The government sedevacantists.

Catholic Answers: A bunch of DNC sympathizers.
Fisheaters: A bunch of "no country" Catholics.

Let me explain. People posting in CA's secular forum are pretty much obsessed with Donal Trump. Not in the "The Donald" way, but in a OH GOD THIS IS WHAT THE BASTARD SAID! Fisheaters tend to attract more traditional Catholics who are more aware of The Left, with a touch of 'alt-right' but not in a good way. This 'alt-right' is home to some bitches who have some odd interpretation of what the Civil War meant, bemoan that there is no third party (fair enough, but the way they do it so pathetic) and no longer can be deemed as patriotic. Their country isn't the USA; it is seen as a lifeless body in which they supposedly happen to live in.

Instead of hating on the United States that it isn't like Western Europe, New Zealand or South Africa, or even Brazil, like Leftists do the Fisheater political aware poster doesn't believe it's been a real nation since 1865. Instead of omitting God (as would the ardent atheist/secularist/humanist ... whatever they call themselves) when he says the pledge of allegiance he omits "indivisible" and "one nation." These  people I call "government sedevacantists."

These two distinct types do have one thing in common, besides trying to be the best Catholics they can be: They make note that they aren't happy with the current slate of POTUS nominees. Some on CA will be sympathetic to Sanders because they went full retard and think that doing God's will is enacting "fairness" and a "living wage" aka socialism. Fisheaters, acting like weird-ass political outliers, think that every (R) candidate is filled with corruption. Basically, these people don't vote. Then they have the audacity to moan about how America is a godforsaken land.

Oddly enough I have more qualms with the fisheater type. He's more hardheaded and plays his own version of "want your cake and eat it too." In some striking ways he is the same at the Leftist who hate's American for not being like Sweden, Norway or Iceland. At least those who subscribe to Western Europe bowing tells the world what they want; the political fisheater doesn't broadcast what he wants America to be, just that it "it's lost" and that his version of patriotism really doesn't do anything besides bitching about how every politician is bought-and-sold.

Of course, like every jaded poster, he tends to express his heart either in his handle or avatar (again, like secular Leftists - with the "A" for atheist for their avatar, or maybe the popular Spaghetti Monster). Notice the stars in the American flag are replaced by the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Remember, this government sedevacantist is only loyal to his state and the RCC. The stars representing each state means nothing to him because the US was lost in 1865.

Let's look at headmaster of fisheasters, Vox, thoughts on the term Judeo-Christianity. Gone full retard? I'll leave that up you to decide.

Posters like Vox and the government sedevacantists are modernists/leftists in their own special way despite adhering to traditional Catholicism: They dismiss any patriotism and make up their own version of it, sorta like Leftists when it comes to family and marriage. They are no better than their Leftist counterparts.

And it takes a son of immigrants to show how idiotic the "American Dream is Dead" types are. The poster "Might_4_Right" has an Italy flag for his location. An American expat in Italy, maybe? If he is then he's the last person who should talk (e,g Vox Day). A coward who left for "greener pastures." If he's indeed a foreigner then he's the same anti-American European who just drinks the BBC-esque Kool-Aid.

Fickle. Sensitive.

That's what I think of the people who are so disappointed with Ted Cruz when he said that Donald Trump helped create the atmosphere that happened at his Chicago rally. I'm also a little disturbed by people who said Trump had it coming (and yes, it seems like Trump lied - Chicago policemen have denied that he consulted them when cancelling the event, same with STL policemen).

There are two issues I have with the anti-Cruz and anti-Trump camps in this scenario. The first being those that support Cruz's words (anti-Trump people) by practicing the really sloppy and pathetic logic of "I'm free to attend a rally but that freedom doesn't mean I'm 'free' of not being attacked." What kind of stupid plebeian logic is that? The second are the fickle and sensitive kind (anti-Cruz people) who now resort to "Cruz is nothing to me" after he sorta threw Trump under the bus that Friday night. They then complain his whole support of the Constitution is now a farce. Puh-lease.

Look, Cruz and Trump are rivals. It's understandable why Cruz said what he said (even though I somewhat disagree). He's condemning Trump for his rude comments and arrogant words towards minorities and women in order to make himself look like the better person. Does that make me think less of him? Not really. I think it's a little sloppy thinking, less so than "I'm free to attend but not free to not get punched in the face."

Yes, Cruz should've said that the protesters were out-of-line. They were indeed rude and arrogant, being hypocritical towards Trump's own rudeness and arrogance. He should've called them fascists and punks. Whether or not Trump "deserved" his rally to be treated like that is neither here nor there; the protesters helped destroy free speech that night because they failed to "peaceably assemble." They assembled, they infiltrated the auditorium and then caused chaos.

I side with the people where there to hear Trump speak. They have every right to become angry, and in my eyes the people who acted like punks towards the supporters are closer to deserving spit and kicks. I don't like bullies, especially when they're in the form of The Left. You didn't see the KKK at Obama's 2012 rallies. You didn't see people on The Right constantly interrupting Obama's speeches when he ran for a second term.

The victims of that night weren't the protesters (the protesters are cowards and are overreacting, and I say that as a person who isn't white) or Trump. It was free speech, the city of Chicago and the people who came peacefully to hear Trump's words. I give no sympathy to Trump because I believe he bailed out of concern for his own safety, not the safety of the people who supported him, none to Cruz and absolutely no sympathy to the protesters.

Protest to Power

As I write this, Missouri and Illinois are on their last legs for precinct reporting. In Missouri it's truly down to the wire for Cruz who is less than a percent from Trump's lead. In Chicago, Sanders has gained a sizeable since the start of today's voting. He has 48% of the votes while Clinton has approaching 51%. I find the latter group, Sanders and Clinton, to be a far more interesting battle.

Here's why. As the Salon article states -

Bernie Sanders’s political revolution blew into Chicago last week and smacked its embattled mayor upside the head. “I want to thank Rahm Emanuel for not endorsing me,” Sanders deadpanned at a rally outside the city on Friday, the same day that a huge crowd of activists shut down a Donald Trump event.

“I don’t want his endorsement!” Sanders told the crowd of supporters. “I don’t want the endorsement of a mayor who is shutting down school after school and firing teachers.”

In the Sander's rally I went to the "DNC establishment" is not well-liked by Sanders; he clearly threw Mayor Emmanuel under the bus, and those who supported him at the rally gave a good cheer. Chicago is the epitome of DNC establishment, afterall the city gave the country Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let's not forget the infamous Daleys and the current mayor, Rahm Emmanuel. I'd even go and say that Chicago's politics is currently running this country aka machine politics.

As the article's headline, "The revolution vs. Rahm Emanuel: Why tomorrow’s Illinois primary could remake Chicago politic" a win for Sanders can send a clear message to Chicago's DNC party: Stop f_cking around with the CPD (Chicago Police Department). Sanders is the DNC as Trump is to the GOP (I'll add in Cruz as well). 

The slow downfall of Mayor Emmanuel is mainly due his handling of LaQuan McDonald's death. It seems as the days go by that Mayor Emmanuel helped protect the Chicago Police officer who shot him to death. With Ferguson, Baltimore and campus chaos like Yale's Halloween Costume Fiasco the BLM movement are yearning for heads to roll. It doesn't matter if it's President Obama's best buddy. 

Of course Jesus Garcia is hoping on the bandwagon to help get Mayor Emmanuel out of office so he can become mayor.

“It looks like the race has tightened up in Illinois,” chuckled Cook County Commissioner Jesús “Chuy” García, a progressive who last year failed to beat Emanuel after pushing him into the first runoff vote since Chicago switched to a nonpartisan system in 1995. “The impossible seems to be coming to true.”

The article goes on (bold mine)-

 Across the country, Sanders and Hillary Clinton have fought to attract young black voters amidst a year of raucous protests against police violence. Despite Clinton’s much-maligned history with tough-on-crime measures, she has managed to win overwhelming majorities in the South. But in Michigan, Sanders greatly improved his performance with black voters, fighting Clinton to a draw amongst those under 40. Last week, his campaign rolled out three new ads, featuring García’s endorsement, hammering Emanuel’s education policies, and highlighting his role in the city’s civil rights movement. In Chicago, Clinton’s allegiance with the mayor has provided Sanders with an unparalleled opportunity to attack 21st-century Clintonism as business-as-usual hostility toward the poor and people of color.

. . . .

The big local race is the Democratic primary for state’s attorney. Like most big city prosecutors, Alvarez had provoked little opposition while running an office soft on police misconduct and mercilessly bent on incarceration in a city where rampant gun violence often dominates criminal justice debates. But that all changed in November, when a video was released showing Police Officer Jason Van Dyke shoot Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old, 16 times as he walked away. It was only then, hours before the video’s release, that Alvarez charged Van Dyke with murder. Throngs of protesters took to the streets, demanding that Alvarez and Mayor Emanuel resign.
“It’s become primarily a referendum about Alvarez’s tenure in office and particularly her handing of police abuse cases,” says Dick Simpson, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “And it’s quite clear that a majority of voters do not approve of her performance.”

Alvarez’s biggest threat is Kim Foxx, a former prosecutor who grew up in poverty, including years in the now demolished Cabrini-Green projects. Foxx pledges to crack down on police misconduct and get smart on crime by keeping low-level offenders out of the system. Donna More, a resident of wealthy Lincoln Park who has worked as a prosecutor and lawyer for casino companies, could play spoiler. She’s very unlikely to win, but hundreds of thousands of dollars in family money have put her ads on TV.

Both the Foxx and Sanders campaigns are testing the strength of a growing rainbow coalition on the city’s left, a coalition that brought Mayor Harold Washington to power in 1983 and then fell apart under Richard M. Daley. The public schools movement, and now the anti-police brutality campaign, has prompted its reemergence. Foxx, who is black, must win over Latino and white voters to win. Sanders must expand his appeal to blacks and Latinos. A win by either, and especially a win by both, would signal a sea change in local politics and bad news for Mayor Emanuel.

Last year, García was not the left’s first-choice candidate for mayor. Just as Sanders stepped forward after Senator Elizabeth Warren demurred, García announced his candidacy late in the game after teachers union head Karen Lewis was diagnosed with brain cancer.

Emanuel held him off with help from the city machine, wealthy whites and, critically, majority black wards. García had strong support from the Latino wards, along with white and black progressives. But at the time, widespread anger over school closures failed to translate into a multi-racial front with sufficient strength to win. Though García performed well with black voters, a majority of voters in majority black wards stuck with Emanuel. He benefited from an endorsement from President Obama, for whom he served as chief of staff; from mistrust between Mexican and black communities; and from Emanuel’s charge that his Mexican-American opponent was incompetent to manage the city’s huge financial mess, a charge that García says was geared to appeal to white prejudice.

In the world of García and race baiters, your opponent is appealing to white prejudice because he's concerned that you lack experience in budget/fundraising. Either García is just using the race card for political purposes or he's dead right serious. But not to worry, Mayor Emmanuel totally f_cked up by practicing old-school politics.

The McDonald video, however, has changed a lot. A close relationship with Obama might carry less weight today.

“I think that it’s a process,” says Jitu Brown, a community organizer from the heavily-black South Side neighborhood of Kenwood-Oakland. “There was a multiracial coalition that had worked together for years around education issues that really fortified Chuy’s campaign…What’s coming to the table now that wasn’t really involved in the process before” is “the voice of young black people.”

Foxx will likely receive widespread support in black wards, and Latino support for Alvarez, a Latina, is now in peril. García has endorsed Foxx, and called on Alvarez to resign last year after the McDonald video was released.

“The crisis in the criminal justice system has struck a cord with people, and now it’s not a question of voting for someone from their ethnic group,” says García, even though Alvarez “was the first woman” and “the first Latina” to serve as the county’s top prosecutor. “I have never been as optimistic about a truly diverse coalition coming together than I am now.” Which is not what he expected given his loss last year. “I think there’s a new level of awareness that we need to transcend some of Chicago’s patterns of racial block voting and go beyond those patterns into real multiracial, multiethnic, across faith coalitions.”

People don’t make history in conditions of their choosing, and Tuesday’s vote will show whether the left’s impressive organizing in Chicago has caught up with public sentiment rapidly shifting in its favor. The left in Chicago, as elsewhere, has been rushing to build up the organizing base and institutions necessary to translate public outrage into electoral power. The Chicago vote will likely be much closer than the Clinton camp anticipated. After years of defeat and in the streets, the left is ready to move from protest to power.

BLM movement is about to move from the streets to the political office. Watch out, Chicago. It doesn't get better.

“Win or lose, I think we’re in position now to be able to challenge corporate interests and beat corporate interests” in the coming years, including in the 2019 mayoral election, says Brown. “Win or lose there is a movement brewing. There definitely is.

 Bill Ayers must be patting himself on the back.

Safe zone or place ... ?

Both, apparently.

Besides the arrogant take-over of the meeting, it goes to show that "oppressed" people really are fools.

I can't. It's too funny The student at the podium "knows" about intimidation because he's, in his own words, a gay student of color at Swarthmore whose "space" was pissed on. Well, if we're going by modern day liberal standards private property is just man-made construct. Deal with it you little bitch. I guess people like the student will always feel intimidated because, well, feelings. Not even in at Swarthmore, a highly ranked and under prestigious institution, where modern liberalism rules can a gay person of color feel "safe."

"DON'T TELL ME ABOUT INTIMIDATION!"

What a fucking joke.

(This doesn't really discourage me from wanting to get a Phd in, wait for it, sociology.)