GOP or Democrat President Better for the Mob?

I don't know if it affects things today, but back 30,40.50 years ago were conditions for the mob better under a Republican presidency or a Democratic one?

It would be similar as with the rest of society. A Republican would be better for the wealthy bosses that have money tied up in big business, Wall Street, etc. A Democrat would be better for the working class heavy lifters. Less jail time, more union jobs available as fronts, etc.

You look back at history and it's been generally Democratic politicians that have been in bed with the mob. Reasons vary but include the unions, Democrats running a lot of big cities where the mob had a presence, etc. It was Reagan that really gave law enforcement the support to go after the mob in the 1980s.

I would say democrat. Better for the unions which is better for when they were more in charge. Also more government programs and incentives for them to take advantage of.

J. Edgar Hoover was despised by liberals, and he's the primary reason the mafia was ignored for so long.

Ignore Ivy. He's remarkably partisan. He can't be taken seriously on this issue -- he's too busy trying to argue that women shouldn't leave the house, anyway, so he's probably compromised.

What?!?!?

It is common knowledge and documented history that Bobby Kennedy restructured the Justice department to target the mob. Bobby Kennedy all but ended ended Sam Giancana's reign, arguably the most powerful era of organized crime in U.S. history. The mafia wanted both Bobby and JFK dead because of how aggressively the Kennedy Justice department targeted the mob (whether or not they actually played a role in the Kennedys' deaths is another discussion altogether, but if not, it wasn't for a lack of determination).

It was because of the Kennedys that the Teamsters began to endorse Republicans, starting with Nixon in '72 and then, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan in 1980. The mob families that had a chunk of the Teamsters were certainly glad Reagan wasn't as tough on them as you'd like to believe.

Reagan had a certain charisma that really reignited the conservative movement in America, and to this day he still has a rock star status on the right, but his hands were never clean, not in Hollywood, Sacramento nor Washington. Read Dark Victory by Dan Moldea for more.

How about this century? Have to believe that with the rackets the Genoveses had in the housing boom that they benefited quite well from the 2008 Stabilization Act (government program!). You think they're the most powerful family today because they're just out hustling the other families on the street? Somebody was looking at the big picture, and it wasn't big city Democrats and unions they were looking to partner with.

I know it's fiction, but there was a real life basis in this:

"Dick Cheney for president...of the world" - Tony Soprano

It's got nothing to do with partisanship. Once again, I'm not a Republican. It has to do with the historical facts.

The Kennedys certainly went after the mob but their efforts died with them. Law enforcement really didn't get the backing they needed to go after the mob until the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

Like I said, if you look at the mob's political ties down through the years, by and large it's been with Democratic political machines. There's no denying that and anyone who does is the real partisan hack.

So, you're just going to double down on this fallacy, huh?

Research Bobby Kennedy's tenure at the Justice department. He added hundreds of agents to target the mob, when there had only been dozens or so up to 1960. He restructured the department around this agenda, meaning, his restructuring was PERMANENT, and still in effect to this day. It made way for the RICO act, a bill that was introduced by a DEMOCRAT, John McClennan of Arkansas, and which was essentially the final nail in the coffin for the mob's heyday.

Look, I get the Reagan admiration. I'm from California. Sacramento, of all places. Even Democrats here get all gushy over him. But man, you are just so far off in thinking that Reagan in any way spearheaded the federal government's crackdown on the mob. It's ridiculous, and rips about a hundred pages out of any history book. The Kennedy White House's aggression toward the mafia could be the reason the John and Bobby were killed. A lot of credible historians have come to this conclusion. After all, it well documented that they wanted to. The mob doesn't set out to kill a president because they consider him and his party to be allies.

Furthermore, and as I mentioned in a previous post, the Teamsters, well documented as being linked to the mob, began their support for Republicans precisely because of the Kennedy white house, from Nixon's endorsement in '72 to the endorsement of, you guessed it, The Gipper himself in 1980. Imagine that, Reagan was so tough on the mob, they endorsed him!

Put two and two together.

Why the hell do some people here possess a fervent hatred of the Kennedy's?

Because they went after the mob after decades of dormancy and inaction against them.

Nobody is denying the Kennedys' efforts against the mob. From the time of Apalachin in 1957 until the death of John in 1963 and Bobby no longer being AG in 1964, the mob was under a lot of pressure. But it's well known that after that short time span, the mob had a reprieve of sorts until the 1980s. Restructuring or not, the same heat was not there through the rest of the 1960s and 1970s. And it's not just a coincidence that the real national push against the mob happened in the 1980s. RICO had already been in place since 1970 and Hoover had been dead since 1972. But it wasn't until certain initiatives by the Reagan administration gave law enforcement the resources it needed that a real, sustained effort against the mob happened.

Now, I am aware of certain appointments Reagan made that can be called into question. But to use Teamster support as a reason to believe the mob "supported Reagan" is quite a leap and they didn't exactly get what they may have wanted in return. Furthermore, to keep focusing on these two presidents alone, where you exaggerate Kennedy while overlooking Reagan, is to ignore the overall history of mob ties to politics in various cities down through the years. It was almost exclusively Democratic politicians and political machines. But you appear to want to do that because you seem to have entered this topic, not with an objective and correct view of history, but more with simply a desire to be politically partisan and get defensive about Democrats.

You're still missing the concept of restructuring. Bobby reconstructed the justice department to make the mafia a top priority. And, that restructure was permanent. Obviously, the shift since has gone toward terrorism, but until the mob was brought to its knees in the '80s, the restructure that Bobby Kennedy implemented was instrumental in whatever efforts were made to fight the mob, during and after the Kennedy White House. Ronald Reagan's name is hardly even mentioned in regards to fighting the mafia. He was hyping up the Cold War and the Soviets the second he took office. Did he ever even mention organized crime when in office? His jelly beans were a bigger priority.

What the fuck does the Mob care who's President? They are not paying anywhere near their fair share of taxes anyway, so they don't have much to lose either way. Remember the end of Goodfellas? "I never paid taxes, I never voted...."

If they were so instrumental, why the lull in efforts against the mob during the rest of the 1960's and 1970's? And why did things change in a big way in the 1980's? You can try and give Kennedy credit for everything afterward but people who know their history aren't going to buy it. And you apparently know nothing about Reagan's efforts against organized crime while in office. That you actually have to ask if he "ever even mentioned organized crime" tells me I've been arguing with someone talking out of their ass this entire time. Read about the President's Commission on Organized Crime, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, or several speeches by him or by people in the FBI who saw things turn around in the 1980s. Like I said, that wasn't just a coincidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/12/magazine/declaring-war-on-organized-crime.html?pagewanted=all

Low taxes is not the only route to success. Sometimes there needs to be a sophisticated scheme, too. That's where a president could come in handy. Sam Giancana thought the Kennedys would look the other way from the Vegas rackets. He was telling people Vegas was going to be wide open. Boy was he wrong. But he thought it would be, and he took an interest in the election. As I said earlier, I doubt the Genoveses are in the position they're in today because they're just out there cracking more heads than the other families. They were active in the housing bubble. Made millions, I'm sure. So, they're probably not the biggest fans of bank regulation, and therefore would prefer a Republican over a Democrat.

What our friend Ivy League seems to be in denial of is that the mob shifted their allegiance from Democrat to Republican in the '70s, and, it was because of Bobby Kennedy, the biggest gang buster in the history of the U.S. government, and a Democrat. The Kennedys used the mob like two dollar whores, and Frank Sinatra, for that matter, which is why he became a Republican too. Sinatra, Dino, Rickles and the guys chumming up at Reagan's inaugural ball should give you enough of a clue. You think they do that if their "friends" back east are Democrats?

I agree with that generally. I just wanted to make the point that the mob does not have investment in good government the way us law abiding folks do. They do not seem like civic minded people anyway. I am not a fan of this topic anyway as it tends to lead to partisan bickering. I think it's more suited to the politics forum.

You're living in dreamland if you think the mob bosses got together and decided to "give their allegience" to one political party or another. These guys weren't all suddenly GOP voters because of Kennedy. They've taken each president as they've come. But, while the original post was about presidents, the real point and answer is that...once again...by and large the mob has gravitated toward Democratic politicians and political machines. I've listed some of the reasons for why that was and the Kennedys efforts against the mob (while it lasted), or your ignorance of what the efforts against the mob under the Reagan administration, doesn't change that fact. You can keep repeating yourself over and over again or you can recognize you have been in over your head in this discussion from the start.


"Did he (Reagan) ever even mention organized crime when in office? His jelly beans were a bigger priority."
- OakAsFan

The mob was always invested in government, and always will be. The regulations and trade policies in Washington have a profound effect on how the mob does business. If I have to bring it up a thousand times, look at the Genovese family, their current status, and their rackets after the housing bubble burst. Since Bobby Kennedy, the mob began to move away from union racketeering and move toward Wall Street. In political red or blue terms, that is essentially a shift from Democrat to Republican. Sure there are exceptions, but since the '70s the mafia has benefited far more from GOP politicians than Democrats.

Even James Traficant became a tea partier before he died.

That's a wrap. You can just close the thread now.

Ivy thatt a solid point..but to be honest imo the majority mob political corruption in the past was almost always linked to Democrats..if u go back to Tammany Hall and Frank Costello that was all dems...whats ironic is now more and more mob guys appear to align their old school conservative values with the Republican party

If you mean old school values like Wall Street looting, then you're right.

In the case of this election, it's not clearcut I don't think, but fundamentally mobsters thrive better under a system where government lends them legal tools which they can rely on to push out competitors and carve a quasi-monopoly for themselves.

That's why they were heavily involved in and supported unionism and regulations of all kind which they could manipulate to crush competition, and those two tendencies are staples of the Democratic party and the left in general.

This thread is living in the 1950s. The OP asks a simple question, which president would be better for the mob, GOP, or Democrat. Yet half the answers invoke union rackets, which have been largely dead for decades. The mob's only prayer today is a Republican president, because a) playing the stocks is the easiest way to get rich today, and b) they can not control the Democrat supported unions anymore. 2016, ladies and gentlemen. 2016.

No oak by old school I mean anti gay marriage,anti abortion, anti-immigration, anti big government...thats pretty clearly at least some part of republican ideology..and im not shitting on republicans I am a registered republican myself altho I think my fellow conservatives would be better served to drop that religious horseshit thats anti gay marriage, anti abortion, and anti legalization of marijuana but im all for any laws/policy thats anti illegal immigrants but I digress....
From the wiretaps ive read at least sociAlly theyre conservative but the corruption and union/ wall street looting I got news for ya oak that aint on republicans

The Wall Street looting is on Republicans. Republicans are notoriously for less regulation, and since the '80s Wall Street has been the mob's bread and butter. There is really nothing else when it comes to sophisticated, multi million dollar schemes. Can't corrupt the unions anymore. RICO ended that. Not to mention union membership is dwindling.

I'm sorry, but this whole mafia/unions/Democrats thing is so 1959. It's 2016. We just are not living in that world anymore.

All this assumes that there's a big difference between the two parties, which there really isn't. Especially on a federal level. Small differences between one administration to the next, but that's about it.

Lots of myths and standard conventional wisdom about what political parties do.

There's what they claim they'll do and what they actually do.

Republicans are supposed to be for small government, less regulation, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and yet they spend and regulate just as much, if not more than the democrats. Regan lowered some taxes and then began raising taxes.

Wall Street and the financial sector is one of the most, if not thee most regulated sector of the economy.

This whole debate is useless and full of partisan biases.

Did...you just say there's too much regulation on Wall Street?

Of course there is. There's too much regulations everywhere.

I know conventional mainstream wisdom. The myth of deregulation collapsing the economy. It's tiring.

If you want to just talk about today, then it's largely a moot point either way because significant, widespread mob political connections are a thing of the past. However, the union rackets, while certainly diminished, are not dead. Especially in New York. I could give you a list as long as your leg of labor racketeering cases involving the NY families alone from 2000 to the present. And it's no secret that New York is a Democrat town and unions are largely tied to them. But of course, you're likely not aware of most of that stuff because you clearly don't do your own research. Nor would you care because your entire motive in this thread has been to just defend Democrats. Seriously, go drool over that Hillary '16 poster above your bed because you contribute nothing to this thread.

It may not be as significant but they still have a hand in unions and construction in general. So when the government gives out contracts to do works they are still getting a cut. Especially here in New York.

Oak im not gonna shit on you bc ur a dem and im a republican but you're flat out wrong when it comes to the mob, unions and which party is more corrupt...the unions have ALWAYS voted democrat and the majority of mob corruption cases are always involving democrats...the entire 1st ward in Cook County Illinois is a prime example..that city and that ward is the most corrupt in the nation over the last century by far and its wholly been run by democrats who were tied in with the mob...pat marci was a made guy in the outfit and served as alderman an elected fuckin govt official for I think 2-3 decades!!!!

Want an east coast example?.. Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio a democrat was bought and run by Richie the Boot and the NJ genovese and went to prison....mike Matthews the former mayor of AC bought and run by Scarfo..also went to prison...BOTH democrats...not to mention JFK won the ill and wv primaries in 1960 bc of the outfit and the teamsters again ALL democrat

Get ur facts straight and quit reading shit from CNN and MsNBC..the democrats have overwhelming been the most corrupt party aligned with the Mafia since the 1930s and thats not debatable..im not saying the Republicans arent guilty of corruption in other areas like oil companies and defense contracts..but when it comes to the mafia its always been the liberals end of discussion..they've even had wiseguys like Sam the Plumber, Momo Giancana and others on tape saying they always vote and back dems bc theyre historically friendly and bribable from members of OC..not sure where u got ur info from but in this case pal it's wrong

I meant they don't care about good government. They don't care about government by and for the people. The mob only cares about making money. You seem to think I'm arguing with you, I'm not! I think you make some good points.

That's not always the case. Some of the building trades unions in local and state elections have endorsed Repubs if they disagreed with the local Democratic people on issues, usually involving environmental opposition to projects their members wanted to be employed on. And they learn to live with Republicans in towns and counties where the Democratic Party can't win.

Fleming thats a fair point i pry shouldn't have stated such a sweeping generalization i sound like the Donald.. But ud agree id assume that the majority of the time at least historically unions across America have usually voted Democratic , especially the Teamsters

My main point though is that the mob has historically been involved with political corruption through the Democratic Party .. And I think thats pretty cut and dry especially considering the numerous examples I cited starting all the way back with Tammany hall and up through the more recent examples in Chicago, Newark, and AC... And i forgot to
Mention Camden mayor Milton Milan who was involved with John Stanfa and the Philly fam who subsequently went to prison as well.... And I didn't even mention Detroit who had a streak of I believe 4-5 straight Democratic mayors indicted and convicted of bribery.. Altho i dont know how many of them were connected to LCN.. Point being political corruption and the Mafia largely involves the Dems

Not as tiring as whatever your reason is, I'd bet.

Read the tread title. It's present tense. The OP is asking who would be more beneficial to the mob today. And the answer is a Republican, considering there is practically nothing Democrats can do for the mob today. There's a lot the GOP could do, however, with the mob's involvement with Wall Street in the past 30 years. And, one commenter here thinks we should regulate Wall Street even less and make it easier for the mob to infiltrate the stock market, among the other drastic results of deregulation.

Pat Marcy.

OMFG.

Do you guys have anything from this century?

"Historically"

"Historically"

"Historically"

THIS ARGUMENT IS A COP OUT. It's off topic. The thread's OP does not ask this question. They clearly ask who would be more beneficial to the mob today.

It's not partisan politics that have dominated this thread.

It's spin.

Well, have you or do you ever read anything outside your own confirmation bias bubble? Do you actively seek out the best well thought out opinions and arguments that go against conventional thought?

And it is tiring, being that we had a big financial meltdown in 2008, and after all these years people still want to regurgitate the same conventional opinions about the "deregulation" that supposedly caused everything. I thought the same back then but cmon it's been this long and there's so much info out there suggesting otherwise.

back to my original point, there's not a big difference between the two major parties on the federal level. Republicans have taxed, spent, regulated everything just as much as the dems.

You're still spewing bullshit. Wall Street? I wouldn't expect you to know this because you obviously don't follow the mob all the closely but it's involvement in the stock market is largely a thing of the past. The peak of the pump and dump scams were in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It's tapered off considerably since then and the cases, or lack thereof, bare that out. And the FBI said back in 2014 that the mob wasn't as involved as it was in stock scams. Meanwhile, there is still quite a bit of labor racketeering in certain areas.

So, no, your "It's a Republican president" nonsense isn't going to fly. Seriously, quit talking out of your ass.

Many here would say you're guilty of exactly that. Stick to defending your own arguments rather than starting others.

Many? Like who? You know damn well I don't talk out of my ass. I haven't said anything in this thread that isn't factual or I can't back up.

My comment is not limited to this thread. You really have to stop making flaming comments.

Teamsters endorsed Nixon. I think because of parole issues with Hoffa? And IIRC, Reagan, too. President Carter deregulated the trucking industry and it was not good for the Teamsters. I guess they thought if the Democratic is going to be like a Republican might as well vote R.

I asked you what was a more likely cause of the crash than deregulation, and you still haven't answered.

I ran a thread on this a long time back, got pretty interesting as well

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...7143#Post767143

I didn't read your post as an actual question.

This also goes off topic but let's start with the fact that the craziness on Wall Street and the causes of the crash in 08 was 100% caused by government intervention in the market, and not "deregulation" the easy go to and lazy explaination.

Starting with the government created banking cartel, known as the Federal Reserve System which manipulates interest rates and destroys the natural market forces of supply and demand for money. Under Alan Greenspan rates were artificially suppressed which created the dot com bubble and eventually a housing bubble.

Artificially low interest rates distort the market system and encourage reckless behavior. Too much money and credit flood onto Wall Street through the banking system, and this encourages debt both in the private sector and in government. Big financial institutions become highly leveraged and to make matters worse, government promises bail outs in the case of failure.

Add On top of that politicians pushing regulations so that banks lend to people who obviously shouldn't qualify for home ownership. The new money coming from Wall Street which comes from the Fed then bids up the actual costs of homes which makes legitimately owning a home even more difficult. Total disaster.

Some how "deregulation" causes all of this?

How about the Fed stop flooding Wall Street with easy money so that it doesn't turn into a giant casino? Of course you can always make an argument for yet even more regulation when the entire system is inherently flawed to begin with. I'd rather strike at the root cause.

reagan also used the cia to flood the inner cities with drugs

Oak- are you fucking illiterate or what? Did you read that fuckin original question from Nicky? It reads and I quote " I don't know if it affects things today, but back 30,40.50 years ago were conditions for the mob better under a Republican presidency or a Democratic one?"...i mean holy shit what did you think he was asking?

Hes very clearly asking about historically what party was better for the mob and I very clearly answered that with my examples. Before you spout off try reading the fuckin original thread before calling names and dismissing my response when I was 150% spot on. My answer unequivocally indicates that the DEMOCRATS have historically been the party that was better for the mob. I gave you 4 examples from the last 30, 40, 50 years WHICH IS WHAT NICKY WAS ASKING ABOUT.... Anything else you wrote is flat out wrong. It would be great if you could acknowledge your mistake and that Ivy and I were right..

SC- just my 2 cents so dont jump down my throat please...but i have to stick up for Ivy, I dont think he was writing anything inflammatory at all. Oak was being a prick and was completely off base with what the OP asked. If you go back and look at Oak's responses hes attacking Ivy and being rude himself so to me Ivy's vitriol was in response to that... I by no means am an Ivy fan considering I ask the guy questions and give him compliments on his mob knowledge and he responds condescending and rude sometimes...but his research and knowledge are spot on and I don't think in this case he was trying to stir shit or be inflammatory, merely responding to Oak's posts....again Just my 2 cents, not in any way telling you or the other mods what to do, you guys do a great job keeping this open forum running smooth and full of good shit..

-Mike

You want me to acknowledge that Ivy was right when he said that Ronald Reagan was the first president to crack down on the mob? How about I acknowledge that it was possibly the biggest lie ever told on the internet?

mikey, I'll give you the same warning. Asking someone if they are fucking illiterate has no place on these boards. It's rude and it is flaming; two things we want to avoid here. I don't give a rat's ass if you disagree with someone but do it respectfully. Ivy has been here long enough to know that, and so have you.

It is virtually impossible for me to read and review every posted message. I will comment on those in which I see something wrong.

Personally and FWIW, I am a registered Democrat. Even with that statement I guess the Dems have been, in general, more corrupt than the Republicans. Chicago and northern Jersey politics prove that but let's be honest that BOTH parties aren't all they pretend to be. Just my 2¢.

No I want you to acknowledge that you busted my balls and were rude saying my examples were wrong and too old and shitting on people for giving past examples, when that IS EXACTLY the question the OP asked for. Its a sign of maturity and intelligence to admit when you're wrong, and I have no problem doing so, but apparently you do.

As far as Ivy's statement, you would have to talk to him on it, but I think what he meant was during Reagan's presidency were the first uses of the RICO law across the country not to mention the Commission case. So technically hes right, but also I can see where you're coming from in that JFK would really be the first President to go after the Mob, but other than surveiling them and attempting to Deport some of them, his efforts were for not after November 23, 1963

SC - you're right, my apologies for writing that inflammatory thing about Oak. I was simply responding to his attacks and insults about my post which turned out to be correct..but he didnt insult me and I shouldn't have. I would hope you would acknowledge my track record here as being a respectful poster that doesn't post inflammatory stuff and tries to positively contribute to this site..but not an excuse I get that , my bad.

However, SC if you read my post I conceded that Republicans are just as corrupt in plenty other areas of government and by no means are above reproach even though I am a registered Republican. I dont think one party is more or less corrupt than the other, I think they both are equally corrupt and thats clearly what I said..

BUT you have to admit in terms of corruption related to the Mafia the DEMOCRATS are hands down the far guiltier party and I dont think thats really up for debate. I mean I have provided 4 famous examples in different cities and I'm sure there are more, but again this is just in relation to Mob Corruption/labor unions.... without speaking for Ivy, I can say for myself that was part of the frustration regarding Oak's position bc even though hes entitled to dislike and disagree with Republicans, the facts are the facts when it comes to the Mafia and corruption ONLY.

That's fine, mikey. There is no problem with anyone arguing a political point here. We only want that argument to be civil; without name-calling. Both (major) parties are corrupt and the wiseguys are certainly no better. They can all go to hell. But that's just my opinion. If you have a different opinion please post it, but don't call me names for my beliefs. Nothing good can come out of that.

Beat me to it... The narrative about some mythical deregulation that happened right before the crash is a really pervasive yet utterly unfounded analysis, and is in essence just a rhetorical tool used to attack freedom of association and the free market. It's hilarious when people peddle the lie that somehow Wall Street is some type of unfettered market when the financial sector was and is arguably the most regulated sector in the entire economy, AND that the government has had both hands in it, distorting the market through tax incentives and direct subsidies of failed housing policies with Fannie and Freddie.

It's also a crucial mistake to assume deregulation is somehow beneficial to mobsters, the examples are easy to find that the contrary is true, e.g: mobbed up unions utilizing "legit"(lol) union rules and regulations to apply to those unwilling to play ball with the mafia and destroy their ability to work on sites or bid, Senator Cannon being called upon to block a bill that would have seen the industry deregulated, etc etc.

haha SC did I call you any names? I dont think I did and I would never nor would I call anyone any names for the party the affiliate with, including Oak. i shouldnt have called him illiterate but that was in frustration regarding the OP questions dispute, not because hes a Dem and I'm a Republican...I respect your opinion wholeheartedly..I just think based on the examples and what ive read the Dems are way more involved in mob/union corruption than Republicans

I didn't mean "me" personally, but asking someone else if they're "fucking illiterate" is only going to start a war.

There are some here who are just obtuse when they make arguments. If you deal with someone like that (to the point that they are REALLY annoying) use the "Notify" feature and one of the moderators will handle it.

Right wingers have to insult people they disagree with. It's just part of the mentality. The very basis for their politics is to uphold the power structure, and that means isolating, ridiculing and insulting anyone that challenges it. It's a knee jerk reaction. They can't help it.

Yea and leftist never insult people they disagree with. They never engage in character assassination, or call anyone racist, homophobic, sexist, and they always provide well thought out arguments instead of smug remarks of non-arguments. They don't try to shut down free speech against people they disagree with either, right?

Liberals have to get pushed to the bring. Liberals are nice people in nature. They want to be liked. Conservatives value the power structure, and base their worth on their place in it. That's why any threat to the power structure is met with hostility.

Wanting to be liked and being nice isn't a virtue. At all.

The saying goes something like "don't be nice, be GOOD"

Doing what's right, usually makes you disliked or hated. Being nice means go along to get along or being nice to evil, turning a blind eye or being too cowardly to stand up for what's good and right.

That's why "virtue signaling " is such a big thing on the Left.

It's all about how you appear to others, in your tribe.
"Look at me, I'm a good person, I want to help the poor and minority's without digging too deep into the disturbing and uncomfortable facts"

I can't speak on the right wing and power structure talk. I'm libertarian and I'd like to smash the entire power structure but the Left AND the Right want to conserve it..

I'm not saying anything's right or wrong, I'm just identifying the mindsets. Conservatives value the status quo, and naturally defend it. Part of that mentality is to humiliate anyone that threatens it. Liberals have to be pushed to the brink to behave like this. It's not in their nature. On the web, obviously, this happens a lot. Show me an angry liberal on the web, I'll show you someone that's been trolled and tormented by the right. Right wingers show up to the internet angry. They're there to troll.

I get it. I get the mindset very well too. Just pointing out that wanting to be liked isn't such a great thing.

As far as who is worse when it comes to right wing vs left wing anger and trolling, I can't call. I've seen it and have gotten it from both sides.

This topic should probably get moved to off-topic, but I gotta respond to this post. It's pure B.S.

"Conservatives value the status quo." Bogus assertion. Depends on what the status quo is. The current status quo on a lot of issues is a left-wing status quo, so if a conservative politician wanted to go against current trends, he or she would be going against the status quo.

"Part of that mentality is to humiliate anyone that threatens it." More BS. To humiliate someone isn't a conservative trait, it's something that's individual to a person and doesn't reflect ideology. But if one looks at Twitter attacks and hateful replies on YouTube, they are mostly done by the Left-wing. When conservatives protest something they don't block traffic or physically assault their opponents, but left-wing protesters do all the time. Which side interrupts speakers on stage? Which group tries to ban speakers with whom they disagree at universities? It's always the Far Left. Conservatives don't disrupt speaking engagements, and if they do it's rare. Go on YouTube and watch videos of Ben Shapiro or Milo giving public speeches and try to guess the political side of those who are harassing and attacking them. No, the hate and humiliation is pretty much owned by the Left.

When you read Facebook pages you'll also notice that the mockery and trolling is almost exclusively from the Left there as well. Left-wingers also make false reports of violations on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to get conservatives banned, something that conservatives tend not to do because they believe in freedom of speech and the free market of ideas. For the Left, the ends justify the fascism. Just like the fact-free comments in your post that are nothing but assertions and would absolutely qualify as trolling.

By the way, nothing I wrote is to say that ALL left-wingers troll, spread hate, shut people down and censor, but a much larger proportion of them do it than those on the Right. Sometimes it comes so natural to them that they don't realize that they do it. So please don't make a straw man retort to claim that I wrote otherwise. Nor did I write that those on the Right never do it. Yet your post was full of those blanket statements, coming close to saying that all conservatives are devils and liberals are angels. And please don't use Donald Trump as counterexample. He's not a conservative.

Well, this thread has successfully been turned into a political argument. Wonder who we thank for that?

He's a liberal now? LOL!

Scroll down and read the Yankee Doodle Gangster Article:

http://z14.invisionfree.com/GangstersInc/index.php?showtopic=731&st=40

lol. I knew someone was going to bring up Facebook as an example.

You can look at college campuses, when a speaker comes who is conservative they are protested, students have been blocked from enter by "walls," shouting during the speech. I don't think you would see conservative students doing that for a liberal speaker, they want to silence anyone who has a different opinion (both sides) because they can't act like adults and just deal with someone having different ideas

I don't do Facebook or any social media so I can't speak for that but.I have seen pictures of people holding cups with in labels white tears, male tears and a hashtag kill all men if that it not angry then Idk

You don't know what a false choice fallacy is? LOL!

He's a poopulist with a mixed bag of positions.

Alright I get it now.

Yeah, watch out for those college kids. They control everything.

And what do you think the previous generations of left-wing college kids did and where would they be now? Really, that's the sort of ridiculous sarcasm made by someone who isn't really the sharpest tool in the box because it shows that there's no thinking behind it. "I'm just going to emote and say the first smart ass thing from the top of my head because that's how I roll." Ever heard of Tom Hayden or Angela Davis? They're from several generations back, but picked up by academia to create new generations of brain damaged students. Who do you think teaches all this Far Left ethnic studies crap that indoctrinates modern theories of "whiteness" radical feminism, Marxism and deconstructionism, minority victimization and bullying? The media is about 90% one-sided to the Left (there's plenty of research on this and I can provide citations) -- where do you think that comes from? How about the current generation of people running the government now? So yeah, the previous generations of college kids do end up running everything.

Tom Hayden and Angela Davis! Are they still alive? If there is one thing I've enjoyed about this thread, its some of the relics from the past that have been brought up as examples of current corruption. I mean I honestly have no idea what either of them are doing today, and I doubt you do either, considering neither of them have done anything worthy of the public spotlight in 40 YEARS. Now in response to this someone should bring up Wavy Gravy.

Totally ignored the point I made, didn't you, OakAsFan? Kind of expected that non-response. Some people like to discuss facts and truths, and others like to emote nonsense. I'll let you figure out which category you're in, and have a nice day.

What point would that be? In discussing how the liberal college indoctrination camp can corrupt future leaders (or something...), you cite as examples two relics from the '60s and '70's that have practically zero relevance today?

How many college kids actually study ethnic studies or women's studies or things like that? I think most college kids are studying things like business because they want to make money. I don't think an "Ethnic Studies" professor has a lot of influence outside the campus, it's kinda irrelevant because not that many people study it. Not that many people care about it.

I think some of that "wanting to be nice" is just about being a gentleman or lady. Trying to disagree politely. I disagree with right wingers somewhat on some things, (economic issues), but I disagree with the left strongly on some issues. When I argue with liberal people about, for example, the Keystone XL Pipeline they never call me a motherfucker, call me un-American, or threaten to kick my ass like conservative people do when I disagree with them on minimum wage laws or Wall Street, etc.

I guess it all depends on the experiences you have when discussing politics, I have never been in a situation where a conservative leaning individual has been ride or mean or anything like that. I can't say the same thing for liberal leaning for example my cousin and I were talking about "wage gape" I said that it was a myth and an individuals choices determine how much they make, she screamed in ny face called my a sexist brought up patriarchy and misogyny. She hasn't spoken to me in two years because of this.

Neither side is tolerant of different ideas but in my experience the left is more intolerant hypocritical. People going to and leaving Trump rallies (I dont support) are screamed at and physically assaulted, I don't thinly you will see that at any Bernie or Hillary rally.

"I said that it was a myth and an individuals choices determine how much they make"

Well, no wonder she was mean to you. It was probably the craziest thing she'd ever heard.

Regarding the Trump rallies, I seem to recall a black guy getting sucker punched while in custody of security. Yes, Trump supporters have had their heads on a swivel since. They know who to thank.

Your post here is an example of the typical snarky non-argument kind of response that is way too common with the Left these days. Oh sure the Right has its own problems too but I'm talking about the Left right now.

All over the Internet, there's Lefties leaving these shit posts of nothingness.

Reminds of when I used to (sadly) watch the young Turks back when I was way more naive. These people sit around their desk making their smug snarky remarks, taking down straw man arguments, laughing and being hyper partisan. Never stopping to really consider the best arguments from another point of view.

This is the type of attitude that is the enemy of civilization itself. It's anti thinking. Just dismiss other opinions right off the bat and laugh or call names.
Pathetic.

To SJWs and third wave feminist (really anyone though) facts and reality are crazy, but the choices you make have consequences and being a professional victim won't change reality which has been supported by multiple economists.

Not condemning violence? Interesting

Not in my experience.

People on the Left are brutal. I've had honest disagreements and have been called all kinds of names. Rarely has anyone politely disagreed. It's usually a dismissive snarky comment with no argument included or just vicious name calling. The Left is infamous for calling everyone that disagrees with them racist, sexist, greedy, selfish, stupid, nut job, crazy, the list goes on and on.

I don't think it's about being nice to everyone, more so about the apparence of being nice and caring and virtue signaling. Wanting to be liked by those in power and authority.

A guy getting punched for no reason while in custody of security seems pretty violent.

"SJWs"

"third wave feminists"

"Proffffffffesional victims"

Why am I hearing Rush Limbaugh?

So one guy punches another guy and suddenly that erases all the bad ridiculous behavior by the Left?

I feel like I'm being pulled into a partisan debate here...

Social Justice Warriors, Third Wave Feminists and Professional Victims would make great band names, btw.

Yeah, that's wrong no matter what.

Violence is wrong.



Fair enough. Thank you for reinforcing F1's earlier post I should have followed his (only assuming F1 is male apologies other wise) lead, "Some people like to discuss facts and truths, and others like to emote nonsense. I'll let you figure out which category you're in, and have a nice day."

Reinforcing F1's will make you go through a lot of keyboards.

Uninterested in exchanging ideas. Dismissive of opposing view points and never addresses arguments directly. You're a bad stereotype.

Believe me, I'm trying to take some of the ideas here seriously. It all kind of derailed with the whole Ronald Reagan = gangbuster thing, which is hilarious.

Now you want to go back rewrite the history of this thread?

It's not my fault you weren't even aware of The Reagan administration's efforts against organized crime. You apparently didn't even know if he mentioned the mob while he was in the White House. Nor did you care. From the start, your entire purpose in this thread has been to be a Democrat shill, ignoring the historical facts related to the original post, and simply try and score partisan points in a political debate. Trying to give credit for the onslaught against the mob that came about in the 1980s, during Reagan's tenure, to what the Kennedys did 20 years before. Give me a break. That's what detailed this thread. Your bullshit.

Ivy, yes President Reagan was in office then. But it was really Guiliani as US Attorney who started to use RICO to run down the NYC families. That is why mob guys get put away all the time now.

Doesn't G. Robert Blakey deserve a lot of credit too?

Partisan Points Scoreboard:

And, it was Robert F Kennedy who restructured the justice department to not only prioritize the mafia, but to even recognize its existence! Without RFK, none of the following presidents or US attorneys have the tools.

Yes, there were several people who deserved credit. Robert Morhenthau (even before Giuliani) for example. And of course Blakey and McClellan who he gave the real credit for RICO. I'm not saying he was the only one but, on a national scale, the Reagan administration was a significant part of the renewed efforts against organized crime in the 1980s. Apparently some people weren't aware of this and want to give most of the credit to the Kennedys (for blatantly partisan reasons and nothing else) despite that was 20 years before and there was a big lull in the fight against the mob through the rest of the 1960s and the 1970s.



Anyone still doubting this guy has detailed this thread?

And you're the most partisan person in this thread. So I guess you win the partisan war that amounts to nothing. You still never addressed any of my arguments and alot of the ones others have posted either.

Partisan battle, maybe. The war goes on.

In colleges and universities across America students are forced to take Far Left "diversity training" courses that include sections on "Whiteness Studies," radical feminism, and other forms of modern victimization. So students are taught this Far Left form of ethnic studies without actually taking the courses. So it's not irrelevant. And clearly you've ignored the mass protests (which often include acts of violence) at Harvard, Princeton, UCLA, UCI, University of Missouri, etc. They force out professors who don't agree with them. Go to a site called "Campus Reform" which lists example after egregious example. In California the Democratic legislature is about to pass a bill that would force religious colleges and universities to adopt LGBTQ policies or face punishment, in clear violation of the First Amendment. So I'd suggest instead of just guessing what students are doing across the country, research it. There are also plenty of videos on YouTube documenting that these "protests" include violence.

http://www.campusreform.org/

Here is one example cited in the Huffington Post (lest you falsely accused this of being Fox News created hysteria): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/end-the-witch-hunt-in-def_b_8539402.html

There are plenty of other examples. All you have to do is look.

Isn't it hilarious that his idea of evidence is posting a Democratic Party meme? ROFL

Absolutely correct, but sadly his brother's death put a stop to his work before he could really hurt the mob.

All you have to do is look...at right wing websites that exaggerate and embellish in their examples.

Yeah, that Huffington Post is sooo right wing. LOL

Wasn't Andrew Breitbart one of the founders of Huffpo?

The Kennedy clan got their start in boot legging during prohibition.

What relevance does that have to anything, cheech? JFK's dad wasn't President.

JFK was a war hero.

As opposed to all your heroes who cried out of military service, including John Gotti who if I recollect wished death on American troops during the Gulf War.

Moe Tilden:

You.do.not.know.what.you.are.talking.about.

You.have.no.idea.who.you.are.talking.to.

Go.away.

Lock this up

I agree. This topic is more politics than anything else.

Update. Partisan Scoreboard:

Are you a robot?