We must learn that passively to accept an unjust system is to cooperate with that system, and thereby to become a participant in its evil.
~Martin Luther King, Jr
Whenever you see a board up with "Trespassers will be prosecuted," trespass at once.
~Virginia Woolf
To the wrongs that need resistance,
To the right that needs assistance,
To the future in the distance,
Give yourselves.
~Carrie Chapman Catt
Resistance is the secret of joy.
~Alice Walker
Be a drop in the bucket
and a bucket in the pond
and the pond fills the river
and the river rushes on
And the river swells the river
till the power can't be stopped
and what becomes a mighty ocean
started as a drop.
~Mitch Barrett
177 comments:
Reminds me of something I saw on twitter. A black Canadian female tweets--
"A white guy just broke into my house. Here's what the police did:
- Started by interrogating my black roommate
- Made us convince them the naked guy in our house wasn't our roommate
- Had my black roommate watch the guy who just broke in while they checked the rest of the house"
A number of people commiserated with her in the form of comments to her tweet, to the effect that white people and police are disgusting.
As someone who is near the middle of the political spectrum, I am tempted to ask her what situations justify police or government acting in accordance with racial statistics? If, statistically speaking, white-owned Canadian companies have not been hiring black employees in proportion to their fraction of the Canadian population, don't you suppose this same woman would want government intervention? So if Canadian statistics show that a black man is more likely than another man to break into a house, isn't there some kind of racial double standard going on in her head?
How valid does Dan, as a liberal, see her complaint?
~ Hiram
To passively accept the abuses of a just system is also to be complicit in the abuses. Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges are three examples of such abuses of a just system. And now, that system punishes those who should be protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a result of those abuses.
Whenever you see a board up with "Trespassers will be prosecuted," trespassers should rightfully be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are showing no respect for the property rights of others, nor a respect for law.
To the wrongs that need resistance, such as Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, for example,
To the right that needs assistance, such as the overturning of those three unConstitutional rulings, for example,
To the future in the distance, where morality and virtue is revered once again instead of diminished by the rulings like the three mentioned,
Give yourselves.
Resistance is the secret of joy, but only when the right things are being resisted, unlike what we see in the case of today's leftist activists.
...what becomes a mighty ocean of immoral sewage started as a drop of rebellion against centuries old principles of decency, morality and virtue.
?
Marshall, the point of this post (maybe you didn't see the news) is that Trump has banned seven words from being used by the CDC... the seven words mentioned in the post (with Resist being my additional word). WHY he would tell a science organization not to use "science-based" etc is beyond reason. Way beyond reason. And stupid as hell.
So, I'm not sure what your comments have to do with that.
The quotes I used were in response to this latest attack on democracy from this administration.
Do you have anything to say on topic?
Hiram, likewise, I'm not sure how that reminds you of what you had to say. But to try to answer your question... I'm not sure what her complaint was? It DOES seem strange that the police would interrogate the roommate or need to be convinced the white guy didn't belong there.
I’m confused, I was under the impression that God was the secret of joy, Certainly, resistance to God will not bring joy.
You are correct. You are confused
ON topic, do you have anything to say?
Dan
Craig, if I had to guess, I would guess that you are completely ignorant of the context of that quote... Am I right? (I was, FYI).
If so, perhaps the better part of wisdom would be to remain silent until such time that you are no longer speaking from a place of ignorance.
Dan
You quoting Martin Luther King, Jr. was what triggered my comment.
To clarify, the black woman's complaint is that a white policeman assumes the perpetrator will be someone other than a white man. My counterpoint is that the police probably operate under assumptions stemming from crime statistics.
~ Hiram
It would depend on the situation.
Speaking in generalities, I think that history has shown us, and especially our black brothers and sisters, that the police have not always been fair or just towards the black community. That is a reality borne out by history. Given that history, any time that an injustice - or an appearance of injustice - happens in a white cop/black citizen interaction, one can understand the frustration and concern held by black folk and their allies.
As to speaking from a place of ignorance, just how much have you done to find out why Trump chose to have those words stricken. How is this different than Obama refusing to use certain words related to terrorism?
As to Trump, this columnist makes a few suggestions as to why Trump did away with those words.
I guess that whole sarcasm thingy just eludes you.
I’m suggesting that seeking true joy in anything but God is going to be disappointing. I apologize if pointing out the source of joy is inconvenient or inappropriate.
Art, don’t you understand, anything Trump does is bad and worthy of ridicule. 3+% economic growth, low unemployment, it doesn’t matter. None of it is good.
?
Guys, you just don't get it. I don't know how to help you understand, but you just don't.
And yes, Craig, I understand sarcasm. The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
What you did isn't sarcasm, it's just silly. What are you expressing contempt on? The idea of standing against injustice?
You REALLY want to mock opposition to injustice?
No, I just don't think you are understanding the point.
Do you all have anything constructive to say on topic?
And Obama did not institute a ban on using words related to terrorism. Rather, like a diplomat, he deliberately chose his words for best effect and to not to make things worse. He did not tell scientists not to use scientific words, that's just inane and an attack on reason.
Try speaking to the topic if you want to comment here. Or respectfully ask questions when you are ignorant of a point.
Thanks.
Actually I was mocking the idea that true joy can be found outside of God.
I’m reslity I probably shouldn’t be mocking that, since it’s reslly pretty sad the think that resistance (especially given the lack of scope) would even be capable of truest bringing joy.
It’s strange that in a post where you wrote about something bringing joy, that discussion of bringing joy is somehow off topic.
Anyone note the irony that in a post about limiting speech, Dan decides it’s appropriate to attempt to limit comments.
Did you really have a point beyond continuing to bitch about something the administration did?
I was mocking the idea that true joy can be found outside of God.
But no one (here) has made that argument, so why bring it up here? Perhaps because you read a phrase, were entirely ignorant of what it meant or the context it was intended, and concluded something that no one here has suggested?
And "bitch about something the administration did..."? Hell yes. This is an attack on democracy, on science, on intelligence, on basic human decency.
You want to tell scientists who are looking at how diseases might cause harm and tell them NOT to use the word "vulnerable..."?? God damn it, man! Are you an evil mastermind, or merely a lackey of one? Who wants to demand that scientists NOT talk about the vulnerable? What IDIOT doesn't want scientists to embrace the notion of science and evidence based reasoning?
What is wrong with you? Are you actually coming out in support of this attack on science, on free speech, this attack on basic decency?
You guys are on the wrong side of history, of morality, of reason. You're siding with oppressors and idiots and those who attack the vulnerable, quite literally, in this case.
God damn it and Lord have mercy on your brains!
Open your eyes and see. Open your brains and think.
sad the think that resistance (especially given the lack of scope) would even be capable of truest bringing joy.
Yes, Jesus resisting the evil oppressors of his day, he didn't know shit about joy. Stupid savior!
(And by the way, THAT is how sarcasm is used. With intelligence and a grounding in reality.)
note the irony that in a post about limiting speech, Dan decides it’s appropriate to attempt to limit comments.
And just to remind you of reality: I have NEVER limited speech, except attack, hateful speech towards minorities and those not here to speak for themselves (including some liberals who were engaging in attacking sorts of language). I do not allow, for instance, Marshall to call women, girls, gay folk or transgender folk names or mock them because, why would I? I'm not a monster.
I give an incredible amount of leeway in the comments of visitors, with that one caveat.
The second caveat is when I'm trying to get you all to directly answer questions. I've often found that it is extremely to difficult to get certain conservatives to directly answer the questions that are asked of them (as opposed to ignoring the question or answering another question, besides the one I actually asked)... in those instances, I've removed comments as a way to try to get these direct answers. It's specifically and literally NOT an intention to limit speech, it's the exact opposite.
Now, in this case, I'm asking you all to, you know, actually comment on the topic of the post, as opposed to these silly attacks on ideas that aren't part of the topic. I have not deleted anything, but I am asking you to stay on topic... and even there, I give great leeway (see my response to Hiram, for instance).
Now, on topic, do you have anything?
No. I’m done. Except to point out that you literally are attempting to limit comments on this post about limiting.....
Oh never mind, I’m done wasting my time on this
Beyond "limiting" it to asking people to stay on topic, that's a simply false claim, Craig. You are wasting time, to be sure.
~Dan
If you DO want to engage on the topic here, why not begin by answering a very basic question related to this topic...
Are you actually coming out in support of this attack on science, on free speech, this attack on basic decency?
~Dan
I love how you admit to limiting comments, in the same comment where you deny limiting comments.
I’m not sure what you mean by an “attack” on science, but unless some additional research changes my mind, I don’t support this.
Behold, I bring you good tidings of great resistance.
Just mocking your eisegesis.
You consider asking people to speak on the topic to be limiting? I don't. I consider it just polite.
Now, with Hiram's and other respectful people, I don't mind going off topic. Hiram politely asked a question not directly tied to the topic, but it was a sincere and polite question and I answered it.
You and Marshall come here and go on off topic rants about nothing to do with the subject and I ask that you keep your comments to the topic. I didn't delete anything, I just asked if you were going to comment on topic. That isn't limiting, seems to me, it's just engaging in respectful conversation.
Now, on topic, will you ever answer questions directly? You don't support what?
Trump has told one of our science agencies to not use "science-based" or "vulnerable."
Do you agree that this is asinine?
Do you agree that it's anti-free speech?
Do you agree that it's wrong?
Yes, I consider limiting peoples comments to be limiting. It's pretty much just the definition of limiting. I would suggest that it's possible that some of the comments might be looking at the topic from a slightly different perspective, and that by embracing and being inclusive of different perspectives you might learn and grow.
Yes.
I don't support the action of the administration.
I haven't had time to study the actual text of the directive in depth, so I don't think I can fairly categorize it as "asinine" at this point.
I do not agree that it is "anti-free speech", the executive branch has fairly wide ranging authority over it's departments. I don't see where this violates "free speech". If I have a chance to look deeper I might be persuaded otherwise.
Without some deeper study, I don't feel comfortable declaring it objectively "wrong", but that could change.
So, will you ever answer questions directly?
Damn. What does it take for you to call something bad, "bad?"
In what possible context is telling a SCIENCE agency who is tasked with researching the SCIENCE and data around public health to protect vulnerable people that it is not allowed to use the words "science-based," or "vulnerable..."? On what possible basis would scientists not be allowed to use the word, "fetus..."? Why is using the term "transgender" possibly banned?
Is this not gov't propaganda, to say there are words you can't use? Normal, natural, reasonable words?
Please answer, if you wish to comment here, and make your case. In what possible context is this anything but an attack on science, reason and free speech?
~Dan
And I nearly always answer questions directly, as I just did here. I have opted out a few times, when presented with several questions and I answer one or two directly and clearly, and you just don't understand my answer and don't even think I have answered it. When I have answered a couple of questions out of several and you don't even see the answer, then I don't see the point of answering the rest. Especially when you're being antagonistic, as you nearly always are.
~Dan
You might consider always copy/pasting the question asked of you (italicized and/or in quotes) and then responding in order to prevent accusations of not answering directly, unless you fear exposure for failing to do so.
Just a helpful hint...
I already answered all of your more recent questions in my last comments.
My answer was and is; I haven’t had time to actually research the actual original statement and until I do it would be irresponsible for me to make definitive characterizations based on second and third hand reports.
Do you not think that it’s responsible to actually look at the primary source, rather than second and third hand summaries especially as those summaries may be biased?
Do you understand the difference between me saying I won’t ever do something and saying I won’t do something YET?
Do you understand that the executive branch has control over the agencies within the executive branch and that they can enact guidelines which do not violate “free speech”?
If I was to compile a list of numerous questions you’ve not answered recently, do you think your response would match the reality?
Why do you demand that others answer every question you ask, even resorting to threats to do so, when you openly admit you don’t give others the same courtesy you demand?
Art, it wouldn’t matter. I answered all of Dan’s questions and because I wouldn’t agree with his biased pejorative characterization of the administrations actions, he’s acting as if I didn’t answer. It’s a tactic, not a rational response to what I actually said.
I've asked you if you think that saying to a scientist who is tasked with preventing disease to vulnerable people, "You can't use the word vulnerable..." is wrong.
You're telling me you DON'T KNOW if it's wrong? You need more information?
Then why don't you say that, directly?
"Dan, I simply don't know if it is wrong to tell scientists not to use those words. I'm not informed enough on the topic to know if it is wrong..."
The follow up question then, that also has not been directly answered, is "Under what circumstances could it possibly be RIGHT to tell scientists not to use these words...?"
The direct and clear answer might be, "I simply can't think of any circumstances, it does sound nutty and wrong on the face of it... but MAYBE there are some circumstances, I don't know..."
I'm just having a hard time thinking that you're insufficiently informed not to have an opinion.
I did say that directly. My problem is much more that I don’t believe that you are characterizing the content of the report in an accurate and unbiased manner, and therefore would rather base my reaction to the actual document rather than to your biased, partisan characterizations of the biased, partisan reports you’ve read.
I find it bizarre that you are trying to suggest that basing my reaction to the actual source material is somehow a bad thing.
I’ve expressed my opinion based on the little I’ve seen. I know this might shock you. But between the time commitments to my multiple jobs, some commitments for my wife’s job, church and family, I haven’t prioritized hunting down and reading the administration guidance to the CDC.
Again, the fact that you somehow find it problematic that I have limited my opinion until I have time to gather more information is one of the stupider things I’ve ever seen you do. Clearly your impatience and need for blind affirmation have overcome your rational thinking.
I’m having a hard time thinking your insufficiently intelligent to understand that people have lives and priorities different from your own and that we might find it worthwhile to take the time to get more information before jumping on your bash everything the administration does bandwagon.
Just a couple of initial reactions after looking for the primary source material.
1. I’ve seen no news reporting that states definitely that these words have been completely banned from use. Virtually all the stories are saying it’s been “reported” but not confirmed.
2. It appears that the director of the CDC disagrees with your characterization of the situation. Hmmmmm, who is more believable, Dan (who hasn’t actually produced proof of his claims) or the director of the CDC?
3. It appears that this “ban” (if real) only applies to the terms as used in the context of the budget. Unless one contends that the budget process is actually science.,.
Anyway, after a first run at some secondary (ad opposed to simply accepting Dans hunches), I’m inclined to believe that perhaps this whole thing has been exaggerated by biased partisans looking for anything to bash the administration.
The Union of Concerned Scientists isn’t willing to go as far as Dan is in characterizing this situation. That tells me something as well.
Dan,
Dr Brenda Fitzgerald has unequivocally denied that there are any “banned words” and repeated that he CDC is going to remain “science based”.
The question that needs to be answered is whether or not you have hard data, unequivocal proof, and actually evidence to prove that she is lying.
Right now, it’s your word against hers and it seems reasonable to think that you should prove your claims.
Indeed. I too have been unable to find the original mandate from the administration to the CDC, but I have come across Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald's response to the report of banned words. It's sounding more like fake news. However, as the link in a previous comment of mine points out, there are reasons why certain words would be inappropriate for use in official documents of one sort or another. Here is another explanation for why the words in question might not be appropriate for the stated purpose of next year's budget. Most of the words are politically tainted and have no place where more distinct and accurate terms would be better. This makes sense unless one is keen on characterizing the administration as fascistic and Orwellian. No one who embraces grace, however, would even dare hint at such a thing.
I have to wonder if Dan’s insistence on agreement with the terms he used to describe the situation, and his derision toward actually researching and trying to find more details isn’t a ploy to hide his lack of knowledge about the actual situation.
I'm talking about the CONCEPT of telling a department that they can't use these words. I would think it would be a simple matter of looking at the words and saying, "Of course, that would be wrong to ban those words. ESPECIALLY for a science organization like the CDC! It's a no-brainer!"
Now, I get that you don't trust "the media" and that is a separate problem/question. But the question is "Do you approve of this sort of a ban, at least conceptually?" The answer appears to be No, but it's like pulling teeth to get you to state so clearly.
And the reason why it's important, Craig, is that people like Marshall exist, for whom the concept of banning these sorts of words at a CDC level is acceptable, that the use of these words, as Marshall says, "might not be appropriate..." So, whatever you think of the news, CONCEPTUALLY, can you see that, for the sake of anti-free speech people like Marshall, it's conceptually okay to consider it?
Yes, it appears now that the leadership is saying that they wouldn't ban these words, but the CDC people who made the claim DID say they had instituted a ban. The question then becomes, is it more likely that the Trump leadership issue a ban, get caught in a conflagration of condemnation and back down from it? Or was there some sort of simple misunderstanding and it was never intended as a ban, people just misunderstood? Or did the people who made the initial claims just make it up?
Personally, given what we know of this administration and their constant attacks on facts, science and truth, the first scenario seems most likely to me, with some chance that it could be the second/misunderstanding scenario.
Most likely, I think, is that the Trump leaders DID institute the ban, the news media reported what had actually happened, their was a righteous outcry against the stupidity and anti-American notion of such a ban, and the leadership backed down. Which is to say, the media did its job and it worked for the benefit of the free world.
Sorry for the numerous typos... typing in a hurry gets you nowhere.
I have to wonder if Dan’s insistence on agreement with the terms he used to describe the situation, and his derision toward actually researching and trying to find more details isn’t a ploy
Wonder all you want. The ACTUAL reason is that this administration has mounted a monstrously unprecedented attack on the free press, on truth, on facts. He makes false claims at a rate that is not comparable in the slightest to even the worst of our administrations in the history of this nation. And that he does this is in such a stupid manner - making clearly false or unknown claims as if they were actually facts, only further serves as an attack on the notions of liberty and truth. That he continually attacks the media as "fake news" is a serious, deadly problem. It undermines our nation's security and our better ideals.
Thus, when his administration even appears to be stepping out of bounds yet again, we, the people who care about facts and truths and liberty MUST speak out quickly and strongly.
Join the right side of history and start taking stands against these sorts of attacks, Craig. Our future may depend upon it.
Interesting that you’ve subtly changed your tune. Now that it’s credibly being reported that your specific examples might not be accurate, you’re now trying to say it’s about the “concept”, not the specifics.
As far as the “concept”, we have a government with 3 coequal branches, which all have specific powers. It seems reasonable that, as a concept, the head of the executive branch would be able to exert some degree of control over the subordinate agencies. So, as a general “concept”, it seems reasonable that the executive branch might have some input into things like “messaging” and how things are communicated.
As to your fantasy scenario about what might have happened, in the absence of hard evidence it remains a fantasy. If you read the reporting from the past few days, none of them is claiming that this ban actually happened, only that it was “reported” to have happened. You are welcome to your hunches and fantasies, but if you want people to agree with you, then you probably should actually have facts and have d data.
As far as my wondering. You clearly were demanding that I agree with your verbiage and opinions before I felt informed enough to do so, and then tried to suggest that I was somehow deficient because I wanted more information before committing. Fortunately I sought more information and found that things weren’t as you portrayed them.
The question still remains as to why you would press me to commit to your hunch and verbiage before I had done my own investigation.
I suspect that question will join the growing list of the unanswered.
Your care about “ facts and truth” would be more evident if you had actually provided the facts and truth of this situation. Or maybe waited to take such a specific position until you had all the facts and truth.
Right now, your position is essentially, I’m right and all the people who are involved are lying. Which, while theoretically possible, sounds paranoid.
"Personally, given what we know of this administration and their constant attacks on facts, science and truth, the first scenario seems most likely to me, with some chance that it could be the second/misunderstanding scenario."
Given what you know? You don't know jack. You simply like to believe the worst about your president and assume all attacks from any source whatsoever are true, because you hate.
What we know is that this media is clearly in the tank for the Democratic Party. They slant everything in their leftist favor. This is verified often and their own members confirm their bias by admitting they are vastly Dem voters. So "attacks" by Trump against the media is justified and long overdue by someone in authority. But don't worry, Danny. Some of us are objective enough to question both sides.
As to your suggestion that I'm up for a ban, that, too is the result of your own biases due to your moral corruption. My position is as follows: if certain words are used to persuade toward an ideology...as the listed words are so often used... rather than to objectively inform, especially where it concerns medical information, then they should not be used when more appropriately accurate words exist to replace them.
You clearly did't read any of my links, or you would have had some semblance of an understanding of this concept and why this practice isn't an automatic indication of some Orwellian evil...as you so clearly prefer to believe. For example, from a medical standpoint, there simply isn't any such thing as a "transgendered" person. One is either male or female and scientific entities have no business dealing in fantasies...not where public health is concerned. If this "report" is in any way true, I can't see any other explanation for why Trump would do so. I doubt you could come up with a rational reason why that isn't more likely than what I've offered.
Art, great point. I’d certainly be interested in seeing the objective irrefutable proof that allows Dan to “know” with certainty those things he claims to “know”. I suspect that the chances of seeing that objective irrefutable proof are bout the same as that he’ll answer the 4 questions hanging at the end of a thread at my blog. Or even those asked in this thread.
Interesting that you’ve subtly changed your tune.
That you fail to understand is not an indication that I've changed my tune. OF COURSE, it was a news report of what someone in the CDC reported happened. Of course, there is always the chance for more news on the topic, that the original report was lacking all the information. That's always a possibility.
The point was that HERE IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING IN THE NEWS. This bit of news sounds consistent with the attacks on facts and the media from this administration, so it is believable. GIVEN the news, can we all agree that it is bad, it is wrong to ban words, especially based on petty partisan stupidity, which is what appeared to be happening.
The POINT that you all are failing to get or just don't care about is that can we all agree NOT to ban words like these for a science organization?
Instead of simply affirming the blindingly obvious, you, Craig, want to split hairs and be wishy washy and milquetoast in your response. And you, Marshall, actually appear to support the notion of banning/limiting words for petty partisan reasons.
And how do I "know" that this administration is waging a war on facts? By the sheer volume of false claims it makes. One report had him averaging out at "an astonishing nine claims a day..." in the past 35 days and 5.5 false claims a day this year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/14/president-trump-has-made-1628-false-or-misleading-claims-over-298-days/?utm_term=.753bcc1063a1
This is not normal.
We MUST not normalize this level of an attack on facts and on the media, not to mention all the other garbage that comes along with this most disturbing of all presidencies. Republicans and conservatives acknowledge this all over the place, this isn't a partisan attack on Trump. It's all decent people, rational people, moral people bonding together to say, "This is not normal."
And yes, Marshall, even though you continue to cite the most inane and inept of articles, I did read them. They remain inane and inept.
Why yes, how strange it is to try to be reasonably precise when descending things, what a horrible thing to do. It’s so much better to state things as facts, then have to walk those things back when more accurate information comes out. My what an amazing fantasy world you live in where being as precise as possible is something to be avoided.
I realize that when it comes to your TDS things like nuance and reason sometimes get trampled in the rush to get out in front of the next big scandal, then the scandal proves to be nothing and you’re left to try to salvage as much of your angry rant as possible.
I’m sorry that taking the time to look at multiple angles angers you so, Im sorry that I can’t just jump headlong into whatever perceived outrage has your panties in a wad this week.
Perhaps you should take a deep breath and ponder the good news. That there are glad tidings of great resistance. Perhaps you could bask in resisting that which helped Linus overcome his need for his blanket.
Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given. Of the increase of His government and His peace there shall be no end. Embrace the peace that spreads where Christ rules.
I'm asking a simple question. It's simple for anyone who is rational and moral. It's a question of principles.
Do you agree that one should not ban the use of words like vulnerable and science-based for a science organization?
Do you or do you not agree with that principle?
For moral, rational people, this isn't difficult.
And yes, Jesus came demonstrating for us a holy life that included the joy and grace of resisting injustice. I would hope that we could agree with that notion and that fellow Christians would not mock the notion of standing against injustice.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour...
God hath put down the mighty from their seat: and hath exalted the humble and meek.
God hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
God remembering his mercy hath helpen his servant [the oppressed people of] Israel...
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end.
Amen.
Stupid Mary, mother of God... she clearly had a hatred of the rich and powerful. Probably a communist!
Too bad she couldn't cheer up and embrace the joy of American Christmas!
1. It’s clear that no one did ban those words, so to cling to this “point” is just absurd. But, in the abstract, non real, fantasy world I would say that in most cases it would br a mistake to issue a general ban on those words.
2. Yes, I agree with that as an abstract theoretical “principle”.
The problem you have is that your original presentation of this situation, was something else entirely.
Ahhhh, your eisegetical skills are as sharp as ever. Your conflation of some random saying you plucked from the internet seems more a sign of desperation than anything else.
Resist to the world, the LORD has come.
Jesus must have been so busy resisting and protesting the lot of the poor and oppressed that He barely had time to do anything else.
So, here we are, 47 comments later, and FINALLY, you can grudgingly agree that banning words as has been reported by people within the CDC, is wrong, at least in principle.
As to the rest, mock Jesus and Mary if you wish. I take their protests and resistance seriously.
What’s even more amazing is that you’ve ignored the fact that I said virtually the same thing three days ago, and you apparently paid no attention to it.
I’m not mocking Jesus or Mary, I’m mocking you and your eisegesis. Your absurd assertion that true joy comes from resistance, not firm God.
And the not answering thing, I’m definitely mocking that.
Yes, that's what I said, Craig. True joy can't possibly come from God. That is LITERALLY what I said...
May I suggest a remedial English class, sir? You need some assistance.
Dan
Your the one promulgating the idea that resistance equals joy, not me. Your the one promulgating the idea that Jesus’ purpose was political resistance and that He took joy from resisting.
Except He didn’t resist, He submitted, and through His submission He achieved victory.
Reading comprehension test:
1. I never said that true joy doesn't come from God. Never. Do you understand this?
2. There IS joy found in resisting oppression.
Do you disagree?
3. Jesus throwing out the moneychangers was almost certainly taken as an act of rebellion/resistance.
Do you understand this?
4. I never said Jesus' purpose was political resistance, merely noted the reality that he did.
Do you understand this?
When you're finished with the test, put your pencil down and remain quiet.
Dan
1. Hyperbole
2. Really?
3. Really? Not according to the text. I understand you’re making a claim, not that you claim is reality.
4. If you say so.
Although I was using the while joy thing as hyperbole, I’d make the argument that the only source of joy is in God. I’d suggest that joy found elsewhere is more likely happiness than joy, and that joy found in anything but God is misplaced. But, that’s just me (and some others)
There are many wise people, King, Ghandi, Day, Wink... who would disagree with your human hunch that Jesus' life, model, teachings and death were not resistance. Indeed, non-violent direct action (resistance to oppression) sprung out of Jesus' teachings, at least in part.
Perhaps you're unaware of this line of thinking? Have you read any King, Yoder, Stassen, Wink, etc, on the topic?
Dan
Do you think there is no joy found in doing the work of God? I'd say yes, obviously, there is.
Do you think that fighting oppression is not the work of God? I think yes, obviously it is.
Disagree if you wish.
Dan
On my question 2 (by the way, if I were your teacher, you'd have failed you on your reading comprehension), you put a question mark. Do you question whether there is joy found in fighting oppression, or really, doing any good, Godly work?
This is astounding.
On your number 3 answer (?), you don't think the text, context and subtext does not clearly suggest that those who'd been oppressed by these "holy" thieves were not laughing in joy and glee at this action of resistance?
Dan
Dan
Yes Dan, there are people who disagree. You might note that I’m not suggesting that I’m infallible on this. You might also note, that the mere presence of disagreement doesn’t make me wrong.
I’m aware, and have read, I just don’t buy it. You do realize that it’s possible to reach a different conclusion from the few folks you’ve mentioned, don’t you?
So, your agreed with my premise that joy is found in God, excellent.
I think your simplistic notion doesn’t really do much more than provide an excuse for you to fight what you consider oppression and give it a veneer of god.
Re question 2, I was responding to your statement, which should have made the answer to your question moot. Your tactic of making an unproven, unsupported, statement as if it’s a claim of fact, then following it with a question that assumes the truth of the preceding statement isn’t particularly effective. It’s certainly not going to get the results you want.
Re question 3, no. I see nothing in the text, or context (since the subtext is subjective I’ll pass), that indicates any definitive reaction. What I do see is Jesus stating clearly and emphatically why He is doing what He did.
But your welcome to your hunches and opinions.
2. Yes. Really. I've experienced joy in resisting oppression myself. My community has experienced it. Others report it. It's not unusual, you know.
Joy is a subjective, unmeasurable emotion. Are you suggesting that those who experience it are mistaken? Lying?
You're wrong, Craig. It has been experienced in the real world.
I feel a bit sorry for anyone who hasn't had that chance to resist oppression and experience that joy.
Dan
Joy: a feeling of great happiness and comfort.
It is a fact that I and others have experienced this in the resistance to oppression and solidarity with/amongst the oppressed.
Are you suggesting that we have not? The fact is demonstrated in our witness. Where would you possibly find support against our claims? Are you suggesting you know better than we do what we've experienced??
Do you see the arrogance in this path? Do you understand how incredible your claim is?
That is, you're not saying, "I've never resisted oppression, but can't imagine that anyone would experience joy in doing so..." You're suggesting, it sounds like, that you are a better judge of what others experience (people you don't even know!) than they are!
Perhaps you recognize now that you've misunderstood something and want to walk back your responses?
Dan
I’m suggesting that you experienced some sort of emotional high when you protest, what that is I couldn’t say.
What I can say is that if you meant what you said about protest (once again the goalposts get moved slightly, from resistance to protest), that protest is something from god, then you seem to be agreeing with me that true joy comes from God.
I’m sure you’ll be appalled at this agreement and find some way to disagree, but if you meant what you write, then it seems you agree.
Re: there are people who disagree... I'd love to know, Why? Why do you (or anyone) think that joy can't be found in resisting oppression?
It sounds like you're not suggesting merely, "I don't think I would find joy in that work..." but that you're taking it further and denying that anyone could find joy thusly. Is that what you're saying? If so, on what possible basis?
Dan
I’m suggesting that true joy can’t be found outside of God.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that there isn’t some emotional payoff to resistance, I’m suggesting that joy goes deeper than a simple emotional response. I’m clearly speaking of a concept of joy from a biblical worldview.
You think "Bible joy" is different than regular joy? (Greek, character, I believe, which is translated Gladness or Rejoicing or Appreciative in English)? If so, why?
Dan
Greek, Chara. Stupid autocorrect.
Dan
Yes, I do. Too many instances where joy comes in suffering and is directly connected to God to believe that it’s a transitory emotion.
Even if I’m wrong, I see nothing in scripture that explicitly connects joy and resistance. Which, of course, is the point of the quote you offered.
Does something HAVE to be found in the Bible for you to think it is a rational conclusion? I don't have to find don't drink and drive in the bible to think the notion is blatantly obvious.
Dan
James, writing to the politically oppressed church, told them to count their trials as joy. Seems to be a direct connection to oppression and joy. And don't forget that the early church WAS a resistance movement. They resisted the political call to worship Caesar.
Again, not that we need to find a Bible verse to hold a position.
Dan
Not at all never said it did.
Yes, James didn’t say count your”resistance”as joy, but count your persecution as joy.
If by resist, you mean chose not to worship Caesar, then submitted to the punishment, I agree. If you mean organized a political resistance to a political oppression, then no. Further, presenting Caesar as a god to be worshipped was a religious act not a political act. Paul was a good citizen of Rome who used his political standing to witness throughout the empire.
Again, I never said that is necessary. Repeating the implication that I did doesn’t make it any more accurate.
Ultimately I’m suggesting that the “good tidings of great joy” and “of His government and His peace there shall be no end” is referring simply to political protest.
Especially what passes for political protest nowadays.
James isn't the only one who suggests that our suffering is reason for joy, but not for reasons of "resistance" to those sufferings, but because it allows us the opportunity to respond in a Christian manner for God's sake. I guess you could call that "resistance" if you really need to do so, but it seems a clear stretch to me...which is typical.
"Do you agree that one should not ban the use of words like vulnerable and science-based for a science organization?"
As Craig points out, it's a moot point given that it appears to not have happened. But even in the theoretical, it's too vague a question. The first response would be, "why would one?" Once that question is addressed, then we can determine whether or not moral, rational people would agree or disagree. This leads to a clear deception on Dan's part: whether or not he read my links.
Each of the links I posted addressing the words themselves specifically refers to the politicizing of those words. Thus, to pretend it is partisan to "ban" them is ignoring the partisan use of them...or pretending no such partisan motivation is behind how and when they are used. Each of the linked pieces clearly points out just how these words have been abused by partisan hacks seeking to move along their agenda...one is snarky, while the other is more serious, but each makes that case.
And of course I must reiterate that to use one word when a another word is a better choice for purposes of accuracy is indeed what an organization like the CDC should avoid. If the mission is to inform the public, then there is no room for partisanship and if the overriding authority deems words are misused for that purpose, they are acting responsibly and in the best interest of the public to "ban" any word at all.
As to who reads what, I haven't read much of Wink, aside from that which you've offered in support of some wacky premise, and I find him to be the perfect wacky guy for the purpose. He has, however, been cited by Robert Gagnon as a pro-homosexual authority who rejects the notion of a Scriptural argument in favor of homosexuality or SSM. (Just thought I'd throw that out there).
Conversely, I'm not the least bit convinced that you ever so much as skim what I present, given your weak responses to them, i. e. "inane and inept". Even if they are, an honorable man would provide some explanation for why he finds them to be so. You never do. Such a lazy and cowardly way to dismiss my offerings suggests either you didn't read them, or, and I think this might be even more likely, you're embarrassed by how it blows your position out of the water. I don't recall that I've ever settled for responding to your links in such a lazy, cowardly way. Go back and look at any place you've presented an opinion by Wink and you'll see that's true.
Marshall, there's nothing there to respond to. They don't offer a single substantive thought to respond to. It's as if someone said, "I think we should ban Muslims cuz Muslims are bad..." It's just a stupid suggestion, based on nothing but biases and ignorance.
Give me something substantive and I'll respond to it.
But that's not likely, given your history.
So, to sum up:
I offered a post suggesting that we should not tell scientists that they should ban words like science-based or vulnerable. The suggestion is evil.
I used quotes from heroes of liberty like King and Walker, who said that joy can be found in resistance.
Instead of commenting on the topic, you two seized on these quotes and Craig seized on the quote from Walker, which was about resisting oppression, in keeping with the point of the post.
Craig commented off topic, criticizing those who say that joy can be found outside of God.
No one had said that.
Again, literally, no one had said that. I hadn't said that and that was not the point of the post. Walker didn't say that in the quote. Craig apparently misunderstood the point or just chose the opportunity to criticize no one here, but some vague "they" who suggest that joy doesn't come from God.
Okay, whatever.
I later pointed out on this thread that Joy is Happiness and of course, some people find joy in fighting oppression by resisting it. Who would possibly argue this point?!
Craig equivocated saying that maybe some vague "high" is found in standing against oppression, but not "real" joy, like the Bible talks about.
Dan pointed out that the word translated Joy in the Bible merely means Glad or Rejoicing, that there is no special "magic god-joy" being referred to in the Bible.
Craig said, whatever.
Dan, back on point, reminded everyone that the point is that it's wrong to try to tell scientists to not use science based or vulnerable, just on principle, which is the point of the post.
Craig and Marshall dither that they think that the Trump administration didn't do this. Which is to say, they're saying that the CDC flunkees and the news media were making up the charge and that they trust the Trump administration.
Dan opined that such a ban is consistent with the attack on facts and honesty that we've seen with the Trump administration and while it's possible there was some misunderstanding, it's more likely that the "ban" happened but they had to back down when they were caught, because it's so obviously wrong.
Dither on, or agree, as you are wont.
Well, the story has morphed from “ has banned” to, “well it not really a ban”, back “tell scientists” in the course of a few comments. We’ve morphed from “asanine” to “evil” and all of this with no proof that anything actually happened.
But, it’s not like people can’t read the actual comments instead of your self serving monologue. And still lacking in the answering questions department.
The story is open and what happened exactly isn't known. The latest from Snopes...
In a statement emailed to Snopes, (CDC director) Fitzgerald suggested that a staff miscommunication had occurred.
"I understand that confusion arose from a staff-level discussion at a routine meeting about how to present CDC’s budget. It was never intended as overall guidance for how we describe and conduct CDC’s work..."
Maybe there was a miscommunication. Maybe it was as initially reported and the bosses have backed down. At this point, we don't know. What we DO know is that, at least now (post report) it's not a ban, and that's a good thing, because
AND HERE IS THE POINT OF THIS POST...
It would be wrong to ban these words in this manner. Because banning these words for partisan reasons would be asinine and wrong. Trying to limit scientists from doing their job for partisan political reasons is wrong.
So again, aside from and despite the fact that my links were far more substantive than you have the courage or honesty to admit, you seem hell bent on presuming there WAS some effort to ban these words, regardless of any words to the contrary by Fitzgerald. But while that is now most difficult to argue and pin on Trump, you've shifted to seeking agreement on YOUR opinion that such a ban would automatically be partisan motivated only and thus evil. Well, sure. IF it was politically motivated, I would indeed agree that such a mandate would be, at the least questionable on its face, though much more detail would be required before a label of "evil" could be appropriately attached.
At the same time, and again referencing the clear and obvious substance of my links that you couldn't possibly have read (given your inane and inept responses), you don't seem the least bit concerned about poltical motivations for using any of the words on the list, or more specifically, the manner in which the words are or might be used. Are we to assume that would be OK with you?
The problem with having an administration that lies and attacks facts in such an historically unprecedented manner is that you never know when to trust them. If you're not partisan and rational, you HAVE to treat any claims made by such an organization as a potential false claim.
~Dan
I agree that people or organizations that frequently lie, shade the truth, rearrange things to their benefit or reframe narratives are difficult to trust. However there is a difference between healthy skepticism and outright antagonism.
When we have a man who is, on the face of it, as genuinely bad as Trump seems - from the womanizing, sexism, greed, abuse of power, mistreatment of people beneath him and the lies, lies, lies - who lies at these historic levels, I think antagonism is due.
I have healthy skepticism for every politician, from Clinton to Obama to Reagan and Bushes.
This is different.
This is not normal and we can't treat it as such.
Our nation is in peril.
Or at least that's what many people of good faith across the political spectrum see in this unprecedentedly bad president.
"None of this is normal..."
Declaring that he must answer to his children and grandchildren, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake said he could not “stay silent” about Donald Trump’s “reckless, outrageous and undignified behaviour” — or about his party colleagues’ “complicity” in supporting a president who is a threat to America’s values and future...
...“We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country,” he said. “The personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions; the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/10/24/retiring-gop-sen-jeff-flake-slams-trump-for-disregarding-truth-and-decency.html
Because there are no personal attacks ON Trump, no personal attacks ON Bush, It's all one sided right?
Not all criticisms are created equal. Donald Trump demonstrably tells false claims at an incredible rate. Five to eight lives a day! This is disturbing.
To call Trump a liar, then, is not an attack... it is an assessment of a serious, legitimate concern.
On the other hand, to call Obama a murderer because of how he met handled Benghazi, for instance, is an attack... it's not a charge based on reality.
Do you agree that not all attacks are created equal?
Dan
Clearly not. But, I have to note your unwillingness to acknowledge that these attacks are coming from both sides, and your attempt to justify the attacks on Trump.
? WTF? It's a justified "attack" if the man's lying five times a day, right? In fact, it's not an attack, it's righteously holding someone accountable, right?
Dan
Perhaps if you could point out where you feel like Trump has been attacked...? Because calling out his abusive sexism, his lecherous behavior around teenage girls, his lies, his fanning of racism or his support of racists... His greed, his taking advantage of underlings, his attacks on free press, his etc, etc... These aren't attacks.
Dan
"his fanning of racism or his support of racists"...qualifies as attacks, because too many black people, including those who work for him, tell another story.
"His attacks on the free press" is an attack on him without looking at exactly what his "attacks" are and whether or not they are legitimate criticisms. Many people have a problem with the blatantly left-leaning press, and with good reason.
And simply, your constant focus on his lying, as if what he says is worse than what Obama, Clinton and the entire Democratic Party do as a matter of party policy is hypocrisy of a new degree. We're seeing it now with the pants wetting over the tax bill, as if the Dems have any clue about how best to address the tax code, or rather, if they have the honesty to do more than simply manipulate it for their own gain.
With all this whining about Trump and the things he says, why not point out actual harm he has caused as president? Could it be that you can't make an honest case that his "lies" are truly putting us in the peril you need to believe they do? While I'm always waiting for the next shoe to drop, the guy's been better than I expected, certainly better than YOU expected or have the integrity to admit or even try to see and I think that gets your goat more than anything.
By the way, this "five times per day" is crap if you're counting the same "lie" spoken more than once. It's just partisan hackery to deal in such rhetoric. We've been harmed more by Obama's lies so far.
Don't forget how much YOU lie...which is ongoing so long as your continue to perpetuate your heresies.
I’d suggest that the pointing out of specific issues (with correction), is a rational and constructive approach. Simply throwing out blanket pejorative labels is an attack.
Saying “this is wrong because... “ is helpful, “Trump is an evil liar”, isn’t.
But it's so much easier.
And we did that. We said, "Hey, that man just made a false claim... and there, did it again! That's wrong. We can't have leaders that make false claims, especially blatant ones like these..." Your side didn't care.
"Hey, that man is mocking the disabled. That is wrong because, of course, you shouldn't mock the disabled." Your side didn't care.
We said, "Hey, that man just admitted to ogling and sexualizing teenaged girls. That's wrong because TEENAGED GIRLS." Your side didn't care.
We said, "Hey, that man just made more false claims. Clearly false claims. And he attacked the media falsely and with no support saying that they're 'FAKE NEWS.' This is wrong, it undermines respect for facts and truth." Your side didn't care.
We said, "Hey, that man just said that we should ban people (even temporarily) based upon their religion. That is wrong and against our constitution." Your side didn't care.
We said, "Hey, that many just made more false claims. Clearly false claims. Stupidly false claims. This undermines facts and reality and respect for the office." Your side didn't care.
Marshall STILL doesn't give a damned about the demonstrable fact that he makes on average FIVE FALSE CLAIMS A DAY." What difference does it make if it's a repeated false claim that has already been pointed out as being false? That's even worse! It undermines respect for facts and reality and undermines the respect for gov't. And when he makes false claims about the press, it undermines respect for the notion of a free press. Strong men dictators do this all the time. This is not normal in a free republic. It is wrong.
Your side, as evidenced by Marshall, just doesn't care.
So, when the man your side put in office is actively undermining basic facts, truth and decency and your side continually doesn't care, perhaps you can understand when people like GOP Flake, So Baptist Russell Moore and all reasonable and honest people get a little upset.
This is not normal. It's not just "liberals" that are saying this.
A great change needs to come before he ruins our free republic.
Look, if a president were to lead us into annexing and enslaving an oil rich nation, raping it's people and land of all resources and, in the process, make every American citizen a millionaire, I would still oppose it, of course, because it's wrong. Period.
I don't think for one minute that we're doing better primarily because of Trump, but even if we were, I'd oppose his wrongdoings.
There was a time when many conservatives would have joined us in opposing wrong.
Dan
Apparently, posting comments that offer a rational different take from yours is doing wrong as well.
Just points out how correct I was when I pointed out the hypocrisy of you limiting people’s comments was right on target.
I guess that whole objective evidence thing scares you when it doesn’t back up your prejudices.
Of course, we do oppose wrong, we just don’t limit the wrong we oppose to those of a different political philosophy. We are also pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes there are more productive rational approaches than simply screeching pejoratives about those we dislike.
"And we did that. We said, "Hey, that man just made a false claim... and there, did it again! That's wrong. We can't have leaders that make false claims, especially blatant ones like these..." Your side didn't care."
If by saying "your side didn't care" you mean, "your side elected him anyway", then you're a hypocrite of the worst kind.
""Hey, that man is mocking the disabled. That is wrong because, of course, you shouldn't mock the disabled." Your side didn't care."
Wow! Talk about adding up the repeats to justify that "five times a day" hypocrisy! The left continues with this...how many times have they said this so far?...when it is absolutely a lie. Trump did NOT mock the disabled, nor a specific disabled journalist's condition.
"We said, "Hey, that man just admitted to ogling and sexualizing teenaged girls. That's wrong because TEENAGED GIRLS." Your side didn't care."
Nonsense. We care just as much as you care about Joe Biden. Or do you? Haven't seen the wailing about Old Joe from YOU!
"We said, "Hey, that man just made more false claims. Clearly false claims. And he attacked the media falsely and with no support saying that they're 'FAKE NEWS.' This is wrong, it undermines respect for facts and truth." Your side didn't care."
See my link above about the disabled guy, and then apologize for your crap about Trump attacking the innocent media. They, like you, jump on the slightest perception of wrongdoing by Trump before getting all the facts. "Respect for facts and truth" my eye!
"We said, "Hey, that man just said that we should ban people (even temporarily) based upon their religion. That is wrong and against our constitution." Your side didn't care."
And the lies keep coming, as you try to paint Trump as the greatest liar of all time! He absolutely did NOT ban anyone on the basis of religion, as so many muslim-majority countries were not subject to the ban. The ban focused on countries that even Obama had cited as countries of concern. What's more, Obama restricted travel from Iraq, and Jimmy Carter had a similar restriction during his term. Like Trump, none were due to religious reasons, but for reasons of potential harm refugees/immigrants from those countries might pose. But you keep lying.
Oh, that whole Dan not answering questions thing. One set of questions he ran away from was regarding the false motion that there is a “Muslim ban”. Again it’s intere that Dan lies to protest Trump lying and has dodged the admission of election fraud in the AL senate election. I guess the ends (no matter what) justify the means in Dan world.
I wonder why we don’t hear anything from Dan when people in the media till stupid lies, when people in the media makes stupid racist comments, or when Democratic office holders tell stupid lies.
Like what?
For the record, I'm always opposed to lies and racism. Is there ANYONE on the left that is lying and fanning racist flames as regularly or anywhere near the rate of Trump?
No.
And I've not read any serious reports of election fraud in Alabama. Cite a source, please.
Dan
I apologize, apparently the guy admitting voter fraud, was lying. I missed the retraction.
But, the huffpo author throwing racist tweets, leftists trying to bribe senators, lies about the tax bill, lies about the Iran deal. Silence.
Marshall, you just don't understand reality, so there's not much hope in trying to address your confusion. One point, however. You cite this bit of bullshit...
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:
From 2005 until 2016, Trump occasionally mocked some individuals by shaking his arms with limp wrists and gaping his mouth.
At the VERY BEST (and truly, it's a nauseating lose/lose), you can say that Trump routinely mocks the disabled by "shaking his arms with limp wrists and gaping his mouth" as folk with CP and other ailments do. He employs this incredibly childish attack to demean his opponents, suggesting that they're as "stupid" or "ugly" or "ungainly" as the disabled, thereby mocking the disabled.
No, that's not the very best. This defense only makes it worse. That he routinely chooses the most childishly and grotesquely offensive means of trying to demean his opponents just means that he is hopelessly out of touch or hopelessly uncaring.
I'd ask you if you understand now, but I'm quite sure you don't.
Do you have friends with CP? Ask them how offensive Trump's behavior was. Ask them if it was directed towards disrespecting people with disabilities by using them as the butt of tasteless joke.
They know something you don't.
Craig, you haven't cited anything. You've thrown words out there. Words about what appear to be isolated incidents (if you're even accurately reporting them). I haven't read any of these so, amazingly, I haven't commented on them.
I tend not to talk about incidents I've never heard of. I'm curious, that way.
In doing a little searching, I found one incident where a Denver Post columnist said that he was uncomfortable with a Japanese winning the Indy 500 on Memorial Day. He was criticized and then apologized...
On Monday, the Denver Post fired Frei and apologized for his “disrespectful and unacceptable tweet.”
It was stupid. Are you seriously suggesting that THIS is comparable to Trump's repeat fanning of racist flames, of emboldening the KKK, skinheads and Nazis?
You can't seriously think that. Or that this reporter that I'm guessing the vast majority of the US has never heard of is in any way comparable to Trump?
No, I’m talking about the hoffpo writer who threw out the racist tweet after the event yesterday. The fact that you “don’t hear” about things that happen, doesn’t mean they don’t happen, it’s just coincidence that you only hear about the stuff that helps your side of things.
“The overwhelming support for Trump heralds the religious right coming full circle to embrace its roots in racism,” says Randall Balmer, a historian of American religion at Dartmouth College. “The breakthrough of the 2016 election lies in the fact that the religious right, in its support for a thrice-married, self-confessed sexual predator, finally dispensed with the fiction that it was concerned about abortion or ‘family values...’ ”
By openly embracing the racism of the alt-right, Trump effectively played to the religious right’s own roots in white supremacy. Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and the alt-right’s most visible spokesman, argued during the campaign that GOP voters aren’t really motivated by Christian values, as they profess, but rather by deep racial anxieties. “Trump has shown the hand of the GOP,” Spencer told me in September. “The GOP is a white person’s populist party...”
Before the election, Griffin worried that white evangelicals would find his “Southern nationalist” views problematic. But Trump’s decisive victory over Russell Moore reassured him. “It seems like evangelicals really didn’t follow Moore’s lead at all,” Griffin says. “All these pastors and whatnot went in there and said Trump’s a racist, a bigot, and a fascist and all this, and their followers didn’t listen to them...”
For alt-right Christians, Russell Moore is the embodiment of where the religious right went wrong—by refusing to openly embrace racism. Throughout his youth, Griffin says, he felt alienated by Christians like Moore who were intent on “condemning racism.” He was only drawn back into Christianity when he married the daughter of Gordon Baum, a far-right Lutheran leader who co-founded the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a virulently racist group.” Griffin says he joined the CCC, as well as the white nationalist League of the South, because both groups embody the elements he views as integral to his faith: They are “pro-white, pro-Christian, pro-South.”
Moore has become a popular target among alt-right Christians. The white supremacist and popular alt-right radio show host James Edwards, himself a Southern Baptist, regularly disparages Moore on his program, calling him a “cuck-Christian.”
In a recent post, Strickland had argued that white Southerners “have faced a widespread and determined assault on our heritage, symbols, monuments, graves, and identity by secular and governmental forces,” and likened such supposed attacks to what Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf: that Germans faced “cultural extermination and ethnic cleansing.” Edwards seconded that analysis, declaring the Confederate flag “a Christian flag,” and arguing that to attack it “is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of Lord Jesus Christ in his divine role in Southern history, culture, and life.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/140961/amazing-disgrace-donald-trump-hijacked-religious-right
Now excuse me, while I go vomit a bit.
So, CITE YOUR SOURCE, Craig. I can't read about what I haven't read about and can't find.
Are you talking about this?
“What a shocker… there’s ONE black person there and sure enough they have him standing right next to the mic like a manipulated prop."
? That's racist? Are you familiar with the definition of racism, Craig? Where in that quote is he suggesting that whites are better than blacks?
Or are you talking about something else?
Again, cite your source or just shut up and quit with the vague inanities.
Even if you are able to find one small time reporter who makes one perhaps less than flattering comment, you can't serious suggest that I should be taking the time to find those in order to speak out against Trump's courting of and support for racists (and again, this is according to many conservatives)?
Here's a hint: I don't generally go around talking about what some no-name reporter or blogger - left or right - who has made a vaguely uncomplimentary comment towards one black person. Damn. Do you know how much time that would take?
Now, show me that a Biden or a Clinton has lent aid and comfort to racists or called Latinos rapists and criminals or otherwise actually done some serious racism flaming and I'll be glad to denounce it, but be serious.
Tell me true, Craig: Russell Moore and other conservatives recognize that Trump has been encouraging racists... they note that racists and Nazis are finding, in Trump, a hero and someone who encourages them. THEY have condemned him for that.
Do you? Do you recognize what these other conservatives recognize... that Trump is either overtly racist or at least encouraging of racists?
Please answer directly and clearly. If you think NO, say no and be a man about it. No vague, milquetoast "meh" sorts of answers.
Craig, this post from you just appeared in my email:
"What not able to google it? There’s the Hoff post writer with the racist tweets. The increasing appearance of P-BO lying about the Iran deal. There’s multiple democrats lying about the tax law. But silence from Dan. "
But it's not here on this page. I'm not deleting it, it's just not showing up. I don't know why.
And NOW, I will issue you a warning: No more vague and un-cited claims of lies and racism. IF someone has done something, CITE IT. If you don't cite it, don't comment on it.
I don't read Breitbart (which is where your silly "prop" reference was found) or other hate- and nonsense-rags. If it's not in the news proper, I likely haven't read it.
Any further comments about claims without supporting citation will be deleted.
With one caveat: IF you are talking about something that is common knowledge, covered by the media, no citation needed. For instance, EVERYONE who is not an idiot knows that Trump lies at an incredible rate. That's common knowledge and doesn't really need a citation. We hear the false claims every day and we're not idiots. So, anything obvious, like that, no need to cite a source.
"Marshall STILL doesn't give a damned about the demonstrable fact that he makes on average FIVE FALSE CLAIMS A DAY." What difference does it make if it's a repeated false claim that has already been pointed out as being false? That's even worse!"
"Demonstrable"? Doubtful at best. Just how can it be demonstrated? It can only be speculated based on subjective criteria of Trump haters like you.
Repeated false claims makes a helluva lot of difference. One lie repeated a billion times is still one lie. But far worse is the lie itself. One can easily dismiss most of what you need to believe is horrible falsehoods, but are merely boasting, exaggerations and insignificant utterances. I can handle them far easier than the types of lies Obama told and those of Hillary and those of Bernie Sanders...and those of your own. Those lies are and have been far more detrimental to the country than any Trump's told thus far, most of which are simple self-promotions. Yeah, I'd prefer he didn't. But I ain't gonna wet my pants over them, knowing the type of ego he has. You can falsely pretend they're meaningful, but until you can demonstrate that they are, you're lying yourself.
To say that we don't care is just more lying on your part. We simply deal in more important things.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/here-they-are-barack-obamas-five-biggest-lies-can-you-guess-them-video/
Above is just one article about Obama's 5 biggest lies. Note, however, that the author cites how many times he's said them. By your logic, that's over 90 lies. But then, since 1,036 insurance plans covered abortion, that amounts to another 1036 lies. I can provide other articles that speak of other proven lies of Obama, and if we go ahead and count how many times he's said each one, he's clearly quite the liar himself. He's still doing it by now claiming credit for all the good economic news over the 1st year of the Trump administration. Very Trump-like, in fact. I await your post about his lying. Without a doubt, his lies have been far worse and had greater negative impact than any Trump has told thus far. Good gosh, he conned half the nation, many of whom actually believe he was a great president!
Good GOSH, Dan! Can you be more hateful?? To pretend that Trump is offending people with CP because YOU insist his antics are mimicking them is evidence of a serious problem in YOU, not Trump. I'd ask people with CP, "What do you think of Dan insisting that you look like Trump when he's actually acting out what a person does when trying to back peddle?" Which is a more accurate description than to say he's mocking the disabled. Unless you can prove he's purposely trying to do what you say he's doing, you're just lying again.
To cite people who also hate Trump does not validate your allegations about him. It proves nothing. To cite a racist's opinion does even less for your position, unless you value the opinion of racists.
As far as fanning the flames of racism, Obama. along with Eric Holder, did much to widen the divide in our country. Trump is the result as American is tired of being told by racists that it is a racist nation. And then there's Uncle Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Obama's own racism is blatantly obvious, and even his wife has gotten into the act. This doesn't even take into account all the leftist racists that are held up as champions of the black community (Sharpton, Jackson, etc) who make their living by keeping those flames fanned. You've got a lot of nerve.
Craig, I politely requested that you provide links. I told you that if you responded without links with these empty, unsupported charges, the comment would be deleted.
You did not provide links, just more baseless, unsupported charges. I did what I promised to do, being a man of my word.
Just so you understand.
Marshall, get help. Don't comment here further until you find a person or family member of someone with CP (or similar condition) and talk to them. Until such time, you are operating and making comments out of a place of ignorance. Ignorant comments aren't helpful.
Inform yourself.
Just because YOU WANT TO BELIEVE that he wasn't insulting to people with disabilities does not make it true.
See the difference?
Don't be a douche.
Being a douche is assuming someone is thoughtlessly seeking to mimic the disabled just to push your hateful narrative. And as we see with the young of your tribe of leftists, there is nothing that someone won't regard as offensive because you and yours require victims of non-existent dangers in order to posture yourselves as moral superiors. You specifically are guilty of this every time you say "Don't you realize how it sounds?" The fact is that you demand that what you don't like to hear be regarded as slights in order to deflect from what you don't like to hear and abdicate your obligation to respond like an adult.
And were I to encounter ANYONE who takes offense at such things, I'd tell them to stop being such big babies, get over it and spend time on that which is more constructive. Don't accuse without proof of intent just because you hate...be it Trump or anyone else.
You're being a douche. Stop it. You SOUND like a douche because you're defending the indefensible.
Conservative Christians like you are such pansies and wimps, and can't take it when people challenge you on your ugly as hell stupidity. Men like you are the ones who wear women's panties and cry like a baby when you have to take them off. You beat up on the weak and defenseless because you, yourselves are impotent and angry that you're so stupid and powerless.
Don't be a baby. Grow up. Act like a man, not a bedwetting bully.
Damn, conservative Christians like you truly are snowflakes who can't merit the tiny bit of self restraint to be basic decent human beings. Your sort of behavior nauseates me. Get lost.
Or, in roughly the words of our savior, Depart from here, for God never knew you. You attack the defenseless and defend the oppressors. That's sick as hell.
"Conservative Christians like you are such pansies and wimps, and can't take it when people challenge you on your ugly as hell stupidity."
There's nothing wimpy about expecting more than mere dismissals, rejections and ignoring of arguments made. That's easy, and any wimpy pansy can do that...as you demonstrate with alarming regularity. If you think my opinions, positions and comments reflect genuine "ugly as hell stupidity", then man up and explain how it is stupid rather than merely saying so. I have no problem exposing YOUR stupidity, and have always provided far more than merely saying so.
"You beat up on the weak and defenseless..."
A lie. Feel free to prove it's true any time you think you actually can. Which weak and defenseless group have I beaten up...the unborn? No...that's you. C'mon, Dan. Bring it. I'm right here waiting.
"You attack the defenseless and defend the oppressors"
Never once. But you certainly lie about me doing so. As I insist, I merely reject your accusations and your false portrayal of people you hate. I'm not beyond criticizing people like Trump for that which he's actually done wrong. Not at all. I'm simply attacking YOUR hateful attempts to paint him as worse than he is, simply because he had the audacity of attracting enough voters to win the election. None of your socialist options could do that and it pisses you off. Boo-hoo. Talk about wetting one's panties!
then man up and explain how it is stupid
I've tried. You don't understand. I can explain things TO you but I can't understand FOR you.
Craig, if you truly want to comment here without manning up and providing links as politely requested, you can answer this question:
Do you recognize the reality that Trump's behavior towards the disabled man WAS mocking the disabled in a disgusting and bully-child-ish manner?
Otherwise, no comments until you provide links to support your claims.
Dan
Craig commented, "Once again, my comment disappears." It didn't disappear. I deleted it. I requested that before you comment on anything else, you support your claims with a link/links and to keep you honest/pressure you to do it, I said that I would delete any comments that come in before, UNTIL you support your claim with a link or back off.
I wouldn't normally do this sort of thing but in my experiences with at least some conservative bloggers here, I've found that, without any pressure of this sort, I rarely get straight answers and supporting documentation. Even WITH this sort of pressure, I rarely get straight answers.
If conservative bloggers like Craig and Marshall would simply engage in respectful conversation and communication practices, I wouldn't be deleting ANY comments, except for the spam.
Just to be clear.
"I've tried. You don't understand. I can explain things TO you but I can't understand FOR you."
Another lie. You simply label my comments and links in a disparaging manner without any actual, substantive counter. I'll concede that there was a time when you tried, and failing to do so in a manner that does not provoke more questions, critiques and objections, you've bailed. Now you go right to bailing out.
"Craig, if you truly want to comment here without manning up and providing links as politely requested..."
What's the point? You don't respond to them, you just dismiss them as "inane and inept" or something similarly lazy.
"Do you recognize the reality that Trump's behavior towards the disabled man WAS mocking the disabled in a disgusting and bully-child-ish manner?"
And here you prove the truth of my last sentence. I just provided a link that speaks to Trump's gestures as NOT related to the journalist's disability or the disabled in general. By your logic, you do the same in referring to my arguments as "stupid". You're mocking low IQ people. Again, you want Trump to be the hellspawn son of Satan you need him to be.
I just provided a link that speaks to Trump's gestures as NOT related to the journalist's disability or the disabled in general.
But you didn't. You may THINK that's what is demonstrated at the link, but you're mistaken.
Again, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Art, Dan said it, I believe it, that settles it.
That’s just how it is from here on out.
Oh, once again; it’s wrong, misguided, childish, foolish, ignorant, mean, nasty, evil, and poor manners for Trump to mock the disabled.
Craig, I'm leaving your comment here so you can see that you did NOT ANSWER the question I asked you to answer. Here it is again:
Do you recognize the reality that Trump's behavior towards the disabled man WAS mocking the disabled in a disgusting and bully-child-ish manner?
DO YOU RECOGNIZE that this is what Trump did in the event we're speaking of? I'm not talking about it generally being wrong to mock the disabled. We're talking about a specific time that Trump did it. Your answer is vague and unclear. Are you agreeing that this is what Trump did and it is wrong? OR are you merely saying it WOULD be wrong for Trump to do this?
Please answer clearly and directly.
Marshall, here is what your link "in defense" of Trump mocking the disabled says...
From 2005 until 2016, Trump occasionally mocked some individuals by shaking his arms with limp wrists and gaping his mouth. Consider ten examples: he did this to make fun of himself, a bank president, Marco Rubio, Serge Kovaleski, The Washington Post, a U.S. Army General, George Stephanopoulos, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Donna Brazile. Reporters and pundits did not know (or care) that this was a common way in which Trump mocks some individuals
Now, what you are not understanding, but nearly everyone else does understand (waiting to see if Craig does) is that it "mocks" people when he does that because it compares that person to a person with spasticity, a condition that occurs with CP and other conditions that causes those hand and body movements. The point being made by those who childishly employ this approach is, "If you have spasticity, you are like people with CP, which is to say, you're stupid and clumsy..." THAT is why it is considered to be mocking the person being attacked, and THAT is why it is, in fact, mocking the disabled.
Now, I've explained it clearly. Whether or not you understand it remains to be seen. But your inability to understand it does not mean that it didn't happen.
Yes, it is wrong and evil and nasty and bullying and unkind and childish every and any specific time he did it.
Is bullying always wrong?
Every time he did WHAT?
Do you know what specific event we're talking about? The reporter that Trump mocked?
Do you recognize that it IS mocking the disabled to do those movements?
You're not being clear, Craig.
But if you're saying, Yes, Trump was mocking the disabled by his motions, would you explain it to Marshall, since he doesn't understand it coming from me?
And yes, bullying is always wrong. Especially when we're talking about a stronger person bullying a weaker one. I suppose a case could be made that if one were to do a bullying type technique TO a bully, by way of an object lesson to demonstrate what is wrong with bullying, it would serve some purpose. But in general, yes, bullying is always wrong.
Every time he engaged in the behavior you’ve harped on ad nauseoum. You’re just desperate to try to invoke your new deleting “rule”, and attempt to dodge your earlier lies, it’s kind of cute.
So, if a bunch of politically correct “inclusive” leftists bullied someone into suicide for allegedly “homophobic” behavior you would agree that they were wrong to do so and culpable in the death?
No, I won’t explain that Trump was evilly and cruelly mocking the disabled in the specific instances referenced earlier. I’m I’m not going to spoon feed you news, I’m not going to do that for you either. You’re a big boy and should be able to do things for yourself now.
So then, why not tell Marshall that he is wrong?
Because I’m not your lackey. If you’re not adult enough to adequately express your opinions, I see no reason for me to do it for you.
I should look up and find support for YOUR argument? That's not how arguments are made.
Dan
Just leads credence to the problem of your side not taking a stand against the infidels in your own camp.
But Marshall, how about it? Will you recognize that both liberals AND conservatives recognize Trump was mocking the disabled?
Dan
Not at all. If your so sheltered in the news you consume just blame others for your failings.
I love the diversion by the way.
Re: "I see no reason for me to do it for you..."
Because conservatives like Marshall and Trump and his defenders are making conservatives look like monsters and you want to make it clear that the Marshall's and Trump's don't speak for conservatives? For the same reason that moderate Muslims need to speak out against extremist Muslims?
Really? You see no reason? Or you're just not thinking it's all that big of a deal to mock the disabled? Because that's what it sounds like when your side remains quiet in the face of these sorts of atrocities.
All it takes for evil to win is for good people to remain silent.
Dan
Dan
If you feel the need to read things into what I say, make unwarranted inferences, and impute motives to other people in order to fulfill some sort of inadequacy in your personality please go ahead.
I see no reason to carry your water. I see no reason to spoon feed you. I see no reason to make your arguments for you.
Again, in the real world in polite adult conversations, if YOU make a claim, then it is on YOU to support it. That's how it works.
I'm not reading anything into what you say. I'm asking questions (note the question marks). If I had a Trump, Moore or Marshall on my "side" in a conversation and they were mocking the disabled or longing for the good ol' days of the 1800s, I'd be quick to clarify that this person is not speaking for my sort of liberal.
I would speak out especially against that sort of evil from someone claiming to be a liberal because, as noted, all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to say nothing.
I guess that's just a stupid saying, to you?
No need to answer. Your silence speaks volumes.
So, fine, you won't denounce Marshall for denying Trump's atrocious behavior and you won't support your claims. Fine, you're done then, feel free to leave and come back if you want to engage in respectful adult conversation.
You’ve demonstrated how committed you are to respectful adult conversation.
My final thought for this thread. You make a huge assumption that since I am “silent” here, that I’m silent elsewhere. In general I’m not going to waste much effort here, just so you can force some agreement and try to get leverage. If I’m going to invest any serious effort, it’s where it might make a difference.
I have to note your silence on the bullying death, interesting that you aren’t up for much denouncing for your anti-homophobia crowd.
Again, and finally, cite your source. If you're not going to do any work for your arguments, don't expect me to.
~Dan
And, as a point of fact, you ARE silent. Here. Now. Where the attacks against the disabled are being denied. NOW is the precisely the time to speak up. To not speak out against it is to give aid and comfort to the abusers, the oppressors, those who mock the disabled.
Being committed to adult conversation means knowing when to call a racist a racist, an abuser an abuser, an oppressor an oppressor. And that time is when the words supporting abuse are being spoken.
If not now, when?
Again, no need to reply. Your silence says it all.
"But Marshall, how about it? Will you recognize that both liberals AND conservatives recognize Trump was mocking the disabled?"
I can't recognize that which isn't true. You WANT him to be mocking the disabled to validate your opinion of him. But you indict yourself by accusing him of something he didn't do. It is YOU who attaches to his antics a meaning that serves your hatefulness, but it is NOT mocking the disabled. It is, at worst, mocking a disabled man. Or Rubio. Or himself. But NOT the disabled and just because there might be some superficial similarity to the uncontrollable bodily manifestations of a disabled person's condition, does NOT mean that it is in any way meant to use an imitation of such convulsions as part of the mockery. I don't give a flying rat's ass WHO "recognizes" Trump was mocking the disabled. He wasn't, and that's the fact of the matter. Thus, you're a liar for continually perpetuating this lie in the face of explanations that debunk the charge. You're a hateful person who only gives lip service to "embracing grace" (as if that's a thing).
It comes down to something I've said from the beginning. Trump is more than capable of providing actual reasons for criticism without you hateful lefties inventing them. You can't make him worse than he is, but attempting to do so is lying. You're clearly no Christian.
So say it. Tell Craig he's wrong and a liar.
Dan
And Dan is refusing to answering clarifying questions, he demands I cite a source, yet he won’t clarify what he wants a source for.
Then he ends by trying to sow division and discord.
It’s all that grace flowing out of the resistance from this time of year.
Sow division and discord? Quite the opposite. You and I agree that Trump was mocking the disabled in the case we cite. That is unity, not division or discord.
And by citing a fellow conservative, I'm hoping that even Marshall can be reached and brought into the fold of agreement against mocking the disabled and opposition to Trump doing exactly that.
By confronting Marshall's hypocrisy in calling me a liar and giving you a pass for holding the same position, that Marshall might open his eyes and mind enough to think, "HM. Maybe I'm mistaken..." and repent and come into unity.
See how easy it is to be mistaken? Here, what you initially mistakenly thought was division was, in fact, the opposite. And now that I've clarified, it's yet another opportunity for unity! For you to say, "Oh! I get it!" and you and I can be in agreement.
Join me?
Dan
You give no reason for me to reconsider anything other than your insistence that I do. You cite "conservatives" you believe credible simply because you see them as supporting your position, ignoring all the many more who don't. While you certainly show your disrespect for me by thinking me stupid, I simply don't regard an opinion as logical, ratinal...or not...simply due to what side of the ideological divide the speaker inhabits. I also know far better than to trust your understanding of what anyone says.
Marshall, you do make a very good point that is a real concern for me and mine... I DO talk to you as if you're rather stupid and that CAN'T be good for communication.
I recognize this and strive to find the right way of addressing stupid or very bad ideas and actions (Trump's very problematic attacks on the free press or basic facts, his mocking of the disabled, his sexist, racist and un-American words and behaviors... And those who support and defend them, for instance) without treating those who express these ideas as if they are stupid or bad. It's difficult because, on the one hand, the mocking, lies, racism, etc are serious threats to real people - especially the poor, foreigner, the marginalized, etc that I am in community with - and on the other hand, still needing to find common ground even with people expressing awful or irrational ideas.
When Trump mocks the disabled and doesn't even seem to understand that's what he has done, how does one best correct that? Ideally, the voting public would recognize the atrocious, harmful behavior and such a person would have no support and, in that context, would hopefully begin to recognize where he's erred and then repent and apologize, becoming a better person. But what if a certain segment of voters, like Trump, don't even recognize the harm being done? How to defend and stand with the oppressed and, at the same time, reach out to the oppressors?
It's a difficult line to walk and I know I walk it imperfectly.
But, to return to my reasonable question: is Craig also wrong, stupid and/or a liar for thinking Trump mocked the disabled? Or is it not clear to you that Craig agrees with me on this point?
If the latter, Craig, do you see why I'm not clear on your answer, because it's been vague and indirect?
Dan
Nice job, deleting comments with answers you ask for.
What an incredible crock!! You actually expect anyone to believe that you anything less than contempt for ANYONE not fully aligned with your perverse and twisted worldview? Give me and the world a break!
"I DO talk to you as if you're rather stupid and that CAN'T be good for communication."
You're kidding, right? What could send a more clear communique than this arrogant condescension? The message is received loudly and clearly and is just one of the many you send that is based on nothing but your own self-satisfying notions of what you wish was true, but in reality isn't.
"I recognize this and strive to find the right way of addressing stupid or very bad ideas and actions..."
You might want to start with the basic request that has been left standing unattended for years...borrow a pair of testicles, as you clearly have none of your own, and demonstrate just what about an idea or action being discussed is actually stupid. What makes it stupid? What evidence can your provide to back up the claim that it is stupid? Citing others who agree with you is NOT evidence...except that others agree with you.
I'm constantly seeking out that which can provide evidence...links within links providing more evidence...to which you simply dismiss as inept and inane. How incredibly mature!!! "Your ideas are stupid and so are your links to support them. It's all stupid!" And then you pretend you've responded!
So now let's look at some of your rehashing of falsehoods from this last comment of yours...
"Trump's very problematic attacks on the free press..."
There's nothing "problematic" about calling out the press for their one-sided, totally biased coverage of Trump and Republicans in general, all of which is well known and well documented, such as here.
Yet at the same time, I recall absolutely NO such clamoring by you over the actions of one Barry Obama. His actions regarding the press are well known. Indeed, in this article, we can replace "McCain" with "Dan Trabue" for all you've done to lament Obama's real and far more insidious attacks on the press. Here's a list of specific instances. In the meantime, Trump has been far more media friendly than Obama.
There's the same false portrayal of Trump being racist. Herman Cain, Ben Carson and this registered Democrat all reject the notion that Trump is racist. Then there are these people. They all must be self-loathing. And of course a journalist from this bastion of conservatism schools you as to your abuse of the term "racism".
So there. So far, I've provided leftist sources among the links listed, so by YOUR logic, you MUST agree, right?
And anytime you care to expend the least bit of effort, how about something to support all this sobbing about how harmful Trump is and/or will be, or that which you think he's brought about as president so far?
I'll be glad to take these things one at a time, IF you can demonstrate that you're open-minded enough to get the point I'm making as we go.
For instance...
There's nothing "problematic" about calling out the press for their one-sided, totally biased coverage of Trump and Republicans in general
When Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, historians and scholars refer to Trump's attacks on the free press, we're speaking of his constant, "Fake news" claims he makes about almost EVERYTHING. We're talking about his attacks trying to undermine the credibility of the free press.
For instance, he says things like this all the time...
“Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia — so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met,” the president tweeted. “FAKE NEWS!”l
http://time.com/5060172/donald-trump-claimed-he-never-met-women-accusing-him-sexual-harassment-not-true/
Fact: Many women have accused Trump of misconduct. That is NOT FAKE NEWS.
Fact: These allegations HAVE happened in the real world. They are not fake news.
Fact: He does know at least some of these women.
Now, if this were a one time thing, it would be problematic, but not that big a deal. But he does this all the time. He just makes claims as if they were real, without trying to support them or, as just demonstrated, that are clearly false. IF women are making allegations against the president, then that is a real news story. The media would be derelict to not cover it.
Do you acknowledge the reality in this world that Trump IS falsely labeling many legitimate news stories as "fake..."?
Do you acknowledge that this hurts a free press?
Do you acknowledge that no one is saying that the press gets every story perfectly right, but there's a difference between saying "Hey, you made a mistake on that news story" and "These guys are liars..."?
The constant drumbeat against the free press is damaging to our nation.
The constant drumbeat of false claims - stupidly false claims - undermines the credibility of the gov't.
Here is the warning from the centrist Brookings Institute...
The Trump administration has declared war on the American press. It has also declared war on the judiciary, also on the Democratic leadership of Congress, sometimes even on the Republican leadership of Congress. But it is the press, or the media, to use its more fashionable moniker, that is the target of the president’s special fury.
The press, overall, he says, is a “disgrace,…false, horrible, fake reporting.” It is “out of control…fantastic.” Reporters are “very dishonest people,” their coverage he describes as “an outrage.” The New York Times—a “failing” newspaper. CNN—“terrible.” Buzzfeed—“Garbage.”
...Meaning it is not to be trusted. His chief of staff later emphasizing, yes, that is exactly what he means—“enemy of the American people.”
...It may be too dramatic to say that American democracy rests in the hands of a free, though at the moment uncertain, press. But I believe it does. I believe that the press, and therefore American democracy, will prevail in time.
How can I be so sure? I’m not really. President Trump is an enormously powerful politician. He hates the press, but can’t seem to live without it. It’s his oxygen; it keeps him alive, emotionally and politically.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/02/21/trumps-troubling-relationship-with-the-press/
Do you understand the concern that people across the board have with Trump's very real, very documented attacks on the free press?
Also, do you recognize how difficult it is to talk about this topic without sounding condescending?
I mean, it is not disputable in the real world that Trump makes false claims on a regular basis. As I have been calling them, stupidly false claims... claims that are clearly not factual. And he does this apparently as a sort of TV conman/reality show kind of game. These false claims suck the oxygen out of the room and make intelligent, adult conversation difficult.
If we have to spend time noting that, "No, the press did NOT lie when they pointed out that Trump did not have as large a crowd at his inauguration as Obama..." and, "No, it was NOT sunny when he was sworn in," etc, etc, then that takes time away from genuinely important matters. And he does it all the time. As I've noted, more than any president in recorded history. Five times daily! and more.
When someone responds with "no he didn't..." how does one respond to that without sounding condescending? "Well, but of course he did/he does. There it is. That's a false claim! Don't you see it?!" You almost immediately start sounding as if you're talking to a child because, what does one do with repeated defenses of outrageous false claims?
"When Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, historians and scholars refer to Trump's attacks on the free press..."
...honest and objective people consider the specific Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, historians and scholars who are making such references and what their motivations might be for pretending that Trump's attacks are less than legitimate given what we know about the media in general.
"We're talking about his attacks trying to undermine the credibility of the free press."
Who's "we"? You and your head lice? The credibility of the press is already undermined by their own incredible left-leaning bias. By their willingness to blow up every fart or gaffe of Trump's as if it is of earth-shattering importance.
"Fact: Many women have accused Trump of misconduct. That is NOT FAKE NEWS."
You miss the point, which is that the allegations are false. Again, we see the media focus on these allegations, trying hard to make them stick without proof because of the media bias against him. THAT is what makes it fake news. THAT is why the media are so without integrity or credibility. They can't find evidence of collusion, so they turn to the next thing they can throw against the wall to see if it sticks.
"He just makes claims as if they were real, without trying to support them or, as just demonstrated, that are clearly false."
He doesn't have to. The accused isn't required to prove his innocence, the accuser must provide proof of guilt. That's how it works. Frankly, he isn't even required to deny the allegations if they aren't true. He need only say, "prove it" and move on...which I wish he (and Roy Moore) did.
"Do you acknowledge the reality in this world that Trump IS falsely labeling many legitimate news stories as "fake..."?"
You're now suggesting that what makes the story legitimate is that it is simply reported by the news media, thus making it "a legitimate news story". And you dare condescend to me!!
"Do you acknowledge that this hurts a free press?"
No. Calling out the media for misbehavior holds them accountable and forces them to be the objective information source they're supposed to be, as opposed to the partisan hacks they've become.
"Do you acknowledge that no one is saying that the press gets every story perfectly right, but there's a difference between saying "Hey, you made a mistake on that news story" and "These guys are liars..."?"
Cut the crap. If it was only a case of the press being imperfect in getting all stories 100% correct, Trump wouldn't be calling them liars and the rest of us wouldn't recognize their bias so easily. In far too many cases, the press doesn't even try.
"The constant drumbeat against the free press is damaging to our nation."
Not as damaging as a partisan pres is. Not as damaging as a press that abuses its freedom.
Worse, you lie that it is some war against a free press in the first place. It is not. It is a legitimate complaint against a partisan press.
Brookings is NOT "centrist".
"Also, do you recognize how difficult it is to talk about this topic without sounding condescending?"
I recognize that in talking about this topic you're an incredible Pettydick.
"These false claims suck the oxygen out of the room..."
Only for people like you who have nothing of substance to say about his presidency.
"...and make intelligent, adult conversation difficult."
This assumes you're capable of intelligent, adult conversation...which is greatly in doubt. Evidence against the possibility is your constant focus on his self-promotion, bragging and unpolished manner.
"If we have to spend time noting that...etc...."
...then you're an idiot, because you're not obliged to spend a single second on anything. Thoughtful people spend time on matters of substance and importance.
"When someone responds with "no he didn't...""
But, you freakin' liar, I didn't. I merely pointed out that your whining about Trump attacking the press is hypocritical given how you've never said jack about Obama's far worse attacks on the press. Trump can't hold a candle to Obama in that regard by merely complaining about media bias against him. Obama actually attacked the press as my links clearly point out.
You miss the point, which is that the allegations are false.
1. You don't know that they are false.
I repeat - and let it soak in - YOU. DO. NOT. KNOW. THAT. THEY. ARE. FALSE.
Do you understand this reality?
2. The press, likewise, does not know if they are false or not. They've done due diligence (as can be seen in the case where that conservative group tried to trick them into reporting a false story, where the press did some research - as a good press always does - and found holes in the story and did not report the false story. Instead, they exposed the conservatives bearing false witness) and found the stories to be credible enough to warrant publication.
3. Thus, it appears that YOU miss the point.
The point being is that these allegations are not "fake news." They are real news.
Again: THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT FAKE NEWS. Trump lied when he called it fake news. He made a false claim. As a result: It undermines the free press (as in when people like you buy into and defend his false claims) and undermines the credibility of the office of the president.
The point is that false claims undermine our system. They undermine our system of justice when someone makes a false claim and it undermines our free press when someone falsely accuses them of a false claim.
Do you understand the reality that it is literally a false claim to call this fake news?
Do you understand that this is legitimate, real news to report on allegations as serious as serial sexual assault and harassment?
If not, what is wrong with you?
One more thing:
the accused isn't required to prove his innocence, the accuser must provide proof of guilt.
Do you recognize that a testimony IS a proof of guilt?
IF I see "John" commit a murder, go tell the police and the press and they ask me to testify and I say, "I saw that man, 'John,' commit a murder. He's my neighbor, I see him all the time, he has a tattoo on his right hand that I saw on the murderer and, besides, I recognized him!" do you recognize that this is real and legitimate testimony or a proof of the murderer's guilt?
AND, if it's investigated further and they press/police find that the man offering the testimony is a good, decent man and neighbor, that he had no beef with John and no known incentive to lie about seeing John murder someone, that that, too, is a proof in support of the charge. Do you recognize this?
Testimony IS a proof of guilt.
Now, one testimony alone apart from anything else is not conclusive proof of guilt, but it IS a proof. A bit of proof, if you prefer.
And then, one a second person testifies that the same thing happened to him/her and the second person also seems to have no motive to make something up and seems credible, then that, too, is a proof.
And when over a dozen people testify to the same/similar thing, that this is a compelling case of guilt. Proof positive? Maybe not, but compelling as hell.
Are you suggesting that if a dozen people testified that "John" committed murder, that they all saw the same thing, that the press would be wrong in reporting that? That it should be considered a he said/she said incident and thus, "We can't know!" and just ignored?
That isn't how reality works. It isn't how justice works.
Do you understand that?
Are you prepared to agree with me, then, on the basic reality that these stories are not "fake news?" That Trump's claim that they are "fake news" is, itself, false? That first hand, eye witness testimony IS a valid proof in making a case?
Perhaps you just got caught up in the moment or missed my point. Here's a chance to agree with some basic realities with me.
Oh, and when the investigators find a videotape where the accused themselves joke about having committed murder (or, in the case of Trump, sexual assault), that this is pretty damned damnning bit of proof, when you add it on top of the multiple real world testimonies. If this were a murder trial where 12+ people testified to having seen the same thing AND you have a videotape of the accused basically admitting to and laughing about the crime, that man would be in jail.
Do you understand that reality?
Come on. Quit defending the indefensible.
"1. You don't know that they are false."
Now you miss the point again, which is that TRUMP'S point is the allegations are false. Again, how dare you condescend to me and treat me as if I'm the stupid one here!!
Point #2---Whoop-de-freakin'-doo! It doesn't mitigate the fact that the leftist media is quick to jump on any anti-Trump, anti-rightwing allegation that emanates from the backsides of haters. Here are just a few examples.
"3. The point being is that these allegations are not "fake news." They are real news"
The point is that the allegations are false, not the the reporting of them isn't "technically" news. But why report allegations in the first place, if not to poison the Trump well, which is also the point of Trump's complaint...as well as the complaint of others? Who is served by this? Not the public. They're opinions are tainted, as in every case of a person accused of child molestation is for the rest of his life under suspicion even when the allegations are proven false. It is NOT the duty of the press to run every weak accusation against public figures without some REAL evidence that the accusations might be true. Even more importantly, it is their duty to MAKE DAMN SURE they've got the story right before risking someone's reputation. Look how loudly YOU whine when you believe you're being falsely accused. Imagine if your public persona were so stained!
"Do you understand that this is legitimate, real news to report on allegations as serious as serial sexual assault and harassment?
If not, what is wrong with you?"
There's nothing wrong with me with regard to this issue. All the wrong is in YOU! I prefer that innocent people are so until proven guilty. I recognize no benefit in hearing these allegations so long as they have no merit that is determined with evidence of any kind. I recognize that now you lefties have one more evil tactic to employ in your hateful war against the right-wing that is far more profitable for you (given the nature of the leftist side of the electorate) than actually trying to defend your tired and historically failed ideas and ideologies.
"Testimony IS a proof of guilt."
No. It is testimony is evidence that might lead to a verdict of guilt. It is not proof. Unless of course you're playing semantic games again. But your confusion is "evidence" that you are likely the stupid one here.
"And when over a dozen people testify to the same/similar thing, that this is a compelling case of guilt. Proof positive? Maybe not, but compelling as hell."
There is also a big difference between "compelling as hell" and "compelling to everyone who hears it". The latter group is normally comprised of those who are not willing to hang a person an hearsay evidence. Call them sticklers if you must, but when a man's reputation hangs in the balance, it just ain't good enough...particularly when he adamantly insists the allegations are false and is willing to sue the accusers. And herein lies another problem: there can never be an equal amount of people who deny the allegations as there are those who are willing to make them, and thus, it is ALWAYS one man's word against whatever number of accusers there might be.
But numbers of accusers can also mean lots of liars or conspirators with any number of reasons for joining in to accuse. But for haters like you, it is enough that the accusations are made.
"Are you suggesting that if a dozen people testified that "John" committed murder, that they all saw the same thing, that the press would be wrong in reporting that?"
There is an even far greater difference between a dozen people witnessing a murder versus a dozen separate allegations of abuse. This isn't even apples to oranges. It is fruit to vegetables. Thus, the press has a different burden in reporting on the veracity of claims made. In the first instance, each of the dozen witnesses are very likely to share similar details in their testimony regarding the murder they witness. In the second, that isn't necessarily, or even likely to be the case and the press has a duty to dig more deeply to decide whether or not all 12 accusers are telling the truth and that each accusation deserves to be considered credible.
You clearly aren't concerned with justice here, Dan, and no one is fooled about that. You're concerned about removing Trump from office no matter what it takes.
"Are you prepared to agree with me, then, on the basic reality that these stories are not "fake news?" That Trump's claim that they are "fake news" is, itself, false? That first hand, eye witness testimony IS a valid proof in making a case?"
I'm prepared to agree with truth and honesty, both of which is sadly lacking in your comments. Stories that spread malicious rumor are certainly stories, but the rumor makes them fake, particularly if the one accused insists the accusations are false. False allegations equals fake news stories. Don't see how this obvious point remains lost on you.
If Trump is knowingly lying about his accusers, that would be one thing. Neither of us can know this at this point. But until it can be proven otherwise, it is a basic American principle that he must be regarded as innocent. As such, I do so and have no issue with him defending himself by declaring these stories as false and thus examples of fake news. Again, you're playing semantic games with Trump's words, ignoring his meaning which is clear to honest and objective people.
As to first hand, eye-witness testimony, you're continuing to abuse the terms. To be a first hand, eye-witness of a murder is to be one who sees the murder occur. To be a first hand eye-witness to Trump groping a woman would need the witness to have actually seen the groping occur. Being the groped woman is not the same thing. It is a person alleging abuse against her.
And because you can't help but be the liar you are, one can admit to actually having murdered and that still ranks as only testimonial evidence. Thus, Trump's "admissions" mean nothing by themselves, as they can very possibly be no more than examples of high school locker room level bragging. I know that's quite enough for you to tie the noose around Trump's neck, but honest, thoughtful people need a bit more. Such talk only proves he's a boorish person.
And still yet again, because you need to be reminded...given your penchant for demonizing those with whom you disagree...I do not defend the indefensible. What I find indefensible here, is the fact that you hear the slightest bit of negativity regarding a center-right figure, and it is gospel truth. I find it indefensible that despite repeated insistence that it is YOUR behavior with regard to your hatred of Trump and Moore, you continue to pretend I am defending THEM, rather than finding issue with YOU. To that, I've done nothing more than taken everything you put forth and shown that it is false or that it is no worse, and usually less so, than behaviors of those you support and continue to support.
But unlike you, despite my own dislike for that which seems to be accepted by most...Trump's adultery, boorishness, bragging and unpolished public persona, for example...I find that now, after taking the not so huge chance that he'd be far better for the nation than either Clinton or Sanders, he has been showing my hope to be quite reasonable. Yet I ignore nothing. I pretend nothing. I do not in any way support the notion that his past is no longer significant in judging his character. I remain objective in my view of him, just as I always have with regard to anyone running for public office...far more so than any lefty I've ever met in my life. A low bar over which I find it incredibly easy to soar.
Now you miss the point again
You miss the point. YOU said, "You miss the point, which is that the allegations are false."
I stated the reality that you don't know that they are false. That is the fact of the matter. Before changing the subject, do you recognize that reality?
Or, to return to your original claim in context, you said...
You miss the point, which is that the allegations are false. Again, we see the media focus on these allegations, trying hard to make them stick without proof because of the media bias against him. THAT is what makes it fake news.
You said this in response to my pointing out that he falsely accused the media of writing "fake news."
But this is just silly. It's nearly impossible to hold a discussion with you because you continually miss the point and strive so very hard to disagree with reality.
The point I'm making is this:
Trump repeatedly has claimed media reports are "fake news," when the reality is that they are reporting actual news. Actual allegations. Actual incidents. Actual numbers. Real world data. The media reports this and Trump calls it fake news because that plays well with people who want to believe the media is reporting fake news and NOT because it IS fake news, because it's not. It's real world data.
No one says that any media or other organization is without bias. That's just a human reality, that we all have bias. Point out bias all day long if you wish. But it's a different claim to say "that's fake news." That's a data claim that, almost every time Trump has used it, can be factually disproven by citing observable reality, real world data.
But instead of agreeing with the simple reality that Trump made false claims when he said that, you try to twist things and distort reality or change the subject... All of which makes communication with you difficult.
So I will leave it at the reality that Trump falsely accused the media of "fake news." This is reality and it's a reality that repeated claims of this nature undermine his credibility and the credibility of the US, since he is our leader. It's an embarrassment at the very best and a danger at the very worst.
Peace and happy new year to you.
No need to respond. I don't see any point in continuing this conversation until such time as you can begin with "Yes, yes, it's true, Trump made a false claim when he said the news was "fake news..." Short of beginning a comment with words to that effect, don't bother, I won't be reading.
why report allegations in the first place, if not to poison the Trump well
I will address this rather stupefying question. WHY report allegations of sexual harassment? Are you serious?
Because sexual harassment and sexual assault are serious crimes. That's why. If a credible claim is made - or a SERIES of credible claim by 20 women are made - then the media, the church, the gov't, ANY entity would be remiss in NOT reporting the news.
The moral world that seeks justice, especially for the oppressed ones, is FED UP with the whole of human history of women being treated like sexual objects to use, misuse and abuse. We're saying, NO MORE. The time has come for good people across the board, across the political spectrum, across the religious spectrum to come together and agree to what should be EASY for all moral people: No. Attacks and harassments against women, against girls and boys, against undefended ones will not be tolerated.
This should be an easy place where we can all join in agreement. There doesn't need to be any debate on the point, no doubt or discussion. Abuse will not stand. Period.
THAT is why credible allegations should be reported.
Wow, deleting a simple statement of reality.
Interesting that the whole (subjective) moral world lauded Hugh Hefner.
I will indeed respond to your first of your last two comments to me when I'm in front of my computer and not using a cell phone...which is a pain. But I will not have you dictate to me terms that are no more than "agree or else" when the very topic of conention is far from resolved. I will show that you have totally ignored what I have actually said in favor of something easier to attack, which explains why you like to delete comments.
For now I will address the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse and the notion of credibility.
I'm not opposed to reporting legitimate accusations. The question is on what basis are these allegations legitimate? It seems clear thst in this case, as in the case of Roy Moore, what makes them credible...especially for you...is that they were made at all. And this is the problem with the liberal media, as well as with those in the "conservative" media who are "NeverTrumpers". The public doesn't need to know of any allegation of ANY wrongdoing the moment it is made, and the media serves no one except the general anti-Trump population by doing so. This is the point of it...NOT justice for legitimate victims.
As such, I am far from moved by your expressions of concern for women, especially given your ongoing support for the party that has done so little for them, regardless of whether they are still to be born or any time thereafter.
Craig made a comment that showed up in my email but I don't see it here. I assume that's what he's talking about, mistakenly thinking I have deleted something. As I've told him before, I don't delete for no reason, and certainly not because someone posted " a simple statement of reality." Blogger is doing something weird, having nothing to do with me.
His comment...
"
I guess I should point out a couple of realities here.
1. If you insist on pointing out that we “don’t know” if theses stories are false, then you should be able to acknowledge that we also don’t know if they are true.
2. If one listens to how you repeat the unproven accusations, one wouldn’t know that they are indeed unproven accusations and therefore not necessarily true.
3. Media bias is NOT acceptable in all media. It’s expected in print (and internet), NOT acceptable in broadcast, technically not acceptable on cable.
4. If accusations “should” be reported them they should only be reported (accurately)as unproven accusations.
5. If accusations “should” be reported then all accusations should be reported equally and without regard to who they are against. "
Marshall, many, many very conservative people - Mitch McConnell and many others, found the allegations against Moore and Trump credible. It's not some liberal witch hunt. It's decent people across the political spectrum saying, "something smells awful here." To pretend that this is some liberal smear is just not fitting with reality.
Again, no need to comment. You don't seem to accept some basic realities. Trump makes false claims about the media and "fake news." The accusation itself, is fake. If he means "biased" or "less than favorable to me," then he should say that. Maybe he could make a case there. But "fake news" is a false claim. In the real world, it just is.
Without acknowledging that reality, you have no grounds for continuing in a reality-based conversation.
1. Craig, if we KNEW these credible allegations were true and proven, then we should lock Trump, Moore, Weinstein, etc, up. Of course we don't know they're true. But they are credible, as people across the spectrum acknowledge. They are credible enough to question the men and to report the allegations and take them seriously.
Do you disagree?
3. Human bias is a reality. I don't know what you're suggesting that it's not "acceptable." It is a reality. Denying reality is not acceptable. Blatant bias should be avoided at all costs and I think the mainstream media does a fairly good, if not perfect, job at it. There are media watchdog groups that will tell us that NPR, for instance, does a pretty good job all in all, while Fox News and MSNBC are less even handed/unbiased...
https://www.poynter.org/news/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-viewers-worst-informed
(and, as the story above notes, some sources that are more biased, like Fox, actually make people LESS informed than those who watch no news at all!)
We should strive to watch/read/listen to the less biased sources, to be sure, but there's no point in denying bias in humanity. When I was in journalism school, I learned how we should NOT pretend to be totally unbiased, but that we should recognize any bias and work to be even-handed, in spite of the bias. Makes sense to me.
5. You mean like the media has repeatedly reported the accusations against liberals who've been charged with harassment and assault? Yes, they should do that, and as we've seen over the last months, the media IS doing that, just as they did with B Clinton back in the day.
So I guess you are prepared to give them a gold star on that point?
1. If we “knew” these unproven allegations were true and proven to be so, we’d be having an entirely different conversation. But the reality is that these allegations are unproven. The level of credibility also goes down every time we hear about people offering cash for Trump accusers and about alterations to “evidence”. So, reporting the existence of unproven allegations is fair game. Attaching pejorative labels to people because of unproven allegations, not so much. Treating these allegations as anything but the unproven allegations that they are is a problem. Of course, once Weinstein admitted his actions that changed things in his case, once he admitted it it stopped being an allegation. Of course I agree that the allegations should be investigated and that the “innocent until proven guilty” standard be applied to those being investigated.
3. Human bias is a reality, but as long as the FCC regulates public airwaves, it needs to be muzzled in the interest of fairness and impartiality. I hope this bit of reality doesn’t cause you too much difficulty.
Yes, the media should report allegations as allegations. They shouldn’t report unproven allegations differently based of who the allegations are against. They shouldn’t attach pejorative labels to people based on unproven allegations. I will always give media news outlets credit when they do their job in a fair and evenhanded way.
Sorry about the multiple comments, but blogger was sending my first few attempts off into the ether.
YOU said:
"Now you miss the point again
You miss the point. YOU said, "You miss the point, which is that the allegations are false." "
But I said:
"Now you miss the point again, which is that TRUMP'S point is the allegations are false."
You were attacking Trump and I was referring to HIS point regarding the behavior of the media. Do you get this now? All that followed was with that in mind.
And again, you're defining "news" by that which emanates from the media. Trump is referring to that new being reported as fake, less than truthful, heavily slanted to put him in the worst possible light, BIASED like no one's business. It's not hard to find articles referring to the media's numerous reports of less than significant, but negative stories of Trump, while doing next to nothing about more serious issues involving people like Hillary Clinton. "Fake news" in this context does not mean "The Onion". It is the quality of the reporting and the intentions and motivations behind what is reported and how. Here's an example:
Mark Levin did yeoman's work in gathering (from the leftist media sources) all that was known about the Obama "wiretapping" scandal. (A half-hour review of which is here) Throughout the media response to it, they continued to suggest that Levin was coming up with this without evidence. Yet, his entire case was made with left-wing media sources. He wasn't doing anything more than connecting the dots the leftists weren't in their own reporting. And this was basically provoked by Trump's insistence that his campaign was "wiretapped", which led to typical leftist responses of mockery. Another example of "fake news".
The term is clumsy and not truly accurate regarding the incredible bias against, not only Trump, but the right-wing in general. Trump is merely the major target of it now, and he draws their attention as if he means to...which I believe he does.
And YOU, because of your own bias and hatred for Trump compound the problem while pretending you acknowledge the natural existence of bias. No. The left-wing does a horrible job of objectivity. And your leftist sources that say otherwise doesn't change that fact. Trump's attacks on the press are long overdue, as few have even attempted to hold them accountable as he has, regardless of his own shortcomings with overstatement and hyperbole. (I'd say Gingrich comes closest among politicians in calling out the media)
And again, and this is the reality you refuse to even acknowledge, Obama was far more guilty of doing harm to freedom of the press than Trump's accusations of fakery. Until you can admit THAT truth, your insistence that I agree with your BS position on what constitutes reality is fake news of your own.
Craig just posted this comment, I guess, as it appeared in my email, but it's not here.
Craig, are you doing anything differently with the posts that aren't showing up/are disappearing?
Craig's comment:
"Clearly we should all be able to agree that news reporting that is factually false, or that reports things that are unproven as if they are is a disservice to both the public and those in the media who strive for balance and accuracy."
Yes, reporting news that is factually false is wrong.
And yes, for instance, when Trump says "this is fake news" and it's not fake news, if they don't point out that this is not proven and, indeed, it's a false claim, that is a disservice to the public.
Passing on something that is unproven as if it were a news fact is not good journalism.
~Dan
I’m not doing anything differently. I comment, the comment shows up, then it sometimes disappears. I have no idea.
I do wonder what would happen if the media wasn’t quite so anti-Trump. I wonder if he’d spend as much time responding as he currently does. It’s difficult to take much of the news media seriously when they just parrot the crap that Pelosi speed without even giving it a second thought, and 90%+ of stories on the current administration are negative.
I miss the old days when journalists were just interested in who, what, where, when, and how and they left the rest to the op-ed folks.
Trump is not normal. He's not well. I think this is clear (as many more expert than I am have noted). This is his shtick. This is what he does.
I fully believe that he's not nearly as buffoonish as he appears (although, that isn't to say that I think he's very intelligent, generally speaking...). I think he is very clever in knowing his own marketing strengths. I think he knows that if he says outlandish, awful things on a regular, daily basis, it keeps his name in his news and he's of the school that says that there's no such thing as bad media. If he's being covered and talked about - even for making outlandish or immoral claims - then that means his name is in the news and name recognition is King, in his world.
The media is covering his antics because it's news and it's not normal. It's not behavior that should be tolerated, although there certainly is something to be said for turning a blind eye to his more buffoonish acts (the whole, "I have the largest crowds ever!" "It didn't rain on my inauguration!" etc) Those behaviors/actions that are just stupid and rather inconsequential might be best ignored.
On the other hand, it points to the problem with his mental state/irrationality. If they pass on covering the minor stupid stuff, the larger dangerously stupid stuff he does may not be as noticeable. So, I'm not sure where that line lies.
The bottom line is that his behavior is news. It should probably mostly be covered, we want to know about this stuff. People can then decide what to make of the behavior.
My point, however, is that Trump and his behavior is not normal. If we had a president who was killing cats and dogs and burying them in the Whitehouse's backyard, the media should cover that. It's not normal, it needs to be out.
It's not anti-Trump to point out, "Hey, this is WAY beyond the pale of normal behavior." It's responsible journalism.
If we had a president who was killing cats and dogs and burying them in the Whitehouse's backyard, the media should cover that. It's not normal, it needs to be out.
I just want to point out and suggest that this might be the difference between my tribe and yours: We truly think that Trump and his behavior, en masse, are as problematic as if he were killing animals and burying them in the back yard.
A man who lies the way he lies (or makes false claims, whether or not he knows they're false),
a man who talks about women the way he talks about women - both what we now know he says in private as well as what he has said publicly;
A man who routinely (as Marshall has pointed out as a defense!) engages in behavior that mocks the disabled and either doesn't know the damage done or doesn't care;
A man who behaves in such a narcissistic manner;
A man who either pretends or is as ignorant about basic history and facts as Trump demonstrates;
...these are all behaviors that are problematic in the same way as a man who kills cats and dogs.
I don't think you all think it's THAT big a deal or that there is anything THAT far beyond the pale in Trump's behavior. We do.
I don't know what to do with that, but there it is.
None of which is germane to my point. It’s undeniable that there are objectively positive news stories from the past year that relate to Trump. The fact that those are getting buried, while Pelosi and others get to lie with impunity and those lies get reported with zero critIcal scrutiny.
Your opinions of Trump notwithstanding, I still wonder how he’d respond to a less antagonistic media.
And I've answered. I think Trump is Trump. He behaves the way he behaves and would behave the way he behaves because that is who he is. He behaved like a thuggish, sexist buffoon back when he was a reality TV idiot and the media was not "antagonistic" towards him, and he behaves like a thuggish, sexist buffoon now.
In the meantime, if you are going to make charges, please provide the source. I have not seen Pelosi in the news, especially, nor have I noted any stories involving her "lying with impugnity."
I posted on it at my blog weeks ago. For starters, her claim that the recent tax bill was the worst piece of legislation ever to come before the House.
I’m sorry, you don’t appear to have a very wide range of news sources, you seem to somehow miss a lot of stuff your side says and does.
Oh please. That is clearly a matter of opinion. And I ignored it on your site because it was a stupid point. If you asked her (if you NEEDED to ask her), she'd obviously clarify, "Oh please. Don't be silly. Of course, slavery laws and other legislation have been worse! That was clearly hyperbole, I think most rational people would recognize that, but I am sorry if you didn't."
Some questions don't need to be asked because the answer is so blindingly obvious.
On the other hand, when Trump and Moore have repeatedly made statements that make them seem sympathetic to slavery, slavers, racists, sexists, etc, it is not so obvious where there loyalties lie and it is reasonable to ask for clarification. It remains so.
The point is: Opinion statements and hyperbole are not "lies," just misunderstandings on the part who try to make them literal statements.
Now you're lying about me again, as well as about Trump. He has NOT mocked the disabled. You're just misrepresenting what he does as such because you're a lying hater of Trump.
If you truly find him dangerous, then certainly you should be able to point to that which he has done as president that presents actual danger to us. Has he given billions of dollars in cash to the Iranian regime to build up their nuclear capabilities at any time during his first year? I don't think so. You're simply engaging in the very same over-the-top, hyperbolic rhetoric of which you deride him.
The dangers of the Trump administration (or lack, thereof)...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/trump-dangerous-foreign-policy/546230/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-is-a-danger-to-america-and-the-world_us_5996e9eee4b02eb2fda31f09
...for starters.
Normalizing and empowering racists, nazis and skinheads is dangerous to our nation.
Attacking the press, call the free press "the enemy of the people..."!! is dangerous and a tactic of strongmen and dictators, not liberty loving leaders.
Filling the swamp with people from big business and with agendas contrary to the agencies they represent is dangerous.
Acting as if science and scientists are not to be trusted is dangerous.
I could go on, but there's not much point. You disagree with me. I disagree with you.
Move on, Marshall. It's a new year, let it go.
Gee, I love how you quote such unbiased sources for your “proof”
I haven't gone through and personally verified every story referenced in this piece, but if even 50% of the items are accurate, it's a pretty good cumulative case that the mainstream media isn't particularly concerned about accuracy when it comes to the current administration.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mainstream-media-errors-in-the-trump-era-your-catalogue-of-the-medias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432
As to Dan's links, the first from the Atlantic is rather positive in its views of Trump, while speaking to concerns. It also acknowledges that no tangible harm has resulted from his actions in his first year. It does try to indict him for increased civilian deaths in the fight against islamic radicalism, but only liberal buffoons think evil can be fought cleanly, with no civilian casualties. It's the same lying attack leveled against George W. Bush when he went into Iraq, as if the deaths of civilians is the fault of those who fight against the evil that put those civilians in harm's way. Nonetheless, the Atlantic piece does not provide evidence to support Dan's lamentations regarding the dangers posed by this president.
The second piece is no more than another person voicing the same opinion as Dan. His credentials don't make his opinion evidence. It is still simply an unsubstantiated opinion. So, "for starters", Dan hasn't even begun.
"Normalizing and empowering racists, nazis and skinheads is dangerous to our nation."
Yet this lie is no more true now than when first put forth. Trump hasn't "normalized" any racism, and certainly not the extent Obama has, which was substantial. The fact that idiots are turned on by a politician's speech or policies does not indicate an concerted effort to garner idiot support. Dan hasn't made that connection yet, nor has anyone else.
"Attacking the press, call the free press "the enemy of the people..."!! is dangerous and a tactic of strongmen and dictators, not liberty loving leaders."
As I've shown, Obama was far more guilty of overt attacks on the press than Trump's criticisms of their shortcomings has been. When the press is playing partisan games, as the it has been for some time now, it is indeed an enemy of the people that expects nothing more than objective reporting of the facts, and equal scrutiny of ALL political parties. Hopefully we'll see something approaching that before I die.
"Filling the swamp with people from big business and with agendas contrary to the agencies they represent is dangerous."
Every president "fills the swamp" with those who reflect his positions. You still need to draw the line between those appointments and actual dangers or harms resulting from them. It ain't automatic just because you don't like the appointments.
"Acting as if science and scientists are not to be trusted is dangerous."
What do you meaning "acting as if..."? It has been established in past discussions that scientists are not above acting for cash. They shouldn't be trusted any more or less than anyone else simply because they're scientists. I know YOU treat them as more holy than the saints, more perfect than God, but the rest of us aren't as sold on their perfection as you are. They've been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. Now, our tax dollars are at risk as never before due to what some claim is infallible climate science. We need someone who'll treat them like the humans they are.
I've no doubt you'd be happy "moving on", as it's so much easier than backing up your hateful attacks on Trump. But moving on won't make them true.
Post a Comment