The question has been vulgarly asked, "[He] specifically questioned why the U.S. would want to admit more people from Haiti. As for Africa, he asked why more people from “shithole countries” should be allowed into the U.S."
The answers?
10. Because it is MORAL, DECENT and RATIONAL to do so.
9. Because we are a nation of immigrants from "shithole" nations, if you want to look at it that way.
8. Because the ethics of only seeking out those who [we think] will help us is a greed- and self-interest-based ethics, not a moral one. It is, in fact, an immoral option.
7. Because we ought not encourage immoral ideals.
6. Because it is part of our better human legacy ["Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."]
5. Because ALL people contribute to our commonwealth.
4. Because pretending that people from poorer nations with beautiful people who have darker skin will NOT be adding to our commonwealth is racist and class-ist and just wrong.
3. Because the people of Haiti are a beautiful, proud, fierce and strong people and we should be grateful and deeply honored that they'd want to come here. Same for the other nations referenced.
2. Because we should be ashamed that a president of this nation would publicly say something so ugly and awful AND then go on to defend the notion.
and the Number One reason why we should admit more people from these nations?
1. Because, while these are NOT "shithole countries," we clearly have a "shithole" president.
44 comments:
"10. Because it is MORAL, DECENT and RATIONAL to do so."
Without limit? Without any concern for how it might impact our own people? Without any concern for whether or not we are actually capable of accepting some unknown number without severe strain on our own resources? Without any concern for those who do not come and the conditions that compelled others to come? What's more, decent, and most importantly, rational about any of that?
"9. Because we are a nation of immigrants from "shithole" nations, if you want to look at it that way."
How is that a reason, exactly? And no, only YOU would look at it that way.
"8. Because the ethics of only seeking out those who [we think] will help us is a greed- and self-interest-based ethics, not a moral one. It is, in fact, an immoral option."
Nonsense. Immigration law and/or refugee policy is a governmental obligation toward the people of said government. It is the government's duty and obligation to act on ANY issue with the idea of what best serves the national interest. More to the point, national self-interest is in fact the moral duty of the government.
"7. Because we ought not encourage immoral ideals."
Of course, you do that all the time with your socialist, pro-LGBT, pro-baby killing positions, so who are you kidding? But again, as the government of any nation is obliged...morally...to act on behalf of the people living under that government, regulating the flow of immigrants and refugees to our country is indeed a moral ideal. At least until you decide to flesh out your position beyond its incredibly ambiguous platitudinous level.
"6. Because it is part of our better human legacy"
Here's a little context regarding that Emma Lazarus poem you think matters. I'll also remind you of a previous immigration/refugee discussion wherein I provided insights from the founders about who should be allowed to enter and live among us. They align nicely with Teddy Roosevelt's thoughts. So that "legacy" is only about 100 years old, and not the words of an American or a person with American ideals.
"5. Because ALL people contribute to our commonwealth"
Really? What about this, or this? What about Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, Tashfeen Malik, Mohamed Atta? What about John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Stephen Paddock?
"4. Because pretending that people from poorer nations with beautiful people who have darker skin will NOT be adding to our commonwealth is racist and class-ist and just wrong."
What a racist way to put it! And are you limiting who comes in by whether or not they're beautiful? No one, and not Trump, has suggested any limitations based on skin color you lying sack.
"3. Because the people of Haiti are a beautiful, proud, fierce and strong people and we should be grateful and deeply honored that they'd want to come here."
All of them Dan? Have you met absolutely every last one of them to know with such certainty that each and every last one of them is "beautiful, proud, fierce and strong" and worthy of our gratitude for choosing to come here? Craig's worked with a bunch of them and I'd wager he wouldn't make such bullshit generalization to make any case on their behalf.
"2. Because we should be ashamed that a president of this nation would publicly say something so ugly and awful AND then go on to defend the notion"
Did you get a tingle in your shorts when you heard about this story? I'll bet you were totally aroused that you had something you could use to validate your hatred. "So ugly and awful". You've never once railed against Hillary Clinton for the many testimonies about her ugly and awful language regarding her own people. You're a hypocrite. While I don't defend the use of such language...especially by myself (and I make a great effort not to use such at the blogs of others...unlike some grace embracing people I won't mention), I'm not going to pretend it's a capital crime on par with raping small babies. I'll leave that fake outrage to you.
"and the Number One reason why we should admit more people from these nations?
1. Because, while these are NOT "shithole countries," we clearly have a "shithole" president."
Setting aside the fact that it makes no sense as a reason to admit more people from ANY nation, the reason is also false. Our "s**thole" president was replaced by Trump last January. We almost had another, if not for him and just how much of a "s**thole" person his main opponent was. And you favored a different "s**thole" candidate.
Stop the hating, Dan. Embrace grace.
A bit more regarding the "beautiful, proud, fierce and strong people" of Haiti. They are so "beautiful, proud, fierce and strong" that the Bureau of Consular Affairs for the U.S. State Department issued a Level 3 travel advisory to all who are considering a vacation or business trip there. By golly, that's the place for me! What's more, most of the countries to which Trump referred are either Level 3 or 4. For some African and South American nations that hold a 1 or 2 rating, some areas of them can easily be classified as more dangerous due to countries that share a border, and many of them have greater warnings referencing certain cities within.
Therefore, had Trump actually used the word in question, it would be an absolutely accurate description. (It should be noted that most of these countries...if not all of them...were rated as they are well before Trump was elected.) I would also point out that for some who rail against those of us who caution against liberal immigration/refugee policies, why in the world would it NOT be accurate to refer to these nations so harshly if people are seeking refuge from the conditions there? No one seeks refuge from peaceful, prosperous countries. Or are to believe that the refugees are racist against their own people, as feodor is against his?
So, Dan. How do you resolve this clear and unmistakable conflict between your old woman outrage (did you get the vapors?) against Trump's use of that term (assuming he actually used it---we have only the word of "Pencil" Dick Durbin", the embarrassment from Illinois as proof) and your insistence that refugees from these countries are truly trying to escape oppression, physical dangers and poverty?
For those who believe and follow God and Jesus, we believe that ALL humans are created in the image of God and, therefore, are beautiful and strong.
For those of us who are humanitarians, we believe that ALL humans are inherently beautiful and noble.
Which is not to say that all of us don't make mistakes, and some quite grave.
For instance, those like Trump who embrace and enflame racism are not acting in the beautiful nature of humanity. And THOSE specific actions and people need to be opposed.
But that isn't the same as saying that all people from the US are horrible and unable to contribute, or that all whites are awful people or that the US is a shithole country.
Again, take this up with the many (many, but not nearly enough) conservatives who have decried the Resident's awful language and racism. Take it up with the African nations who have decried the racist-in-chief.
Or take it up with a friend of a friend, here in Louisville. A man who escaped the despair of Haiti to immigrate to the US, right here in Louisville. A man who proudly took part in a naturalization service last year. A man who is now planning on returning to Haiti to escape what he perceives to be a shithole president.
Marshall, you do not get it. I'm so sorry for that, but I don't know how to help you.
The problem is NOT that he referred to nations as "shitholes."
THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE VULGAR LANGUAGE IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
Repeat that to yourself over and over, maybe it will begin to sink in and help you think to ask, "Well, what IS the problem?"
The problem is that this administration believes a racist and elitist thought: That people from brown/black/poorer nations are not able to contribute to our nation, that we should, therefore, let people in from wealthier, white nations, because THOSE are the ones who can contribute to the US.
That is elitist, it is racist. It is wrong.
And people like you appear to not understand that. I'm truly sorry for that.
May your eyes be opened, your brain enlightened and your hard heart softened.
Good luck.
Craig posted another comment that didn't remain, for whatever bloggery reason there is. Here's his comment...
"I guess we’ll be seeing an apology if we find out that Trump didn’t say what’s got you all worked up."
~Craig
"For those who believe and follow God and Jesus, we believe that ALL humans are created in the image of God and, therefore, are beautiful and strong."
That's what YOU believe, without actual support from Scripture or the words of Christ. Loving one's enemies, for example, does NOT equate the logic that does not follow from the fact that we are created in God's image.
"For those of us who are humanitarians, we believe that ALL humans are inherently beautiful and noble."
Again, something absolutely NOT supported by reality. I refer again to the many evil people that have populated human history. Those who believe and follow God and Jesus understand that ALL humans are inherently sinful and self-serving...because that's what Scripture teaches.
"For instance, those like Trump who embrace and enflame racism are not acting in the beautiful nature of humanity."
You're lying about him again, which is neither beautiful, noble or particularly humanitarian. It is YOU, and those like you, who inflame racism by playing that card so often about so many on the right. It's abhorrent.
More later. Gotta go.
Craig, as I've told Marshall repeatedly: Read this closely and understand with your mind:
THE. PROBLEM. IS. NOT. THAT. HE. USED. THE. WORD. SHITHOLE.
Again, repeat that 5,000 times, write it on the chalkboard 500 times, think on that one sentence, roll it around in your brain, strive to understand it and come back when you can say, "Oh, I get it. It's not the vulgar use of the word "shithole..." I get that now."
Then, when you can understand that, see if you can understand that many people across the board - including the Africans and Haitians and others he spoke of - find it elitist, racist and otherwise just immoral to say that those brown people can't contribute to our nation, but those white people can.
THAT is what is wrong, anti-American, anti-liberty, anti-Christian and just ugly as hell.
Here is an example of one of the "defenses" from the administration in the wake of this assault on our better values...
"Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that
make our country stronger by
WELCOMING THOSE WHO CAN CONTRIBUTE
to our society"
The point being that Haitians, Africans, Latinos and other "shithole" countries cannot contribute, but white and wealthy Europeans can.
It's not the use of the word "shithole," (offensive as hell as it is, in this context). The problem is the racist suggestion that brown and poor people can't contribute, but white people can.
Where is your love for Haitians, Craig?
As I noted to Marshall, I have already heard from a local Haitian who was just naturalized last year who has decided to return to his home country. The point being that even with the poverty, the hunger, the lack of jobs, the devastation from a variety of sources in Haiti... EVEN WITH all that, it's preferable to remaining here and being used as an example of a worthless human being.
He recognizes racist comments when he hears one. It's really a shame that so many conservatives don't.
Again, the quotes from the administration, here sourced...
“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. “Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by
welcoming those who can contribute to our society,
grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”
He added: “[Trump will] always reject temporary, weak and dangerous stopgap measures that
threaten the lives of hardworking Americans,
and undercut immigrants who seek a better life in the United States through a legal pathway.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/11/trump-pans-immigration-proposal-as-bringing-people-from-shithole-countries
Haiti and the African Union have called for Trump to renounce this sort of language and racism. Do you think they're wrong to demand this?
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Marshall...
"For those who believe and follow God and Jesus, we believe that ALL humans are created in the image of God and, therefore, are beautiful and strong."
That's what YOU believe, without actual support from Scripture
I'm sorry. Are you coming out suggesting that we're not all created in the image of God?
From the Mennonites at EMU...
"In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, nor male and female. All people, created in the image of God, are unconditionally welcomed to God’s table and to God’s salvation."
https://www.emu.edu/studentlife/clubs/websites/peace-fellowship/shenandoah-confession
From the Evangelicals at the conservative/traditional Fuller Seminary...
"We, the Fuller community, reaffirm our unshakable commitment to diversity, equality, and the value of all people created in the image of God."
http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/71261/20170816/fuller-seminary-president-mark-labberton-white-christians-repent-racism-tragically.htm
The evangelicals over at Magazine...
The Church in the United States can joyfully love and serve Mexicans and Syrians, Muslims and atheists, immigrants and refugees because all people, created in the image of God, are our neighbors.
https://relevantmagazine.com/reject-apathy/america-first-doctrine-actually-biblical-unbilbical-update
From the conservatives at the Imaginative Conservative...
The American Founders saw that denying people their freedom is fundamentally wrong because it does not comport with the dignity of people who are created in the image of God.
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/the-american-idea-a-crisis.html
From God...
"Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
~Genesis
But, really, what's the point if you can't agree with this basic notion?
Regarding your barely literate, poorly reasoned, xenophobic, racist and ill-considered "source" antagonistic towards Emma Lazarus and her towering words on the Statue of Liberty, the author said...
Lazarus was neither a Founding Father nor a towering figure in American history.
Lazarus may not have been a founder, but her words DO tower in American history. They DO epitomize the best of American ideals. Those words tower across the globe, speaking of the US at its very best of ideals.
I know that some conservatives like to dismiss these great words, but those words will outlive any small-minded xenophobe who'd call for their removals from our set of great American ideals.
Craig commented (but blogger deleted somehow), saying...
"So, if Trumps comments have been misreported, Dan still wouldn’t apologize.
I’ve explained why I’m not simply jumping at your demands. I’m through with your one sided insisting that others must dance to your tune, while you refuse to reciprocate.
Given that, I’ll let my actions speak for me. "
~Craig
1. I never said that if T's comments have been misreported that I would not apologize.
2. Rather, I looked at what THE WHITEHOUSE posted and noted that their defense misses the point. It's NOT the word "shithole" that's problematic in describing African nations. It's that, when the administration says they want to admit people who will contribute to the US - and cite a wealthy white European nation as an example of a producer, and cite poorer nations made up of dark-skinned people - that this comment FROM THEM, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, is by definition racist.
I've noted that Haitians have recognized THEIR WORDS as racist. I've noted that African nations and Latino nations have recognized THEIR WORDS as racist. I've noted (maybe not here, but somewhere) that RACISTS THEMSELVES recognize this administration's words as racist and that it has empowered and invigorated these White Nationalists.
I have no reason to doubt that these Africans, Haitians, Latinos and racists are misinterpreted THIS ADMINISTRATION'S words, but go ahead and tell them they're all mistaken, that we're all mistaken, and that you understand it aright and you know that Trump is not a racist. Just don't expect us to agree with you in direct contradiction of Trump's own words.
Look, it is always possible that someone can misspeak and say something that can easily be taken the wrong way and sound racist. Clinton has done that. Biden has done that. Others have done that. Faux pas happen. But, when you have an administration that itself keeps telling you, "Hey, I'm racist" by their repeated racist comments, at some point it becomes foolish to not listen to what they are telling you. To not listen to the people of color who are pointing it out to you.
So, when one ignores repeated racist comments and actions, that is, itself, an action. And those actions do speak for you. But is that the message you want to send?
"But that isn't the same as saying that all people from the US are horrible and unable to contribute..."
Which is NOT what Trump is saying about people from third world countries. You hating leftists just want everyone to believe he is.
"Again, take this up with the many (many, but not nearly enough) conservatives who have decried the Resident's awful language and racism."
And ignore the real conservatives that insist he didn't say what Dick Durbin insisted he said? And enough with trying to pretend citing Republicans (you don't understand what conservatism is or looks like, so stop pretending you're citing conservatives---just say "Republicans" and we can go from there) means the falsehood you're pushing is true. False is false regardless of who says it.
"A man who escaped the despair of Haiti to immigrate to the US, right here in Louisville. A man who proudly took part in a naturalization service last year."
The "despair of Haiti"??? Sounds like a s**thole to me! But if he "proudly took part in a naturalization service", then he is the type of immigrant Trump welcomes and this example (assuming the guy actually exists---your word is not trustworthy) blows your hateful misrepresentation of Trump right out of the waters so many risk navigating in crappy boats in order to flee those nations the State Department warns Americans against visiting.
"The problem is that this administration believes a racist and elitist thought: That people from brown/black/poorer nations are not able to contribute to our nation..."
You're a liar. This is absolutely NOT his position. I'll elaborate later when time permits, but for now, this is a bald faced, race baiting lie. Nicely done. Way to embrace grace, hater.
Yes, Dan. Ones actions do speak for them. Certainly yours do.
So, are you saying I'm mistaken in thinking that Trump's words and the words and policies of his administration are racist?
Do you go further and say that I'm "lying" about it, like Marshall does?
If that's the case, then are you also saying that the African Union is wrong and are liars for saying the same thing?
Are you saying that the Haitians who are calling this racist are wrong and that they're liars?
How about Thabiti Anyabwile, the African pastor who condemned Trump's racism, as you can read here...?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/my-immigrant-family/
Are all of us wrong? Are all of us liars?
Or do you think that maybe we're wrong, BUT maybe we're all sincerely mistaken and are doing what we think is right, but have just made a mistake?
Or do you think that maybe we're wrong and maybe we're not... you don't know enough to make a call, but you think we're making a judgment too soon, that maybe Trump IS a racist, you just don't know yet?
Or, do you think that maybe we're all right - the Africa Union and the many thousands (millions??) of Africans who are disgusted by this racist action, the Haitians, the US Haitians who have condemned this, the Latinos... all of us no doubt numbering in the thousands, tens of thousands and, most likely, the millions... do you that that maybe ALL of us are right... it's just that you have not seen enough yet to convince you of the vile racism of this administration?
Please answer if you wish to comment here. If you don't answer these questions, please don't comment.
Just to clarify, I intended to write "African American pastor" about Anyabwile... but I'm not sure if he lives here or elsewhere, so, it should just read "pastor..."
No, I’m saying that your actions speak for themselves. Nothing more. These actions are speaking particularly loudly.
So, I'm NOT mistaken?
Please answer the questions directly or don't comment.
To that specific comment, EVERYONE's actions speak for themselves, so it's rather meaningless. Like those who refuse to stand against racist comments, those actions lend support to racists and cause harm to the oppressed.
But aside from that truism, please answer the questions asked. Or go away.
Yes, your actions do speak for themselves, are you suggesting that failing to answer questions is a bad thing? It seems as though making demands is all you can do.
Just to mske my position crystal clear, all the people you cite who call Trump a racist are liars....not merely mistaken, for that would require an honest, objective attempt to understans, rather than s response based upon a preconceived and baseless choosing to believe Trump actually is. Nothing you, they or even actual racists whose support you choose to believe Trump seeks, can back up your opinions without distorting what he says.. particularly what he says clumsily. When you can cite someone who is not a leftist or Trump hater, who knows the guy well enough to provide ACTUAL quotes, rather than any lie that flies from the mouth of Dick Durbin, then perhaps you'll have something.
BTW...we're supposed to be impressed with the opinion of the African Union, most of whom run the very countries from which so many flee? That makes perfect sense.
Here's another lying, hate-filled pastor...
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/maryland-pastor-attacks-trump-vp-pence-sitting-front-060505911--abc-news-topstories.html
I get it, it's easy now. If you disagree with Marshall or Trump, if you take a stand based on morality and justice that disagrees with Marshall's opinion, you are a liar and you're hate-filled.
The ultimate measure for morality is Marshall.
In Marshall's mind.
I'll pass.
And more evangelicals who are lying and hate-filled...
Gordon said the word “saddening” springs to mind when he thinks of Trump’s remarks. Gordon, who previously worked as campus pastor and professor of biblical studies and theology at the University of Sioux Falls and the evangelical Wheaton College, later pastored First Baptist Church in Wichita from 1988-2000. The church later merged into City Life Church, where Gordon is an elder.
“I would hope that those who call themselves evangelical would take a look at what Scripture says … and ask themselves if this is the kind of approach we want to identify evangelicalism with,” Gordon said...
The idea of bringing in certain people because they’re from a better economic situation than others “cuts at the basic foundation of the Christian message,” she said.
“I’m certainly embarrassed when the leader who purports to be a Christian doesn’t present himself in that way,” Langhauser said.
While many pointed to Trump’s remarks as being rooted in economics, others also pointed to racism.
The Rev. Dr. Brent Johnston, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Wichita, said in an email that Trump’s remarks “reveal what his feelings are for people of color from disadvantaged circumstances and countries.”
Their church includes a congregation of refugee Congolese families.
The Sisters of Mercy, a community of Roman Catholic women who work in many of the countries referenced by Trump, said in a statement that Trump’s language was “consistent with the racist decision making and attitude” of the Administration.
Jesuit priest the Rev. James Martin, editor of Jesuit magazine America, posted on Facebook comparing Trump’s words to how the phrase “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” was said of Jesus and his hometown.
“God, in other words, came from a “sh#*hole” place,” Martin wrote. “And he pointedly asked us to welcome him whenever he appeared as a “stranger,” or as one of our “least” brothers and sisters. That’s why we have all these people come. Because Jesus came.”
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article194508159.html
Because Jesus came. Damn, how that priest is filled with hate.
In Marshall's mind.
In my mind, Dan, citing people who are basing their opinions on the words of Dick Durbin is not solidifying your hatefulness one iota. Most of the people you cite have indeed been doing that. It was a closed session, I'll remind you, about which the lying Dick Durbin spoke. He is not credible and hasn't been for years...if ever. So if you wish to speak of the opinions of "conservatives" and "evangelicals", you'll make no headway without citing those who have first hand knowledge about the character of Trump and whether or not he's truly racist. Thus far, you have nothing.
I am not the ultimate measure of morality. Never claimed to be and never so much as hinted such a thing. I am honest enough, and intelligent enough to know what morality is as taught in the Christian Scriptures. You distort that with impunity.
1. Durbin does not a history of lying ANYTHING like Trump does. No one does.
Strike One.
2. Only an idiot would believe Trump. See 1.
Strike Two.
3. No one has denied that Trump used SOME harsh words in this session. Some have said it was Shithouse, not Shithole. The point is, he used harsh, stupid, unpresidential words of some sort. Everyone is agreed upon that.
Beyond that, it's the DEFENSE that most of us are complaining about. Saying We want to let PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE in (as they do in rich white nations), not those who are worthless and beneath contempt (as they do in poor, nations of darker skinned people.)
It's the DEFENSE that people find vile. That Trump almost certainly used vile words to communicate a vile and racist idea is the problem.
Strike Three.
4. I repeat: TRUMP IS A LIAR. He is VILE. He makes VILE COMMENTS ALL THE TIME. He is loathesome in his words and ideology. He is a pig.
ONLY AN IDIOT would give this pig a single shred of doubt. He's blown all his chances. If ANY liberal or Democrat cheated, lied, abused women, BRAGGED about it, etc at even a tiny fraction of the rate that Trump has, you'd be sickened and disgusted by him and calling for his head.
Your blind partisanship has undone you.
Strike Four.
I could go on. You've struck out over and over.
Take your arguments elsewhere, Marshall. They're lacking in reality and understanding thereof.
~Dan
Speaking of Durbin, you said...
He is not credible and hasn't been for years...if ever.
I'm sorry, but this is just adorable in its irony and total lack of awareness.
~Dan
Eyewitnesses are reporting that multiple people in the meeting used harsh and vulgar language, but the others get a pass.
I’m curious, if these countries are such great places full of great people, why the rush to leave?
Wouldn’t the better course of action be to help these countries be better places to live and prosper instead of just draining the best and brightest away?
Craig, your lack of self-awareness is less charming.
Stop defending the indefensible. And stop commenting if you're not going to answer the questions put to you directly.
And, unlike you, to answer your questions to me:
No one has said that these are not nations with problems. Some very real problems and very real reasons to leave.
That is NOT THE POINT.
THE POINT IS it is racist to say that poor black nations and their people can't contribute and that rich white nations can/will. It is racist and offensive and stupid as hell.
THAT IS THE POINT.
I'd ask you if you understand the point, but that would just be another question you ignore.
Secondly, yes, helping other nations improve and to live well and safely and prosper is ideal.
Ideally, our nation would assist more in this regards, but the conservatives in power are intent on cutting aid to other nations, not increasing it.
Neither of these address the point of this administration's very real racist comments and ideology.
Now go away unless you are prepared to answer the questions put to you and actually engage in adult conversation.
~Dan
its interesting that you take this stance about people who don’t answer questions and meet your demands.
Everyone can see that I'm answering your questions.
Everyone can see that you're not. That you're vague and obtuse in your comments and prone to making vague charges that may or may not be attacks, but sure sound like attacks, and this, only towards those on the Left. But one can be an absolute pig and a stone cold liar of historical levels and you give THAT a pass and remain silent, time after time... AS LONG AS that lying perverted pig is on the Right.
You have YET to post a single serious post about the multitude of great and serious problems represented by this historically unfit and dangerous administration (although you give milquetoast vague assurances that you're sort of, kind of, you know, not a huge fan of the man...), but you have time upon time to visit blogs of at least one liberal with whom you have rather petty little differences and spend hours nitpicking their words endlessly...
Please, be serious.
Answer the questions or move on.
Bulltrump. I’ve asked you a specific set of questions in November which you dodged, I pointed them out again last week, which you dodged, while making demands that I jump through your hoops.
So, your right, I haven’t answered your questions in this thread to make the point that if you’re going to dodge questions for months, then demand that I jump through your hoops, I’m simply using your hypocrisy as an example.
Nice try.
As long as you ignore the post titled “Donald Trump is an evil, evil man...”.
Taking in bites your 3:42PM comments (by cellphone, so bear with typos):
1. You're once again choosing to focus on quantity of alleged lies over the more significant quality of lies. Just promoting Democratic policy alone makes Durbin the more egregious liar. But this wouldn't be the first time he's come out of a closed door meeting and straight up lied about what an opponent said.
Strike one.
2. Just going by his campaign promises and how he's kept so many of them thus far (despite not acheiving all goals yet), and how that is a more significant measure than tallying insignificant bragging, gaffes, etc., only an idiot would suggest Trump is never worthy of belief.
Strike 2.
3 & 4 coming later, but so far you haven't thrown a strike yet.
1. No, I'm not. I'm focusing on both. YOU, on the other hand, are ignoring the implications of a man who lies multiple times on a daily basis being the leader of the US. Some of those lies are significant and many are silly and some are somewhere in between. The point is, IF a man lies regularly, routinely, easily, daily, THEN you can't trust anything he says.
Strike one. Again.
2. Only an idiot would believe a man who routinely, callously, stupidly lies.
Strike two. Again.
That you don't recognize that you're striking out, repeatedly, does not change the fact.
No need to keep defending what you don't understand, apparently.
Marshall: NO more comments until you can demonstrate with some hard data some reason that Durbin is less reliable than Trump. Unless your comment begins with "Durbin is less reliable BECAUSE..." and followed with hard data, I will just ignore your posts. There's just nothing to your arguments but prejudice and partisan bias. I don't have time to read Nothing.
First of all, I never said you were focusing on both. This is the second time in this thread (or maybe it is in the next---as both are ongoing "conversations", I haven't the time now to determine which) that you've totally butchered what is clearly written by me, as opposed to actually reading my comments as if you truly care about what other people think. Read my comment again, and take note of the word "OVER".
1. As long as one is a Democrat, one is lying multiple times on a daily basis given the falsehoods inherent in most all of their policy positions, and worse, their objections to those of their opponents. It is also worth noting that you have no way whatsoever t validate the charge that Trump lies every day. Worse, you have yet to point out a "significant" lie he's told, with evidence to back it up. It's just something you like to say because you hate.
Still haven't thrown a strike, Danny-boy and I keep hitting your pitches out of the park.
2. Yet you continue to support leftist politicians, thus making you a complete idiot.
You're living in a fantasy world trying to make your BS real. Now, while never producing anything approaching hard data regarding a "significant" Trump lie, you insist I do so with regards Durbin. Well, coward. That data is coming soon. No time now. I'll wait while you fail to do as much.
Have the Durbin stuff you demanded, but not sure if I want to put it here or in a post at my own blog. Still kickin' it around. In the meantime, I'll pick up where I left off:
"3. No one has denied that Trump used SOME harsh words in this session. Some have said it was Shithouse, not Shithole. The point is, he used harsh, stupid, unpresidential words of some sort. Everyone is agreed upon that."
This continues to be an incredibly massive "So what?". It's far more common in closed door meetings than this pearl clutching outrage hopes it will appear. Obama used almost identical language in reference to Libya. You use worse at my blog, because you embrace grace. But only those who are intent on bringing down this administration pretends it's unique to Trump and evidence that he's uniquely evil. We here in the real world call that "lying".
"Beyond that, it's the DEFENSE that most of us are complaining about. Saying We want to let PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE in (as they do in rich white nations), not those who are worthless and beneath contempt (as they do in poor, nations of darker skinned people.)"
It's a DEFENSE that wasn't made. That is, this is another lie regarding Trump's position. YOU are using the words "worthless and beneath contempt" because you're beneath contempt. While the use of the word s**thole is in question, I've not heard anyone mention "worthless and beneath contempt"....except you. And of course, the fact that the "s**thole" nations referenced happen to be populated by poor, darker skinned people is meaningless to anyone who isn't a Trump-hating leftist looking for a way to portray him as a racist.
"It's the DEFENSE that people find vile."
"Vile" is purposely, eagerly and with extreme prejudice distorting Trump's message as you and the Democrats are doing here.
"That Trump almost certainly used vile words to communicate a vile and racist idea is the problem."
"Vile" is presuming that that Trump "almost certainly" did anything on the basis of Dick Durbin's testimony.
So that's a big strike three for you and another homer for me.
continuing..
"4. I repeat: TRUMP IS A LIAR."
And yet you've not provided any example of a "lie" he's told that is as egregious as...
“I remember landing under sniper fire,”
"They died because of a YouTube video" (paraphrased)
"abortions would not be publicly funded under Obamacare" (paraphrased)
Remember Obama telling us there would be no earmarks in his 2009 stimulus package? He lied. The bill had over 9,000 earmarks in it
"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan"
"With Obamacare we will reduce your insurance premiums by $2,500, per family per year"
"God would bless same-sex unions"
"If ANY liberal or Democrat cheated, lied, abused women, BRAGGED about it, etc at even a tiny fraction of the rate that Trump has, you'd be sickened and disgusted by him and calling for his head"
...all of which is far more common than you'd like us to believe and yes, we are sickened and disgusted by anyone who engages in such regardless of party affiliation.
You regard as "blind partisanship" the demand that your blind partisanship be supported by fact and evidence (video would be nice) rather than just out of context or directly distorted by you and lefties comments that normal people do not have problems understanding. We all wish Trump would speak in a more "presidential" manner. But honest people don't lie about what is obviously NOT racist remarks or positions. You whine about his ideology, but you'll need to be specific about what aspects of his ideology you find "vile". Is it his "Make America Great Again" agenda? In what way has his character flaws (particularly his womanizing) harmed our country in any substantive way? None of these things, apparently, are worth you time, preferring instead to post about the insignificant and false.
You not only strike out continually, Dan. You show you're out of your league.
Due to the nonsense you've perpetuated over the use of certain words that give you the vapors, I almost forgot about Dick Durbin and his propensity for falsehood. You asked for that which affirms Durbin as unreliable. Here's some for ya:
http://wizbangblog.com/2014/02/11/senator-dick-durbin-lies-with-impunity/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/01/dick_durbin_i_just_dont_remember_if_i_voted_for_gorsuch_in_2006.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/228822/dead-wrong-durbin-andrew-c-mccarthy
And of course, these examples don't touch on the obvious...that as a Democrat, he supports and promotes a host of leftist party policies that are themselves false or based on falsehood...much like you do.
sigh.
Assuming that the, what? four or five false claims that you suggest he made are, indeed, false claims, how does that in ANY WAY compare to the roughly five false claims a day that Trump makes? To the hundreds of false claims/lies/twisted facts from Trump?
Let that sink in.
HUNDREDS OF FALSE CLAIMS.
In LESS than one year.
...
Sunk in, yet?
HUNDREDS of stupidly false claims in less than a year, versus, let's be generous and say TEN false claims you allege that Durbin made over TWO DECADES in office!
Be serious.
And it would be much easier to take you serious about your concern for Durbin's false claims (the handful that they are) IF you were outraged about Trump's daily false claims.
But you just don't appear to give a shit about those. You're exposing your partisan blindness.
But, being a blindness, I fully recognize that you don't see it.
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=.4ec503ade73f
Sorry about the partisan blindness you suffer from, but still, you lose in the credibility, cogency and consistency contest.
Strike five.
~Dan
First of all, the one lie most relevant here is Durbin's from a previous closed-door meeting. Combine that with contradictory statements from others present at this particular closed-door meeting, and you have reason enough to consider Durbin unreliable, which was the challenge you put to me.
You continue hang the hat that warms your pointy head on this "five per day" narrative that is not confirmed by anyone qualified to hurl the first stone. But to concede such a typical leftist overstatement still leaves the misleading quantity versus quality issue you haven't the courage or honesty to confront. I don't defend him for what amounts to hundreds of insignificant white lies, exaggerations and hyperbolic self-promotion. But your patisan hackery ignore the far more egregious lies told by Democrats, socialists and other lefties, more than a few of which make up the party platform. Hell, most of what you complain about are nothing compared to the lies you tell.
The challenge is why you'd find him MORE unreliable than Trump, how has proven himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over (repeat, ad nauseous) to be unreliable and a liar.
Once a man has SO thoroughly established himself as a liar as Trump has, on what possible basis would one accept anything he has to say as being likely true?
You'd have to be a fool.
I'm no fool.
~Dan
Thus far, Trump has been reliable where he needs to be...in working to see his campaign promises fulfilled. So, as he is doing that rather well, his credibility...his word...has proven reliable where it counts.
You say "fool". Are you comparing me or others who accept Trump's presidential track record of reliability as akin to those whose mental capacity is impaired in some way? How dare you!
And once again, because of your hatred of Trump, you continue to point to numbers of "lies" as more important than the severity of the lie. I'm guessing also that you tally each repeat of what you choose to call a lie...such as "fake news"...in order to inflate the numbers, which is a deceitful (read: lie) abuse of record keeping.
You also conflate that which is not true, but believed by Trump, as lies as well. This is especially hypocritical given the lies you tell under cover of "opinion" and what you pretend to believe. It's beginning to look suspiciously like a "takes one to know one" situation with your regard for Trump.
What's more, I'm still waiting from examples from you of Trump lies that have had any negative effect of importance. You know...something like:
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"
"This plan will reduce premiums by $2000 per year"
"A fetus is not a person"
"Someone can be a woman born in a man's body"
"Republicans are racist"
"God blesses homosexual unions just as He blesses actual marriages"
...and a host of other lies YOUR favored politicians tell as part of their party platform. Surely there must be at least one.
you continue to point to numbers of "lies" as more important than the severity of the lie.
This is empirically, clearly, demonstrably false.
The repeated twisted variations of "Fake News!" and "The press is an enemy of the state" are amongst the most pernicious, diabolical and dangerous lies of any US administration. It's a fucking serious thing to make up the charge of false news (which Trump has demonstrably done repeatedly) especially when you engage in so much actual fake news creation yourself, as Trump does.
Again: There is hardly any lie more dangerous that any president has done - including Reagan's war crimes, including Clinton's lying about a blow job (please), including W's leading us into war wrongly, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents - that is more dangerous than Trump's repeated false allegations about the press. It undermines the very foundation of a free nation.
The Reagan administration quite literally was convicted of very real war crimes, mining harbors, funding terrorists, selling arms to other terrorists, lying to try to cover up that whole snafu'd mess.
No lies in what I said.
Clinton lied about a blow job.
No lies in what I said.
Bush led us into an unnecessary war against a people who had not attacked us or posed a threat to us, killing hundreds of thousands and messing things up greatly, all induced with false claims at the least, if not outright lies.
No lies in what I said.
History is there, I'm not making it up.
That you disagree with reality or how I (and many others) recognize it is not lying. Calling it a lie, is, however, a demonstrable false claim.
And Obama and all other administrations have lied and done things I disagree with. None of them compare to what this administration has done. The sheer number of lies IS a problem in and of itself.
If a man lies fully half the time, how do you know when to trust him?
Answer: You don't.
You quite literally don't.
You CAN choose to blindly trust him, for partisan reasons for instance, or because you're delusional, for instance. But the honest answer for the honest person is that you can't trust what he says.
"The repeated twisted variations of "Fake News!" and "The press is an enemy of the state" are amongst the most pernicious, diabolical and dangerous lies of any US administration."
In what way? Provide and example of the harm done by his criticisms of the press. I've been asking for this for quite a while now. I've provided at my blog numerous examples of the misbehavior of the press, so I don't see Trump's criticisms as anything worse than pointing out the obvious. Note this article. Here are a snippet or two since I don't trust you to read it yourself:
"“I do want to give Trump credit on things, ” Thrush said. “I think one of the things that I think he’s doing better than Barack Obama are these press conferences and his outreach to individual reporters, even for organizations, like my own, that he criticizes.”"
and
"But because Trump holds “free-ranging” press conferences, typically calling on reporters without preselecting them, Thrush said the Republican president’s meetings with the media are a lot more “democratic” than under Obama."
and
"Trump has no problem calling on reporters who either work for an outlet he dislikes or who he personally dislikes. For example, Trump has famously sparred with CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta several times, though still answering Acosta’s questions, despite labeling his outlet “very fake news.”"
Compare that with this. It demonstrates a far more pernicious lie to say that Trump is the diabolical character you want him to be, when Obama routinely went after FoxNews.
Post a Comment