from the start we’re not as divided as we seem, and I think we’re going to solve it.”

 

[tun_dr_m]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rican-relationship-reform-justice-al-sharpton

Police and black Americans: a relationship worse than in the 90s
Al Sharpton

The longer injustices in policing remain unaddressed, the longer they fester. This poses a danger to us all – as the tragic events in Dallas demonstrate
Illustration by Nathalie Lees
‘The objective is to stop police misconduct – not to kill police.’ Illustration by Nathalie Lees

Sunday 10 July 2016 16.43 BST
Last modified on Monday 18 July 2016 16.26 BST

Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

The civil rights icon the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr once said: “That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind; the time is always right to do the right thing.” Dr King, whose teachings are the basis of my civil rights work, was unequivocally correct, and during these challenging times we must renew our collective commitment to those ideas.
Bring the Dallas murderers to justice. And the killers of black people too | Gary Younge
Read more

I do not condone violence from any side; no police killings of people and no killing of police officers. The objective is to stop police misconduct – not to kill police. We need proper policing in the US, not criminalisation of entire groups of people or movements. We need good cops to help us root out the bad ones. And we need everyone to voice his or her outrage and discontent in a peaceful manner. Then, and only then, will the substantive reform we seek transpire.

I’ve worked on the cases of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was fatally shot in Florida in 2012; Eric Garner, 43, who died in New York in 2014 after being placed in a chokehold by a police officer; and 18-year-old Michael Brown, whose shooting by an officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 led to huge protests. All the way to the present moment and the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling (we’ve been asked to come in and assist on that case), my work has always been guided by Dr King’s principles of nonviolence.

There are those who, unfortunately, don’t adhere to those principles, and therefore the objective of improving relations between the community and law enforcement is paramount. But in order to bring about such improvement, there are several areas we must tackle and we can no longer dance around these issues.

First and foremost, in order to come to some sort of peaceful coexistence and build trust, there must be equal protection under the law. According to the Washington Post, 123 black people have been shot and killed by police in 2016 alone, while the *Guardian’s project, The Counted, places the number of deaths at 138. (The latter includes all deaths resulting directly from police encounters, not just police shootings). Out of all of these tragedies, how many officers have gone to jail? The answer: none.

For police officers to unjustifiably kill citizens and not be convicted of a crime is unthinkable, and adds to the uncertainty that black people are not on an even playing field with the rest of society. I have been at the forefront of fighting for justice and pushing back against police brutality for decades, and I believe things are even worse now than they were in the past.
Dallas is a tragedy for all of us – and shouldn't shut down calls for justice | Ijeoma Oluo
Read more

In the 90s the New York cops who raped Abner Louima were convicted and did federal time; in fact, one is still in jail. But today, with a litany of cases, videos and evidence, no one serves time. Before we address other issues, we must make clear that whether a person wears blue jeans or a blue uniform, he or she must be equal under the eyes of the law.

Second, cops must live in the cities and neighbourhoods that they patrol. By doing so, they are not policing strangers, but rather neighbours who they see at the grocery store, whose kids go to school with their kids and who want the same things for their community.
A Black Lives Matter march in New York last week
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
‘America must and can do better than this – together.’ A Black Lives Matter march in New York last week. Photograph: ddp USA/Rex/Shutterstock

The police must never be an *occupying force that comes in to profile, stereotype, harass and oppress. They must be invested and interested in us, and want to ensure the safety and protection of our streets.

Third, there must be *extensive cultural and sensitivity training across the board. Those hired to serve and protect need to know the difference between a criminal and a person just walking down the street or driving a car.

Officers can no longer view all of us as a threat; they must get to know us and work with us. We need a strong policing/community programme so there are no more tragedies like the deaths of Sterling or Philando Castile, the 32-year-old shot by Minne*sota police last week – and all the others.
Dallas doesn't represent 'civil war', but a society that needs fundamental change | Barret Holmes Pitner
Read more

All the above concepts must be *implemented if we are to truly build trust and repair this great divide. Our desire is to have a society where police are the community partner, where kids want to grow up to be cops – not run from the police. It used to be that parents taught their children about the birds and the bees; now parents in black homes are teaching their kids how to act if police stop them so they won’t be killed before the encounter is over.

The longer these flaws and injustices in the police remain unaddressed, the longer they fester away. This poses a danger to us all. The unprecedented events in Dallas remind us that it just takes one disturbed individual to commit a gross, tragic act that derails attempts at peaceful change and sows further division and strife.

America must and can do better than this – together.

 

[tun_dr_m]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440361/police-shootings-black-vs-white-narrative-vs-fact

Our Dangerous Drift from Reason
fullscreen

Share article on Facebook
share
Tweet article
tweet
Plus one article on Google Plus
+1
Print Article
Adjust font size AA

by Andrew C. McCarthy September 24, 2016 4:00 AM
@AndrewCMcCarthy
Media distortion of ‘officer involved’ police shootings has consequences.

In a time when “narrative” has supplanted factual reporting, Fox’s Bret Baier’s evening news program is usually an oasis in the desert. So I winced when he asserted, amid Thursday’s report on the deadly Charlotte rioting — euphemized by the media as “unrest” and “protest” – that blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be killed by police.

It echoed the distortion peddled by the Chicago Tribune in July, when “officer involved” shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana led not merely to “unrest” but to a massacre of cops in Dallas. African Americans, the paper claims, are two and a half times more likely than Caucasian Americans to be killed by police.

Are they really? The Trib says so, but only after adjustments are made for the marked population difference between the two races. But wait a second: If there is so plainly a bounty on black men – if the chances that a young African American will be killed in a police encounter are so uniquely high that our cities are in upheaval, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is on permanent alert, and black parents nationwide feel compelled to have “the talk” with their kids – then why is statistical fiddling necessary to portray this crisis?

Because there isn’t a crisis – unless we’re talking about one that is wholly manufactured.

The exceedingly inconvenient fact of the matter for the “cops are preying on black men” narrative is that far more whites than blacks are killed in confrontations with police. Last year, in fact, it was roughly twice as many.

The social justice warriors can’t have that, of course. So, making like Olympic judges from the old Soviet bloc they so resemble, today’s narrative repairmen knead the numbers to make the story come out right. The spin becomes “fact,” dutifully repeated in press coverage and popular discussion.

In this instance, the hocus-pocus is to factor in that, although there are 160 million more whites than blacks in the country, this 62 percent portion of our population accounts for “only” about half of “police involved” fatalities (49 percent). Blacks, by contrast account for an outsize 24 percent of the deaths despite being only 13 percent of population.

The premise of this exercise is ludicrous. By and large, police are having lethal interactions not with the nation’s total population but with its criminal population.

The elephant in the room, the fundamental to which we must never refer, is propensity toward criminality. It is simply a fact that blacks, and particularly young black men, engage in lawless conduct, very much including violent conduct, at rates (by percentage of population) significantly higher than do other racial or ethnic groups.

This is not a matter of conjecture. Crime gets reported by victims; the police don’t invent it, they investigate it. Overwhelmingly, the victims of black crime are black people. Indeed, as Heather Mac Donald relates in her essential book, The War on Cops, only 4 percent of black homicide victims are killed in police interactions. If African-American parents were really having “the talk” that is pertinent to protecting their children, it would have to involve the reality that those children are overwhelmingly more likely to be shot by other black youths. The police are having “police involved” confrontations with young black men largely because black communities demand police protection — and understandably so.

What would happen if police were to default from their duty to serve and protect — the position demagogues are increasingly pressuring cops into. Then, naturally, we would hear the alternative “narrative”: that American society had abandoned its most oppressed communities to a dystopia of crime, poverty, drug abuse, and hopelessness — and don’t you dare mention who is doing the oppressing.

To brand the cops as villains regardless of whether they are active or passive is play-acting, not problem-solving.

To brand the cops as villains regardless of whether they are active or passive is play-acting, not problem-solving.

There’s another infuriating thing about the “cops preying on black men” narrative fed us nightly on the news and daily on the campus. There used to be, if not truth, at least a certain coherence to it: The story line, consistent with a racialized fable, was that white cops are preying on black men.

But the narrative won’t hold. In too many “police involved” incidents, such as the tragic one in Charlotte this week, the involved police are themselves black. So just as “global warming” had to become “climate change” to adjust for, you know, reality, the cops in our narrative have been “whited out,” as it were.

Sadly, this legerdemain has been a boon for the narrative. Now the story is that racism is institutionally ingrained. It is not an individual cop’s race that matters. It is that the profession of policing itself is, to hear the head of the Obama Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division tell it, an enduring symbol of slavery and Jim Crow.

Presto: The African-American cop is no longer a change agent moving us toward a better, more integrated, more harmonious society. When he dons the blue uniform, he is just another perpetuator of a hate legacy. And thus, the real-life fallout of our increasingly perverse, race-obsessed narrative is that all cops become targets.

The supplanting of fact by “narrative” — in race relations, in our politics, in our assessment of national-security threats, in our foreign policy — has become such a fad that we are at the mindless point of skipping past what it portends.

It is all well and good — even necessary — to find thematic ways to express truth, to teach its lessons. “All that glitters is not gold,” for example, is a theme, not a narrative. It is a transcendent bit of fact-based wisdom that allows us to navigate the world as we actually experience it.

A narrative, to the contrary, is an excuse for avoiding reality and acting against our best interests.

The most consequential organization in radical Islam is the Muslim Brotherhood. Laying the groundwork for its American network, the Brotherhood gave pride of place to an intellectual enterprise, the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The IIIT’s explicit, unapologetic mission is the “Islamization of knowledge.”

It is not a slogan or an idle phrase. The mission traces back to the ninth century. Its purpose was to defeat human reason. In this fundamentalist interpretation, Islam is a revealed, non-negotiable truth. Reason, rather than hailed as mankind’s path to knowledge and salvation, is condemned for diverting us from dogma. Knowledge therefore has to be Islamized — reality must be bent and history revised to accord with the Muslim narrative.

But with the demise of reason comes the demise of progress, of the wisdom that enables us to solve problems. That is why Islamic societies stagnated, and why the resurgence of fundamentalism has made them even more backward and dysfunctional.

It is this way with every totalitarian ideology. We’d be foolish to assume it can’t happen to us. Slaves to narrative are fugitives from reason. Their societies die.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

 

[tun_dr_m]

US Civil War II - it is still about Niggers & Rights!

 

[obama.bin.laden]

Safe to say that no matter what it turned out to be, majority will soon be disappointed and regretful, and angry, promises are not fulfilled.

 

[greedy and cunning]

majority of US citizens are stupid.
to these morons life is about sex , making money , movies , drugs , being famous , basket ball , tennis , ,,,,
they think america is the only 'advanced' country in the world.

regardless of election result , america will be the bane to the world.
a government that allowed the private bankers to print its money , and pay interest for every dollar printed.
the government that supposedly controls the army and police , yet unable to take the back the rights to print money from the bankers.
a cuntry that indirectly controls other nations through imf , world bank , BIS , WTO etc.
a cuntry that invented fractional reserved banking and coerced other nations to follow suit.

sadly , stupid americans don't realise that they are living in a evil country.

 

[Reddog]

Good for China.