Can you have unity with people that want to overthrow the Union?

Interesting isn’t it that for years while right wingers and Trump supporters had power they have been telling their opponents to basically ‘suck it’ often seemingly to gleefully relish the ‘libtard’ tears at what damage they were doing to the US BUT suddenly now that things are changing many of those same right wingers and Trump supporters are calling saying with all seriousness that there should be ‘unity’ and that their should now take into account their views and concerns and not do anything that they might dislike for the sake of not causing division.

This while many of those very same right wingers were either storming the Capital building to bring down US democracy or suppoirting the idea.

It’s as if when people become right wingers they get a hypocrisy bypass as part of the deal.

 

No. Those of good will and a knowledge of history should not give right wingers a pass on their actions. JFK, MLK, and RFK were not killed by left wingers, you know. Laws need to mean something in this country.

To Add: Fox "news " and others that backed trump should have to pay somehow for their lying , continual horseshit they STILL spew on a nightly basis.

 

The state of the Onion ? We will suffer the weepers .

 

Yes we can have unity despite their acerbic attitude over the past four years.

However some people are beyond redemption.

The retired police officer highlighted on this video was involved in a shooting several years ago but was cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury.

 

Ohio man...

 

To the right wing politicians "unity" means "You can't hold us accountable"...

 

Yes, but before reconciliation comes some sense of contrition; these people still firmly believe that they haven't done anything wrong. Given the opportunity, they will do it all over again.

How Shabbat Dinners Transformed a White Nationalist

 

There is no possible unity with people that believe this way... Seriously!

Tucker Carlson Rails Against White Nationalist Crackdown, Warns Viewers: That's You | HuffPost

 

It also means, "Do everything the way I want it done and.....well gosh, we won't have any problem at all!"

Of course, this also applies to left wing folks. Imo, any type of extremism is too......extreme.

 

JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, an avowed Marxist-Leninist who idolized the Soviet Union and Cuba's communist state - LHO was as far left at the time of his crime in 1963 as a person could get - 100% left winger. It's astounding for anyone to claim to know otherwise.

MLK was killed by James Earl Ray, a petty criminal and segregationist. JER had no political affiliation whatsoever, and he did not identify with any political party, nor left- or right-wing politics. Because of felony convictions starting in 1949, he wasn't even a voter. It's fair to say that the wasn't a left winger in 1968, unless you're intending to imply that he was a right winger. He was neither.

RFK was killed by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab Christian and Jordanian citizen born in Jerusalem. He killed RFK on the first anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war because of Kennedy's stated support for Israel in that war and RFK's pledge to authorize the sale of fighter jets to Israel once elected president. SBS killed RFK because he perceived RFK to be too far to the right on the only issue SBS cared about. SBS cared nothing about domestic US politics, nor about US international relations outside the Middle East. It's fair to say that he wasn't a left winger in 1968, unless you're intending to imply that he was a right winger. He was neither, but his Palestinian nationalism (his one and only cause) is more closely associated with left wing politics in the US today, but not necessarily in 1968.

 

Nubbins---pick up a book called Rush to Judgement by Mark Lane. Yes ,I've seen all that information and what you say about Sirhan may be true , but the info about JFK and MLK is disputed by many. The info concerning JFK is set to be released 75 years after the slaying as I recall. I will be gone before then, but it should be interesting. I was alive and remember exactly where I was each time those folks were killed and read studiously the many ins , outs and discrepancies of every murder throughout the 60s -70s and beyond. I also saw Jack Ruby shoot Oswald live on TV. Many doubts remain concerning the items you posted and have represented the official government determinations/ explanations over the years. I appreciate you responding to my post and repeating the official line on the killings and respect the fact that you believe them. I can't remember any other conspiracies that I have held even to this day,as plentiful as they have become. However time and space have not diminished my beliefs in the questioning of the results of the Warren Commission by those who have done such and the reading and discussions of the events by many others of those long ago events. -----------Anyway--the book I mentioned was the first I read after the JFK assassination and is among the many that as time has gone by----and as I have aged---are forgotten by me.
There are many reasons that right wing political thought ---particularly now--piss me off and set me off. I suppose that's another story.----Joel

 

I still think it was LBJ!

 

JFK wasn't the first go-round for LHO and assassination motivated by his extreme left-wing ideology, and his left wing bona fides are not open to question. The only pubications Oswald subscribed to were of the American Communist Party and a socialist workers publication. His nickname in the Marines was Oswaldovich. He had a false identity with the last name "Hidell" because he so admired Fidel. Before the Kennedy assassination, LHO first attempted to kill a US Army General whom he considered to be too right wing. LHO took up a sniper position and fired his rifle through the window of the general's home at him. Oswald missed, and that investigation went unsolved until after the Kennedy assassination when LHO's extensive written plan for killing the general, written in LHO's own hand, was found among his belongings, and it was determined that the same rifle used in the Kennedy Assassination was used to try to kill the general earlier.

Oswald actually didn't dislike Kennedy as a person at all, other than for the Bay of Pigs invasion go-ahead. He admired JFK, the individual. LHO hated capitalism and the US political and economic systems, and he killed Kennedy because he was a symbol of American capitalism. Left wing politial-statement assassination all the way - no doubt about it.

I've read extensively on the Kennedy assassination as a matter of intellectual curiosity, not ideology. SImilarly, I also love a good debate about who wrote the material attributed to William Shakespeare, just as one example. Among the many theories about who fired the Kennedy head-shot, if Oswald didn't, there are far more interesting and compelling theories out there than Mark Lane points to. I personally like the theory that the head-shot was accidentally fired by a particular Secret Service agent, startled by the first shot fired by Oswald, riding in the vehicle immediately behind the Lincoln in which the Kennedys rode. I like it, but it remains just one of many theories, none proven.

The problem with rejecting JER as the killer of MLK and with perceiving a motive beyond one man's racial hatred alone is that no one has done the work to come up with the names of any of the actual hit team members, if there was a hit team and if JER didn't fire the fatal shot. If it's true, then such things are knowable. JER tried to withdraw his guilty plea after he offered it, but he never told much of a story about what he knew about what really happened, if he didn't do it. It wasn't an assassination involving left- or right-wing politics, not as far as anyone has been willing or able to demonstrate.

 

I think of racism as a species of "right-wing" politics--geared to maintaining privilege and the status quo. Politics doesn't have to involve sophisticated ideology. Who gets what, when, how--by means of power/authority.

 

The magic bullet, the pristine bullet on the gurney, the Carcano rifle tests, his head thrown back, Johnsons statement to his girlfriend, etc,etc. We'll agree to disagree. Doesn't matter at this point anyway--you believe what you believe--same with me.

Interesting though, isn't it? The ones shot were on the left of the political spectrum. Exception: George Wallace.

 

Nope

 

You skipped to the 1970s with Wallace. Sarah Jane Moore's attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford, firing a gun at him in September 1975, is closer in time to the attempt on Wallace in 1972 than Wallace is to RFK (the last of your three in the 1960s).

Not only was Ford right of center in 1975, but Sarah Jane Moore was most definitely motivated by radical left wing ideology to kill him. She said so, and it's consistent with what else is known about her. She was a left winger proud to be doing it for that reason: "blinded by radical ideology" she said. The first bullet missed Ford's head by 5 inches. The second hit a taxi driver in the groin.

Ignore Arthur Bremer's shooting of Wallace - it was non-political and had nothing to do with civil rights or ideology - Bremer just wanted fame. Moreover, his first intended target was sitting President Richard Nixon, and although he stalked Nixon, Bremer didn't have the nerve to pull the trigger because of the amount of security. He was concerned that killing Wallace wouldn't make him famous enough, but he was a softer target with less security. Ideology was irrelevant to Bremer, same as John Hinkley's shooting of Reagan 1981. Nothing left or right going on with any of Nixon ('72), Wallace ('72), or Reagan ('81).

Similarly, we can skip the other attempt on Ford with a gun in September 1975; it was non-political and not ideological - pure Manson family nuttiness.

While we're in the 1970s and assassination from the left, consider U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan, a Democrat, but ambushed and shot to death in 1978 on the orders of Jim Jones, who ran a utopian cult that was based on left wing ideology even more than it was based on religion. Congressman Ryan was definitely killed from the left.

It's interesting that you characterize George Wallace as being on the right of the political spectrum. A case can be made either way (left or right - he had repugnant segregationist views that some associate with right wing politics of the era, but he was also the most anti-nationalist of any prominent US politician of 1972). It's a mixed bag of extremes pointing in both directions at the same time. Nixon was obsessive about wanting Wallace's political career destroyed.

 

My initial statement was---" it wasn't left wingers that killed JFK, MLK, RFK. you know. " My concern was those three that happened in the 60s and those are still a concern to me. I will believe to my dying day ( which unfortunately will be sooner rather than later) that when most or all of the people alive when those events took place, much more information concerning them will emerge. I appreciate your thoughtful expounding on the other historical events you posted, however callous and uncaring as I may seem---they did not affect me as did the three I care about. Obviously any violence, motivated by political beliefs or otherwise is wrong and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That includes left, right and center on the political spectrum. The government oft times has had a way of concealing facts that will implicate " those that should not be implicated "or to placate the public from so-called panic. A "nothing to see here--move along " method of diffusing events and consigning them to the past, however recent due to self serving motives. "one guy from China " and "it's going to disappear"would be the most recent I suppose. I'm not going into the life and litany of trumps bizarre and anti American behavior here--we all know them.

My most recent concern is the fact that a wastrel such as trump can get 74 million votes and that at least 2 members of congress seem to be hardcore followers of Q and have garnered enough votes to be seated in congress. I firmly believe that anyone that makes a statement that "the quickest way to get rid of Pelosi is a bullet to the head" should be dealt with immediately and harshly.

 

I'd like to see you make that case. A Sophist can make a case for anything, but it might not be convincing to anybody who knows the facts and history. Wallace, like most unreconstructed Confederates, was a son of Dixie above all. If that's what you mean by "anti-nationalist", I agree. But his running mate was Curtis ("Bomb 'em Into the Stone Age") LeMay. I think a lot of the so-called "nationalists" and "patriots" are in the same boat--which is why they carry Confederate flags along with their Trump flags and U.S. flags--all the same in their warped worldview. Of course Nixon would want Wallace out of the way--one demagogue fearing competition from another.