To the good conservative people out there...
Just the facts that we know:
1. Trump makes false claims regularly (and at an ever increasing rate), at a rate unheard of ever in the office of the presidency. This is not disputable, it's demonstrable. Look it up if you doubt it.
2. This president has cheated on all of his wives. All of them. He's boasted about it. He's unrepentant about it. The man has no honor as it relates to any of his wives.
3. This president has boasted about sexually assaulting women and ogling half naked teenaged girls. He's laughed about it.
4. This president's defenders say that this is "normal locker room talk" and just how guys talk when they're alone. This is just not the case (neither I nor my friends have ever engaged in such behavior... not my progressive friends now, not my conservative friends when I was a younger man). To the degree that it IS the case, that SOME men (boys, really, whatever their age) engage in such oppressive and damaging talk does not make it acceptable.
5. What this president has said about making false claims and playing to people's worst nature by telling lies...
"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole."
and...
"I'm the first to admit that I am very competitive and that I'll do nearly anything within legal bounds to win. Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition."
He plays people like a conman, preying on their ignorances and thinks of this as a benefit.
6. What this president has said about greed...
"Now, I’ll tell you, I’m good at that – so, you know, I’ve always taken in money, I like money. I’m very greedy. I’m a greedy person. I shouldn’t tell you that, I’m a greedy – I’ve always been greedy. I love money, right?"
7. Along these lines, we know that this president and people he surrounds himself with, like Paul Manafort, are greedy hedonists. They are ostentatious in their hyper-consumption. They, no doubt, think of this as a moral or practical good. But the words that traditionally have been used to describe golden toilets and million dollar wardrobes (millions of dollars on their clothes... let that sink in! MILLIONS of dollars on their clothes!) is Greed, Hedonism, Debauchery.
Traditionally, these have been considered great grievous sins, NOT morally good.
8. The people around this man have secretly recorded him and each other. They are fundamentally suspicious of one another, and for good reason, it would appear. They are simply not trustworthy people and each of them appears to recognize it.
This recording of your co-workers and "friends" is not normal and must be happening for some reason.
...I could go on, but I think the point is clear: This administration, from its pathetic, lying leader to many of its top players are peopled with hedonistic, greedy, self-centered people who are willing to lie on a regular basis.
This is not normal. This is not good.
The only term I can think to describe what we are seeing and have seen is depraved, debauched. Sick.
Come on, conservative friends: You KNOW that people can make mistakes and get sucked into believing wrong things... that you can surround yourself with bad people who are thinking poorly and you, yourself, be influenced by such bad company. It is a well-worn conservative truism: You are known by the company you keep.
You KNOW this.
Set aside the politics for just a minute and look at what we know. Facts like what I've listed and so many more... isn't it possible that you've made a mistake? That you find yourself defending the wrong man, the wrong people... people who are genuinely hedonistic and debauched... and that you've simply got swept away in the heat of things (and no doubt, with good intentions on your part) and got behind a cadre of thugs and liars who simply aren't worth defending?
I know conservative religious folk believe in the notion of repenting... of admitting a mistake and turning away from that mistake.
Brother and sister conservatives who are defenders of this administration... isn't it time to turn away from that mistake?
270 comments:
1 – 200 of 270 Newer› Newest»I guess those of us who didn’t support him for these sorts of reasons were prescient then.
It was rather obvious, wasn't It? This is addressed to those who defend this administration, or who play down the severity of the perversions and unfitness.
It’s rather obvious that too many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the reality that there are plenty of conservatives who didn’t support Trump for the types of reasons you just gave. I guess acknowledging that fact is just a bridge to far for y’all.
Craig supports cultural white supremacy like most people: they close their eyes to brutality while treasuring nice white politeness. Trump disturbs Craig’s ability to cover up his support of brutality because Trump isn’t a nice white man.
But we got to these last two years not because of Trump. We got here because of all the coded racism and misogyny and all the other brutalizing bigotry that Craig supports got really, really mad because it is losing the privilege of rule.
Don’t kid yourself, Dan: Craig is sick in the head with whiteness. So are 60 million or more white Americans.
As for me, I regularly acknowledge that there are many conservative outliers who are speaking up against this administration. It's part of the argument that this POS in the White House is not normal. Even conservatives recognize it. Some of them. The ones who haven't blinded themselves with partisanship.
So, Craig, show Feodor that he's wrong. Make it clear that you're not merely one who says, "meh, I'm not a fan of this president. He's got bad traits, you know, like Obama or Clinton..." Make it clear that you'll stand up to conservatives and say, "THIS is not normal, nor is it acceptable. This administration is harming the reputation of conservatives and of our nation. We MUST not support this presidency in any way or make it appear that we think he's somehow fit for office. He isn't."
But then, I've offered you that chance before. You always say something along the lines of ..."no, I just disagree with him. he's not that great, I wish there would have been someone else... but I can't speak out against conservatives who support him... that would be wrong..."
Opting not to act against hateful sexism, racism and attacks on the free press is the same as giving tacit support to it. It's time for good conservatives to man up. Will you?
Or are you a tacit supporter of this awful administration? I think we know the answer.
Thank you ever so much for proving yourself wrong and following your groupie into falsehood.
I’ve been consistent since Clinton ran. If someone won’t keep their marriage vows why would they treat their oath of office any differently.
You know the answer to your questions, you’d just rather kiss Feo’s ass than stand for the truth.
My point is made, you don’t have the spine not to lump those who disagree with you on some topics in with those you perceive support Trump.
And there it is. You want to TOY with the idea of being moral, but you don't want to actually do the work that comes with it. You want to be sweet and kind to the people who still support this lying, perverted associate of criminals. At every point, you downplay the seriousness of Trump's offenses.
Go away, Craig. I gave you your chance for redemption. You chose safety over bravery. Being milquetoast over taking principled stands.
Go, if you want redemption, and write an essay on your blog right now talking about how perverse and depraved Trump and his cadre are, and make call for conservatives to repent for supporting Trump. Do it now. Then post that on Stan's and Marshall's and your other conservative buddies' blogs.
Come back when you've done that or not at all.
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.'
But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
~God
Craig loves the dodge. He loves cover for his support of brutality. He wants Dems to cure Chicago: ignoring that Chicago’s strict gun laws were struck down a decade ago by Republican state legislature. He wants illegal immigration controlled because some of them commit crimes, even murder: ignoring that illegals committ less crime per person than native born (legal immigrants commit the fewest). He claims he’s pro-life: ignoring the caging of children and the piling up of student’s bodies killed by guns. He claims nothing can be done because people will just use knives: ignoring NYC’s strict laws AND enforcement, hence lowest violent crime rate since the 1940s! So, too LA’s murder rate is far below Chicago.
Now, Craig loves dodging his right-wing brutality with the oh so convenient cover of Trump. “I never supporting him!” Craig loves what he does not who he is: while taking to the time to write repeatedly about the liberal outcry toward the man. Craig loves to be shallow.
It’s all the cover he requires for his subconscious white thrill to brutality.
And, of course, here he takes a dodge away from his brutality by trying to demean Dan. Craig kisses the ass of brutality but turns his eyes away.
Dan,
I'm sure you'll delete this, as you so often do when inconvenient truth is posted here. The fact is, you've demonstrated the point I hoped to make by my comment. You've allowed and engaged in the telling of lies, attacks on my character, and slander (which you claim to abhor). The fact that you continue to demand that I simply parrot your irrational hatred of Trump demonstrates that you're all about control, not conversation.
The fact that I've not supported trump is incontrovertible, the fact that I can disagree with people with out sinking to your level isn't my problem, it's yours. The fact that you've grown another groupie, and allow him liberties you decry on others as "evil", is simply you wanting positive attention.
More diversions and dodges.
As if Craig doesn’t want illegal immigration stamped out with excessive force. As if Craig had spoken out against caging children. As if Craig doesn’t want rights taken away from LGBTQ and voters if color. As if Craig has considered the right-wing refusal of gun control repercussions in Chicago. As if Craig hadn’t said that knives and bats are as good as guns so why do anything? As if Craig hadn’t called for extreme censoring of Muslim immigrants because 30 terrorists have killed 3,500 Americans in twenty years while shrugging off guns that kill 35,000 Americans every year.
Shallow cover for brutality. He keeps adding more of the same... and dodging the truths about what he has publicakky written. He doesn’t like Trump? He writes like Trump tweets.
It is hypocritical for progressives to rant as Dan is now doing. They defend the killing of the unborn and the promotion of sexual immorality. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever defended Trump's boorishness. Rational people simply weighed the potential between having him for president or either socialist with a chance for success. The people chose wisely as his many achievements have borne out. So despite the high likelihood that you'll delete this comment, let's look at your facts:
1. This is overblown. We've been over this before and you are too deranged to accept the truth: Trump's "lies" have been insignificant, despite how many there might be, compared to those told by Obama, Clinton, Sanders and pretty much all who embrace the leftist ideology as you do. What's more, the number of lies is nowhere near as many as you so desperately need to believe, given he repeats things know one but rapid haters like you take seriously.
2. A reason I didn't support him in the primaries. It has no bearing on his job performance now, and lefties were keen on separating job performance from sexual dalliances when Bill Clinton served, and they've not changed their tune when it involves any of their candidates. What's more, I doubt he's doing a whole lot of cheating now at his age, so it's a rather moot point anyhow.
3. Another overblown and intentionally deceitful position. He's spoken about "grabbing women and kissing them...'I can't help myself'", but that doesn't equate to sexual assault, unless you like diminishing the suffering of women who are truly assaulted sexually. He never said he wraps them up and rams his tongue down their throats.
As to teenagers, there have been conflicting stories about Trump's behavior, but naturally you choose to believe those that put him in the worst possible light, which, by the way in this instance, is no more than "ogling" at the worst, assuming it happened at all. And no, just because he said he did it doesn't mean he did, given that he's such a liar, right?
4. To pretend that "locker room talk" is uncommon among the male population is just plain stupid. I don't believe your anecdotal stories for a minute, but even if true, it's more anomaly than common despite how badly you need Trump to be perverse. And it isn't as if those you demean are trying to justify it in any way, but only to put it into perspective. Some boys don't grow up as regards matters of sexuality. This, too, is all too common in the male population. Ask Hillary.
5. How does this amount to "playing to people's worst natures"? To talk big, hyperbolic, over-the-top is not uncommon among leaders in order to inspire others to greatness. All politicians, generals and coaches do this in order to get people to follow. Indeed, it's mandatory if one hopes to shake people from their low attitudes and general morass, malaise and ennui. This is what your quote implies...not the demonizing you need it to be.
6. So what? There's a fine line between ambition and greed. The former is good, while the latter not so much. Too many see them as identical and I suspect Trump does as well. Though, assuming he's truly greedy, he's also greedy for the nation and wants that we are getting as much as we can without being made the chumps of the world, like the chump that preceded him was willing to accept.
7. I don't know of any except Manafort has been known to spend in this manner. But don't let that stop you from demonizing anyone remotely connected to Trump. Sexual immorality and the sacrificing of infants: Traditionally, these have been considered great grievous sins, NOT morally good, as you promote them to be.
8. This isn't true of most of the people surrounding him, only a scant few, some of whom were already in place before he became president. One, Omarrosa, was a low class individual already whom Trump gave a change...she abused that chance. Get real.
You're deranged and delusional, doing all you can to make worse which was bad enough. Trump has been far more productive and beneficial to this nation than the empty suit who preceded him and who has the audacity to criticize him despite his blatant impotence as a leader and president. So here it is: I support this president far more than I thought I ever would or could because he's proven himself to be more conservative in most of his actions as president than I ever imagined he would or could be, and because he continues to succeed in accomplishing that which benefits his nation and its people. I don't have to like what he's done in his private life, and I don't have to like his manner. I don't even have to like absolutely everything he supports. But the fact remains that despite all the negatives we can say about him, he's been effective in making America great again, just as he said he would when he was campaigning. You can't deal with that reality, which is why you focus on the past and on the insignificant. What's more, you continue to prove you have no idea, nor ever had the least idea, of what conservatism is all about. You never were a conservative.
Not even two lines in and Marshall chooses "boorishness" for gross, abusive, socially destructive and nationally threatening communicative behavior. JUST communicative behavior. No consideration of policy is necessary.
A boor is a clown, a churl. We're way beyond that. But Marshall has no intention to defend the President's clownishness.
Gross, abusive, socially destructive and nationally threatening communicative behavior? Marshall secretly thrills to the brutality of it all. He just wants to be seen as a nice white man.
And btw, "the people chose" Ms Clinton.
The differences between Craig and Marshall are instructive.
Here and on Craig's blog, Craig bizarrely acts as if the attacks on Trump are something he has to defend himself against. Anyone with basic psychology recognizes that Craig must identify in some way with Trump despite his protestations. I think he understands at some level that his dedication to right-wing oppressive policies and wide spread commitments to racism, misogyny, and bigotry implicates him in the success of Trump - as it surely does. So Craig needs his shallow cover. He sputters all in mere denial and diversion.
Whereas Marshal embraces Trump. Every point of his is a denial of the obviousness of Trump's nationally endangering misdemeanors as President, while suggesting that the day of reckoning for his high crimes will never come. Marshall embraces the brutality of the man while trying to claim rejection of the man. A man is pretty much what he says and does and Marshall's thrill to the brutality of the whole Republican Party as it now is serves to identify Marshall as an extreme fundamentalist. He's the Christian version of coercive Sharia law. He hates the same cities that the 9/11 terrorists hated. Marshall hates the same things that Mohamad Atta hated: the things that make these two cities lights on a hill, beacons of liberation and freedom.
Maybe you should give up the amateur psychology thing.
Maybe, it’s just really simple. I’ve said my piece about why I don’t support Trump, and see no reason to belabor it endlessly.
Or maybe it’s just easier to make unfounded judgments about others.
You have been belaboring it endlessly. In two places, no less. And diversionary judgments - which you have been doing - are easily analysed.
The question you should be asking yourself is why you are so anxious to separate yourself from him? You say you don't support him but that you do support what he does? Sick in the head.
Craig did a milquetoast and mild and vague "trumps not the best sort of guy... I wish someone else were offered... meh..." pathetic sort of vaguely "anti-Trump" post (in which he again says that "but the democrats are bad, too, in a similar way..." equivocation again. Again, unimpressed. But that's what he does.
However, he also included this line to defend his lack of action against Trump amongst those on his "side"...
"do I need, want, or hope to impose my views on others? No, I'm not responsible for others."
Not responsible for others. That says it all.
The Germans who did not actively oppose the Nazis defended themselves in a similar milquetoast manner. "Do I really need to impose my views on others and actively oppose the Nazis? No... I'm not responsible for others."
It is this sort of cowardly lack of action that only serves to embolden and empower the "bad guys."
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.
I reject that sort of nonsense, myself. IF the Dems had nominated Trump, you can bet that, however must I protest him as a GOP charlatan/president, I'd double and triple down my efforts at opposing his administration, calling Democrats/liberals on the carpet for supporting him.
But then, I'm not one to ignore great evil.
No need to comment here further, really, any of you. You've all said all that needs to be said.
For instance, not that Marshall has need to prove his lack of character further, but he said this sort of thing...
"To pretend that "locker room talk" is uncommon among the male population is just plain stupid. I don't believe your anecdotal stories for a minute"
Again, THIS DEFENSE of Trump's evil, awful, abusive behavior says WAY too much about his defenders than it does about anyone else.
No, Marshall, in the real world, I never have engaged in that sort of talk. Not as a young conservative (amongst other young conservative men) and certainly not as a progressive, among other progressive men.
I didn't say it doesn't happen amongst men, of course it does. But it doesn't happen amongst men of character.
The rapey crowd of men have always engaged in that sort of thing and then presume to assume that "all guys do it..." but no. Non-rapey sorts of men don't engage in that sort of talk.
Good God, what is wrong with conservative men?
Craig, no need to comment further here, but please, TRY to show some character. Call conservatives out when they say, "Oh, boys will be boys. it's just locker room talk. All guys do it..." and let them know that NO, not all guys do it and that too many guys do it is not a defense of rape-talk.
Of course, I didn’t actually say what you claim I said, which might make a difference. I doubt it, but it might.
As they say “Even a blind pig finds an acorn, every once and a while.”, simply acknowledging the truth of that statement doesn’t equate to support.
But subtle distinction doesn’t seem to be your thing.
Craig, you just misspoke. I literally copied and pasted the line about "I'm not responsible for others" from your blog. It's YOUR words from YOUR blog. So, you literally DID say just what I claimed you said.
Please admit the error and move on. Or just move on.
Dan, no you misspoke. I was responding to Feo, not you. Don’t bother apologizing it was an honest mistake. I’m sure you missed the time stamp.
I will say, that I’m actually not responsible for what others do, think, or support, it’s just reality.
Dan, if you spent half as much time calling out people on your side, I’d maybe take you more seriously. But you don’t.
Just because I choose not to couch everything in crudity, vitriol, and hate doesn’t mean I approve of it.
Clearly civility and conversation aren’t on your agenda. Nor is coming out from your hiding place in your echo chamber.
John Schmuck Made Me Do This
Thursday, August 23, 2018:
“Has Trump done things that I have agreed with, sure he has.”
"But then, I'm not one to ignore great evil."
That's funny, though not altogether inaccurate. You don't ignore it. You promote it, enable and defend it. I again cite your promotion and defense of and enabling and support for sexual immorality, the killing of the unborn, the theft of personal property in the form of progressive taxation among other things, not the least of which is the unjustified and unChristian use of foul language. Here's another great evil: inflating the bad behavior of Trump while minimizing, if not totally avoiding, the bad behavior of your own political choices.
To pretend I've "proven" my "bad character", or to pretend you've proven that anything I've said or done qualifies as proof is equally absurd, hypocritical and deceitful. Rather, you ignore the actual points I've made in favor of a false representation of them. There's no mystery about where I stand...no equivocation or evasion. As such, there is no moral problem with the choices I've made as they are all based on solid, long-standing and time-tested standards of morality, virtue and character. You're just to blinded by your hatred for Trump due to the fact that he bested any who would have perpetuated the failings of the previous eight years.
"Again, THIS DEFENSE of Trump's evil, awful, abusive behavior says WAY too much about his defenders than it does about anyone else."
Only to liars, who insist it's a defense of Trump's bad behavior, when it clearly is not. Can you find anywhere in anything I've said that even barely hints that his behavior is OK or acceptable to me or not of low character? No...you can't. You simply assert that it is because the truth is too much for you. Once again, it's not a defense. It's putting things in perspective. I saw all those things as being reason enough to withhold my support of him in the primaries. It was NOT enough to withhold my support during the general election when a far more dangerous (to the nation) candidate was most likely to win if he didn't. I'm totally good with that decision and when faced with two evils, I have no doubt that God will find my choosing the lesser of them to be a wise and moral choice...because it is and has proven to be so thus far. Nothing you can say about his past, and about his insignificant crudeness can mitigate the fact that he's been a good president so far, improving so much in so many areas.
"No, Marshall, in the real world, I never have engaged in that sort of talk."
If you say so, but you certainly talk smack now, so how are you better? You wish to insist that you have some moral high ground that justifies your dropping f-bombs...and at the blogs of others...by that's just cheap rationalization for doing basically the same thing Trump's done, but in a different way in a different context about a different subject. You're only fooling yourself.
"Not as a young conservative (amongst other young conservative men) and certainly not as a progressive, among other progressive men."
You were never a conservative. You have no idea what that even means, as you've shown no understanding of it now. Opposing homosexuality for the wrong reasons didn't make you a conservative. It made you just as wrong about Scripture as you are now, but in a different way. I find it insulting to conservatives everywhere that you dare suggest you were ever among them.
"The rapey crowd of men have always engaged in that sort of thing...etc."
"Rapey"? More nonsense. Bullshit in fact. You're trying to elevate the common practice among 99% of the male population of engaging in locker room talk to a level of evil that is among that of the truly sexually immoral and abortion supporters. Good try, but no cigar. What's more, you have most likely engaged in a level of that practice yourself, but choose to pretend you didn't because it didn't reach the level of crudeness Trump's speech has. In any case, I don't put any faith in your anecdotal examples.
"Good God, what is wrong with conservative men?"
Nothing. They're just not like progressive Christians who pretend they're morally superior while supporting the most heinous behaviors as a matter of public policy. Conservative men deal with reality, as I did in voting for Trump to save the nation from Hillary or Bernie.
Your blathering on about the quality of conservative men who support this presidency due to the successes and achievements brought about by Trump...who for the most part has actually fulfilled many of his campaign promises---also very different from the typical president these days...is just more hopeless demonizing of those who aren't as immature as you with regard to what matters most. Here's a little something that further speaks on the issue on the table:
https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/08/22/bad-men-good-presidents-n2511320
The above article only touches on a few of the good things Trump has done as president that already makes him far superior to the idiot who warmed the bench for the previous eight years.
Only in the warped minds of Feo and Dan does the fact that Trump (just like Clinton and P-BO) has done some things I’ve agreed with translate into 100% uncritical support.
But then reality has never been particularly important around here.
You say we lie and you say we said you're 100% behind him. Two lies right there. I have a quote from you. You only have your lie.
Okay, look, Marshall, Craig, the point of THIS post is that Trump is a pervert, a liar, untrustworthy, a creep, an abusive, bullying idiot who is probably a danger to this nation. The facts are all there. He's a lying greedy hedonist (and I GET that you have no problem defending most of that, Marshall) who surrounds himself with the same.
The facts are what they are. I'm not here to dispute facts with people who wish to deny reality. The point of THIS post, then is simple:
When will decent conservatives begin to stand up firmly (not vaguely, not in a milquetoast manner) and begin to oppose him and (those who have defended/supported him) repent for their part of defending him?
THAT is the point of this post. Do you have any thoughts on when decent conservatives will rise up against Trump AND against his supporters (even more importantly) in any significant manner?
Don't try to defend the rapey, racist, lying stream of excrement that comes from this debauched and depraved group of hedonists... that is NOT the point of this post.
I will accept on topic comments. No more off topic comments.
Craig, on vague half-hearted sorta critique of this administration... who really only used the post as a way of criticizing the critics of Trump, not really Trump, had this to say...
"as people who profess a belief in Christ, shouldn't our posture toward Trump (and others) be one of working, praying, and hoping for him to repent? "
Yes. But when the prophets of the OT criticized the bad leaders of the day, they also prayed for his destruction. When Mary prayed her Magnificat, she prayed that the rich and powerful oppressors be PULLED DOWN, that the rich be sent away empty!
Why this harshness towards rich oppressors (and that harshness BEGINNING with the clear-eyed acknowledgment that the rich oppressors ARE the rich oppressors)? Because we are to LOVE and to work for justice BEGINNING with love and justice for and with the poor and oppressed. So, of course, when faced with that repeated charge from lion-hearted and rational thinkers throughout history, we WILL come across as harsh towards the rich oppressors. It's the biblical example, for one thing.
For another thing, the poor and oppressed, the foreigners, the LGBTQ, the Muslims and the Jews and the blacks who have been maltreated throughout the years NEED to hear that good people are siding with them and against the rich oppressors. It is a vital starting point. Any half-hearted "There were bad guys on both sides" sort of namby pamby non-critiques only serve to embolden and empower the racists, the rich oppressors, the rapists and the "locker room" guys who contribute to a rape culture with their objectification of women as a mere collection of consumable parts. The poor and oppressed recognize a sell-out when they see and hear it. They NEED good folks to clearly side with them.
Beyond that, sadly, too often those who are caught up in the trap of wealth and exploitation, as well as their sycophant defenders, are just very much blinded by all that wealth. Sometimes, they need a metaphorical slap across the face to even begin to recognize even the very slight... "Oh, what, people aren't in love with me and my wealth??? I... I don't understand, I thought everyone loved me..."
They are blinded and hard-hearted and need tough love. They need to hit rock bottom so that they can hopefully begin to recognize that the gold in their pockets is only keeping them down beneath the drowning waters. THEN, maybe they'll opt to empty out those silver-lined pockets and dump those gold toilets.
But first and foremost, we need to side with the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. Clearly, not in a vague half-defense sort of way.
Just to deal with that nonsense that, no doubt, Craig didn't even write.
And because I don't know if Craig will actually post comments from me on his blog, here's what I offered there to him...
Okay, I'm trying for the most part to ignore you and your irrational defense of this man (by way of equivocating on how unfit he is and comparing him to just other politicians), but just for the record...
"Has he told more lies that anyone, ever in the history of American politics? I have no idea, nor do the people who make those sorts of claims. "
What the claim is is that he has PUBLICLY made more false claims than anyone else has been documented saying. And we DO have an idea. We have the words/claims of presidents from the past. We have Trump's idiotic tweets that he endlessly vomits. We can count. We can consider the words and recognize a false claim when we see it. It's demonstrable.
But you pretending like this is some vague and unknowable mystery is just ANOTHER way you DEFEND this lying scumbag. This post is NOT a critique of Trump, it is a defense of him, it gives him and his sycophants support and comfort, NOT a prophetic slap across the face.
Just like Trump's words (even his milquetoast criticisms of racists and Nazis) give comfort and support to racists and Nazis.
While you may even actually THINK you are a critic of Trump, Craig, you're just another half-assed defender of his shameful behavior. You ARE Trump, in your approach to public commentary. Only, he's better at it than you are. You're acting as a poor man's Trump.
Open your eyes.
Of course I’ll post your on topic comments.
I’m shocked you ventured out of your safe space echo chamber to do so.
Hell, even Feo is free to comment if he’d only provide what he’s been asked to provide for months.
I’ll reiterate what I said at first. I chose not to support Trump for much of the same types of things you’ve mentioned when he was running. I guess being ahead of the curve means nothing here.
Supporting racist ideas isn’t ahead of the curve, Craig. Removing rights from gay people and demonizing them isn’t ahead of the curve. Misogynist judgmentscof strong women isn’t ahead of the curve. Neither is ignoring the slaughter of Americans with guns.
You’ve never been ahead of the curve.
And tell your idiot acolyte that contraception prevents abortion. You both keep abortion necessary by your Victorian need to control women.
"Okay, look, Marshall, Craig, the point of THIS post is that Trump is a pervert, a liar, untrustworthy, a creep, an abusive, bullying idiot who is probably a danger to this nation."
Actually, it's not the point of this post. The point of this post is found in the following:
"When will decent conservatives begin to stand up firmly (not vaguely, not in a milquetoast manner) and begin to oppose him and (those who have defended/supported him) repent for their part of defending him?"
You even say so immediately following the above. Just sayin'.
But here's the thing: YOU aren't the arbiter of decency among those who defend this presidency. And that's what you are too mired in unchristian hate to see. It's not Trump, but whether or not Trump is doing the job for which he was elected. He clearly is, and far better than his predecessor. There's no debate about this among honest people from either side of the aisle. Go ahead and find one and ask.
--You want "decent conservatives" to reject him because he's "a pervert", when you defend another kind of perversion as something God would bless. So, we must accept YOUR definition of perversion instead of one that encompasses far more and far worse than simply wanting to get laid by every hot babe Trump comes across.
--You want "decent conservatives" to reject him because he's "a liar", when you defended and supported Obama despite all of his far worse lies that were far more damaging to Americans than any told by Trump. Indeed, you support the lies of the Democratic Party and all the socialists that seek to take that party over, all of which are far worse than how many showed up to a Trump rally. (And by the way, you keep ragging about Trump being a liar, but you accept as gospel truth everything he's said about his conquests of women. How does that work, exactly?)
--You want "decent conservatives" to reject him because he's "untrustworthy", but you defended Obama who more Americans than not regarded him as untrustworthy, as evidenced by polls in 2013 and 2014 by Quinnipac and Gallup. His abuse of his office, sidestepping Congress with all of his executive orders, for example, demonstrate his being unworthy of the public's trust. What's Trump done, but either follow through on his campaign promises or continue to push toward that end?
--You want "decent conservatives" to reject him because he's "a creep". How has that manifested since he took office exactly?
--You want "decent conservatives" because he's "an abusive, bullying idiot who is probably a danger to this nation". Really. Because he calls out journalists who constantly attack him? Because he tweets about people he doesn't like? Boo-freakin'-hoo. Still improving the nation. "Decent conservatives" put the nation first and expect the president to do the same. That's been the case so far as the results have demonstrated. I have no doubt that if you try to explain how he's been a danger to the nation that you'll come up short there as well. Go ahead. I dare you.
"When will decent conservatives begin to stand up firmly (not vaguely, not in a milquetoast manner) and begin to oppose him and (those who have defended/supported him) repent for their part of defending him?"
When he does something as president that is worthy of opposition. How's that? Has he abused women lately? No. Has he cheated on his wife since he was elected? Not that anyone has alleged. Has he spoken crudely about women? Uh-uh. Has he acted more conservative as president than anyone since Reagan. Absolutely. From a performance as president basis, he's almost batting 1.000. How can "decent Americans" oppose a president who is doing so well, fulfilling promises, making things better?
As to the "poor and oppressed", there are far fewer of them now, since the economy is moving again. If by "oppressed" you refer again to those who come to this country without going through the proper protocols, they are not "oppressed" because they are held to account. This guy's approval ratings continue to go up, and they go up even among the black and Hispanic populations. They've gone up for Jews since he finally officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and a new US Embassy opened there. And he let Bruce Jenner take a dump in his hotel restroom, so who's he oppressing exactly?
The real question is not when "decent conservatives" will finally oppose the guy. It's when will the Trump-haters like you stop hating long enough to see that he's been positively effective as president so far?
Trump proclaimed: “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea” right after meeting with that country’s dictator in June, but the International Atomic Energy Agency in a new report finds no letup in North Korea’s nuclear program.
On opioid overdoses, Trump this spring claimed: “The numbers are way down” and “We’re doing a good job with it” ― while his own National Institutes of Health shows there were nearly 7,000 more deaths in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, than in 2016, a 16 percent increase.
While Trump claims he has “wiped out,” “eradicated” and “obliterated” ISIS, his own Defense Department found it has about 30,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, about the same number the CIA estimated it had back in 2014.
Trump’s story on the matter of the payments for silence has shifted dramatically, from claiming that he had no knowledge of them when he was asked on April 5, to, most recently, claiming that his reimbursement to Cohen for them proves it was all perfectly legal.
Which is s lie.
And then, just today, he told Fox and Friends that inducted people should never be allowed to cooperate with prosecutors.
He’s destroying law and order. He should be impeached.
But Craig calls that “wanting to destroy him.” We can only guess that’s because he fantasizes seeing Trump in chaps.
By the way, you don't ever have to like the guy. I wouldn't necessarily put him on my Christmas card list. I'm just saying that the things you focus on don't matter compared to the good job he's done as president.
Feo, since you’re clearly just having both sides of the conversation and just making stuff up, I’ll leave you to it.
You’re the expert on dodging, Craig. Take a side and honorably defend it. Or get out, as you plan to do.
Marshall doesn’t want a KKK apologist for dinner. Just as President.
Fedora, you're not wrong. If you act like a racist, if you defend racists, if you are merely quiet in the face of racist bad behavior, there's a good chance that you're a racist. But that isn't the topic here.
Craig, Feodor's right. Learn from him on this point.
But none of that is the topic here. The topic here is, "When will conservative white Christians, as a group, finally recognize that Trump has crossed too many lines and that he is simply not worthy of any support and, indeed, that they should be shamed that they lent him any support of comfort (even if only in their complicit silence)?"
The answers might be something like, "When conservatives have a true revival and turn from their wicked ways..."
or
"Change is slow, look how long it has taken/is STILL taken, for certain evangelicals to fully abandon slavery and the defense of slave owners and slavery defenders... but hopefully, one day, repentance will come and redemption will follow..."
or
"I just don't know what to do! It IS horrible and offense to basic decency and morality and reason that so many conservative white Christians still support this lying perverted hedonist... I feel like I've spoken up to the right people, but they just don't seem to hear. Maybe I need to be more straightforward and clear in my condemnation of Trump supporters... I don't know..."
Or anything that actually addresses the question being raised. Please stick to the topic.
The chief executive of federal law in our nation - the President - claims that indicted persons cooperating with prosecution of crimes in our country should be made illegal. He praises those that do not cooperate with enforcing our laws and uncovering crime. He takes this position only relative to his own legal jeopardy.
This chief enforcer of federal law also repeatedly asks commercial businesses to take away 1st amendment rights to free speech by athletes of color who are protesting police brutality toward, even to the point of killing, people of color. They carry out their protest while still fulfilling their contractual obligations to play the game with passion and dedication - even at Hall of Fame levels. The claims that it is disrespect are, on their face, disingenuous. Play the anthem at the end of the game and watch all the white people scramble to their cars before "... can you see" is sung.
If one cannot see this as racist, then one is a racist, whether one knows it or not.
If one cannot see this as additional "misdemeanors" raising the specter of impeachment due to behavior undermining legitimacy of federal laws and constitutional rights, then one needs to make a brilliant argument as to why.
To your post, Dan, there must be the recognition that conservative white Christianity aren't shying from open brutality anymore as they once did. They fully embrace brutality (despite lip service denials) and the denigration of our system of laws and democracy.
Asking them when they are going to change is a question that has been three decades in the making. The answer we are getting back is: it's going to take many years for them to see themselves and feel shame.
“The thing about all the shocking Trump revelations — Michael Cohen’s about violating campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women in coordination with a “candidate for federal office” being the latest — is that they are already baked into Trump’s image. His supporters, and there are tens of millions of them, never had illusions. I’ve not met one... who did not have a pretty clear picture of Trump. They’ve known all along that he’s a needy narcissist, a womanizer, a lowlife, a liar, a braggart and a generally miserable human being. That’s why the “Access Hollywood” tape or the I-could-shoot-somebody-on-Fifth-Avenue boast did not kill his candidacy.
There’s a deeper question, which comes back to the extraordinary Western landscape and the high American idea enshrined in it. Americans elected Trump. Nobody else did. They came down to his level. White Christian males losing their place in the social order decided they’d do anything to save themselves, and to heck with morality. They made a bargain with the devil in full knowledge. So the real question is: What does it mean to be an American today? Who are we, goddamit? What have we become?
Trump was a symptom, not a cause. The problem is way deeper than him.
For William Steding, a diplomatic historian living in Colorado, American individualism has morphed into narcissism, perfectibility into entitlement, and exceptionalism into hubris. Out of that, and more, came the insidious malignancy of Trump. It will not be extirpated overnight.”
https://nyti.ms/2P5fKjc?smid=nytcore-ios-share
When you stand against abortion and sexual immorality and those in your party...indeed, the party itself...who support, defend and enable them, then you have standing to judge Trump and those who defend his presidency (while not ever and actually defending him, his character flaws and whatever tales of evil are actually and verigiably true).
Since rational people get it (results of studies that abstinence doesn’t work) rational people advocate easily accessible contraception AND a niversal sex education (that IS shown to work) for drastically reducing abortions.
Irrational people think this is pro abortion and block healthy policy. Thereby keeping abortion numbers up.
Sick in the head.
Precisely why they follow, support, or stay silent on a popular vote losing incompetent who is tearing down respect for law and order, decency and American values.
Only a buffoon would insist that abstinence doesn’t work. It has never NOT worked to prevent pregnancy every time it has been practiced. Indeed, it is absolutely 100% effective. Contraception, however, is NOT 100% effective. Yet, because of buffoons who like to pretend they're intelligent, more women deceive themselves that they'll be fine if only they engage in "safe sex" using contraceptive methods that are not 100% effective. So, more become pregnant than otherwise would have had they remained abstinent.
As if that ain't bad enough, no woman who abstains is likely to contract an STD, or suffer emotional debilitation over the knowledge that she did indeed have her child murdered when she got that abortion after her contraceptive choice failed to prevent her pregnancy.
And such buffoons will dare go on about Trump abusing women!
Only right wingers think they know more than actually educated people.
"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Only right wingers think they know more than actually educated people.
"Part of the problem with abstinence-only sex ed is that it doesn't take into consideration that abstinence needs to be perfect to be effective, according the review published Tuesday in the Journal of Adolescent Health. Most birth control methods have two rates of effectiveness: one for perfect use, and one for "typical" use, (that is, how people actually behave). The pill, for example, is 99 percent effective if you are a robot who never forgets your purse, but 91 percent effective for the average human who sometimes misses a pill or takes it late. Likewise, abstinence is a 100 percent effective form of birth control with perfect use, but you only need to slip up once or twice for that effectiveness to plummet to zero.
Adolescents who try to be abstinent often fail, and when they do have sex, they often don't use condoms or other contraception, according to the review. The authors report that as Americans get married later, the longer the window for them to try to be abstinent: the current gap between the age young women first have sex and get married is 8.7 years; for young men it's 11.7 years. Other studies have shown that teen girls who've taken a virginity pledge end up having a higher rates of HPV and unintended pregnancy.
Conversely, comprehensive sex ed programs—which include lessons on how to have safe sex as well as information on abstinence—have been shown to be much more effective."
Cites:
"However, programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) or sexual risk avoidance are scientifically and ethically problematic and—as such—have been widely rejected by medical and public health professionals." https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30260-4/fulltext
"The findings indicate that making a private pledge or promise to oneself to wait to have sexual intercourse until one is older reduces the likelihood that adolescents will engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex. The effect persists even when controlling for socio-demographic variables. Making a formal pledge did not appear to have an effect on sexual behavior." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1949026/
"The analysis confirms previous public health findings that abstinence-only education programs don't succeed in reducing rates of teen pregnancies or STDs. Moreover, public health data indicate that such programs "have little demonstrated efficacy in helping adolescents to delay intercourse," the authors write.
When American teens do begin having sex, they may fail to use condoms or other forms of contraception, unlike their peers in other countries who have routine access to contraceptive education and counseling, the report suggests."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues
Only right wingers think they know more than actually educated people.
"The report finds that over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two- thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, the report finds:
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data”; another states that “[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the RisksofAbortion. Onecurriculumstatesthat5%to10%ofwomenwho have legal abortions will become sterile; that “[p]remature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy”; and that “[t]ubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.” In fact, these risks do not rise after the procedure used in most abortions in the United States.
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: “Conception, also known asfertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.” Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.”
• ABSTINENCE-ONLY CURRICULA TREAT STEREOTYPES ABOUT GIRLS AND BOYS AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. ONE CURRICULUM TEACHES THAT WOMEN NEED “FINANCIAL SUPPORT,” WHILE MEN NEED “ADMIRATION.” ANOTHER INSTRUCTS: “WOMEN GAUGE THEIR HAPPINESS AND JUDGE THEIR SUCCESS ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.
MEN’S HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS HINGE ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.”
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual”; the correct number is 23.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/HenryWaxman.pdf
At the risk of a tar baby situation.
By definition abstinence is 100% perfect in the prevention of pregnancy and disease. Not having sex virtually eliminated the possibility of either.
We know scientifically that no other form of contraception (including surgical) is 100% effective.
Let’s just encourage people to rut like animals in heat.
You can’t read can you? See above.
Akin to an absolute perfect game. Theoretically every pitch could be a strike for 27 outs. But you don’t live in a human world.
Turns out the pill is more effective in a human world.
This must be how you deny my presenting you and Marshall the best reasonable control plan on your blog: you can’t really read, can you?
Your argument is that since some people take an abstinence based education course, and fail to properly apply what they learned that it’s the fault of the curriculum, not of the individual. Which, of course, means that if the condom isn’t used properly it’s the condom’s fault. Or if someone skips a dose or two of the pill it’s the pill’s fault.
Genius.
I’m not arguing anything. This is just your diversionary attempt avoid what factual results of all studies reveal. You can’t deal with it. You can’t deal with how real human beings live real life. And obviously you have no clue how best to reduce abortions (the results right in front of you and you still dodge) or how to reduce gun violence. None of your kind of. That’s why it’s still going on.
You’re not going to get anything of truth, goodness, or beauty, Craig, if you can’t work in the real world. You just have that asocial, amoral, alienated savant thing going on.
Of course you are. You’re excuse for the gun violence in Chicago was to blame Indiana. Your excuse for pregnancy is to blame curriculum. If you can’t acknowledge that blaming inanimate objects, curricula, and other people for everything is a ridiculous way to live, I can’t help you.
You think causes, correlative relationships, and associated factors are excuses. That’s because you are undereducated and shallow and motivated only by blame games when it comes to everyone but white men.
Here, still another diversion from having to deal with reality is telling you.
Face reality. Don’t be a Trump supporter. Don’t be Marshall.
“... increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S."
I guess you’ve chosen to ignore the differences between correlation and causation.
I’m addition to the difference with the tool (education, condoms, the pill etc) and how the tool is used. You’re blaming the tool for the misuse of the tool.
There only excuses when people like you use them as excuses.
Shallow, poorly educated thinking again: correlative causes do not necessarily mean cause. But they may well do.
This is what? You’re 19th diversion from the facts you haven’t dealt with? Just on this post.
That’s quite a compliment from the master of diversion.
Of course it par for the course, blame the tool not the user of the tool.
It’s clearly off topic, but the underlying worldview that sex must be restricted as little as possible and be made as consequence free as possible is the bigger issue.
According to a CNN (damn right wing fanatics) report, the CDC has announced that preventable STDs have hit a record high in the US. Clearly there is a massive failure somewhere.
Uhhh, yeah. You’ll find this above in the instructional material you didn’t read. (You’ve just demonstrated the human failing that makes abstinence only programs bad - and regressive information.)
“The analysis confirms previous public health findings that abstinence-only education programs don't succeed in reducing rates of teen pregnancies or STDs.”
Expert says abstinence-only education contributing to rise in Utah STD epidemic
by Heidi Hatch
Wednesday, May 20th 2015
(KUTV) Utah's gonorrhea rates are up more than 700 percent for women in the last few years. Overall the numbers have jumped nearly 400 percent. The startling statistics have the state and local health departments scrambling to stop the skyrocketing rates. This week the state held a clinical update conference to get practitioners statewide involved in the conversation of what happens next. The conference this week was originally scheduled for the fall but was bumped up over concerns of how quickly gonorrhea and chlamydia numbers are going up.
Joel Hartsell, with the state health department, briefed doctors this week on skyrocketing gonorrhea and chlamydia rates in Utah. In an interview with 2 news earlier this month, Hartsell said of the STD jump, “this is a real issue in Utah and a rapidly growing issue it is something that needs to be talked about, not avoided.” Local health departments left the clinical update with new treatment guidelines and in some cases, more personnel power. For Salt Lake County, there will be new help in the form of an additional employee at the STD clinic on 600 S. 200 East. The county will use its new resource for public outreach and tracking STD cases. Lynn Beltran, an epidemiologist, will tell you this is not a cure all, but says ”getting that help is a big positive for us.
“Condoms have been a difficult subject to broach in the last five years.” She says there is a condom fatigue. Condom use is down in recent years after a high in the early 90s after fear over ther HIV/AIDS virus died off. Beltran talks to a lot of people who come in the doors of the STD clinic and says a lot of people tell her, “I don't ' want to talk about condoms; I'm going to take my chances.”
In Utah, this attitude is due in part to a lack of education. Beltran says she goes by the numbers.
“All the national data tells us that abstinence-based education results in higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of STD's.”
Recent studies show abstinence-only education increases the odds of early sexual activity.” Beltran hears it all. “There is a myth out there that comprehensive sex education promotes sexual activity and teaching people to use condoms.”
In the end she believes it is just the opposite.“
Actually, it makes the point that human failings make ANY sex education program bad.
But as long as you insist on blaming one tool, rather than who’s really responsible, you’ll continue to come off as a cranky, biased, shill.
As long as “she believes” it then it must be true.
The reality is that it’s the people that increase the odds, not the curriculum.
But don’t let that minor bit of reality intrude on a good narrative.
Actually it doesn’t. Human failing is why full education with easy access to contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
You - and those who want abstinence only programs, i.e., the Republicans - have spent two and more decades effectively blocking further reductions than that already achieved.
“She” has hundreds of reputable research finding the same outcomes behind her. “You” just have mountains of diversionary bullshit.
Diversion #20. Deal with the research, Craig. Stop being an idiot.
Craig,
Are you arguing for abstinence only programs? I know I haven't. Who here has been doing that?
I’m not at all. I’m pointing out the unarguable facts that not engaging in sex is 100% effective in prevention of pregnancy and disease and that blaming the tool for the failure of the user is absurd.
Feo is totally destroying an argument no one made.
I'm over the moon happy that we've found common ground in agreeing on a full information sex health education with the provision and teaching of the use of condoms and birth control pills for our nation's teenagers.
If we achieve this standard, abortion will be cut by 50 to 80%. What a gift to the country and humanity.
If by full information, you actually mean full information, strictly science and data I wouldn’t have a problem.
Why, are you trying to suggest that abortion is a bad thing?
Most abortions are avoidable. Right wing fundamentalism keep the numbers high by blocking full information sex education and access to contraceptives.
This has been obvious for three decades.
But you don't live the human world of time.
Nice dodge.
Facts, because I never dodge your diversions. I shoot them all down instead of moving on and never addressing what lies you put up. You just go from lie to lie, just like Trump.
I'm not bothering deleting your off topic comments, fellas, I just don't have time. But stop. This is not a post about abortion. It's not a post about sex ed.
It's a post just pointing to the reality of how very depraved, debauched and hedonistic this administration is and questions why any moral or reasonable people would give a rancid dump to this team, much less any support or respect.
The answer: Moral and reasonable people SHOULDN'T. If they have, they should repent and actively being to work against their vile and debauched ways and policies.
On topic. Please.
If this is truly a post about "how very drpraved, debauched and hedonistic this administration is", then certainly you can point to or provide examples of depravity, debauchery or hedonism in the behavior of ANYONE in this administration. You can't, of course, because no such examples exist, but it would be very entertaining for me to watch you make a fool of yourself trying. I can hardly wait.
? Are you saying you don't recognize the hedonistic and depraved nature of this President? Of the criminals, liars and hedonists he surrounds himself with? The vast overspending to surround themselves with luxuries at taxpayer's expense? Scaramooch? The criminal activities, arrests and indictments? The millions of dollars wardrobes, the gold toilets, the affairs, the laughing about ogling teenaged girls??
I don't know what you're asking.
I don't know what
It would be more credible if you were to have said something like, "Look I know he has had Associates who've been convicted of crimes, I know that Trump himself is a moral deviate, I'm well aware of all the gross perverse behavior in his background and his frequent exaggerations/false claims. I'm aware that the people around him and he, himself, live grossly extravagant lives... I recognize reality that he has cheated people out of money apparently and regularly uses his wealth to push his way, and that he is a bully... I'm aware of all of that. And yet, is that really all that bad? I mean if he's doing a good job is all the lying and Corruption and hedonism and perverse Behavior really matter?"
Something like that would be at least some starting point. But acting as if you don't recognize the gross in Morality of this man and the people he's around himself, the false claims, the hedonism, the convictions and indictments,... I'm just not sure what to do with that
DeVos is attempting to take $1 billion that would increase student access to art and music, mental health and technology programs at the nation’s most impoverished schools...
... to buy guns.
Sick in the head.
Ah yes, de Vos and the whole scandal of hiring a bunch of his millionaire friends for jobs they're not qualified for, along with their ten yachts and ostrich suits! Corruption upon corruption.
How did St James put it...?
"Is it not the rich who oppress you and take you to court?"
Yup. Corruption upon oligarch corruption. And yet some seem to not even ignore that so much has to think of these as good qualities. Perversion.
The following comprises a partial list of those with whom Trump has surrounded himself, and compares them to the impotent people with whom the impotent Obama surrounded himself:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/310103-a-tale-of-two-cabinets-obamas-cronies-vs-trumps
Here's another list of Trump's appointments. A couple, like Comey, who Trump simply retained, are gone...a couple ought to be, but most are totally solid picks:
https://www.amny.com/news/elections/trump-s-cabinet-top-appointments-jared-kushner-rex-tillerson-jeff-sessions-more-1.12625129
Of the above group, only Pruitt stands out as one who spent foolishly, though I've only heard and read leftist versions of that spending. Another who spent lavishly, was Manafort, who's been long gone, but I'm unaware of him doing so with other than his own money. Except where public funds might be spent for personal use, why anyone's personal spending matters to Dan is more about demonizing than there being a actual problem with it. It means nothing with regards the character of the person, if all we know about him is he likes fancy stuff. The vast majority of poor people would LOVE to have just a bit of that fancy stuff.
In the meantime, I'll just have to wait for Dan to provide links to all those posts he published about the how Obama racked up lavish expenditures:
https://www.opslens.com/2017/08/03/the-true-cost-of-obamas-lavish-life-while-at-the-white-house/
Oh, and BO's people were spenders, too:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/22/obamas-epa-appointees-spent-as-much-or-more-on-travel-than-trumps-pruitt-data-show.html
Which post did you write about that?
Owning lots of stuff is not corruption, Dan. Indeed, you can't point to any corruption in this administration, unless you're now redefining that word, too. Or perhaps you don't understand what constitutes corruption. Here's an explanation:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/avenatti_and_cohen_does_the_press_really_know_what_corruption_is.html
I hope you're not referring to "moral corruption", because that's something you support constantly...as does the politicians and political parties you support.
You want to pretend that supporters of Trump...like me...are fans of his horndog character. That's a very corrupt way of thinking. You get no points for insisting you wouldn't support a Dem version of Trump, particularly when you support those who are every bit as bad in differing ways. I support what he's been doing politically because they're so beneficial. Why wouldn't I support the beneficial results of the actions of a guy who I might not personally consider of high moral character? Which is more important in this context...the man or the man's accomplishments? Clearly the latter as we are dealing with the president and the duties he's promised to fulfill.
Finally, for now, most of Trump's appointees are indeed qualified, or qualified enough. You and the stain bring up DeVos, who's been involved in education issues for about twenty or thirty years. She doesn't need to be a teacher herself to have gained knowledge and understanding about the issue. That's absurd. What's more, she's been involved in philanthropic endeavors that you could never approach...in terms of helping lots of people...for most of her life. "Corrupt" is not a term that has any relationship to this woman, and she's not the only one in that administration for whom that is true.
"I'll hire all the best people." Marshall loves him some Trump.
Michael Cohen, Trump personal lawyer: Pleaded guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud and violating campaign finance laws by paying off two women who said they had had affairs with Mr. Trump in exchange for their silence. Mr. Cohen’s charges stemmed from evidence originally found by the special counsel’s inquiry.
Paul J. Manafort, Former Trump campaign chairman: Convicted of financial fraud related to a scheme in which he lobbied for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine and hid proceeds in foreign bank accounts. Faces seven other charges, including obstruction of justice, failure to register as a foreign agent and conspiracy to launder money.
George Papadopoulos: 2016 Trump campaign foreign policy adviser: Pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.
Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser: Pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations he had with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, during Mr. Trump’s presidential transition.
Scott Pruitt, Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator: Resigned under a cloud of ethics scandals, including alleged spending abuses, cozy relationships with lobbyists and enlisting aides to obtain special favors for him and his family.
Ben Carson, Housing and urban development secretary: Forced to cancel an order for $31,000 in furniture for his office, which was above the limit imposed on cabinet secretaries for redecorating their offices. He blamed his wife and staff for ordering the furniture before finally admitting he was involved in the decision.
Wilbur Ross, Commerce secretary: Faulted by the Office of Government Ethics for continuing to maintain investments he was required to divest and entering into new ones.
Tom Price, Former health and human services secretary: Forced to resign after repeatedly violating government travel rules and wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars by using chartered jets and military aircraft.
Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, Former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Resigned after buying shares in a tobacco company one month into her tenure as the nation’s top public health official.
Nikki R. Haley, American ambassador to the United Nations: Violated the Hatch Act, according to the Office of Special Counsel, by retweeting Mr. Trump’s endorsement of a Republican congressional candidate. The law prohibits federal employees from engaging in government-funded political activity.
Rob Porter, Former White House staff secretary: Forced to resign after domestic abuse accusations.
Dan Scavino Jr., White House social media director: Violated the Hatch Act, according to the Office of Special Counsel, by posting a political message on a Twitter account that included a photo of him in the White House and identified him as a federal employee.
Kellyanne Conway, President’s counselor: Violated ethics rules, according to the Office of Government Ethics, by endorsing Ivanka Trump’s product line during an interview to Fox News from the White House briefing room. Violated the Hatch Act twice by advocating for and against candidates in the December 2017 Alabama special election for United States Senate, according to the Office of Special Counsel.
John McEntee, President's former personal assistant: Escorted from the White House and forced to resign after an investigation into his finances caused his security clearance to be revoked.
Marshall links a The Hill article that lauds Mr Trumps staffing. Only one of which remains and one never got there. Here's who they mention:
1. President-elect Donald Trump nominated Puzder to serve as Secretary of Labor, but on February 15, 2017, he withdrew due to lack of votes needed to his confirmation.
2. National Economic Council designate, Gary Cohn. Gone in one year having failed to get Trump to take his advice.
3. Ben Carson. Yes. That Ben Carson. Forced to cancel an order for $31,000 in furniture for his office, which was above the limit imposed on cabinet secretaries for redecorating their offices. He blamed his wife and staff...
4. Gen. Mike Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.
5.. Rex Tillerson, the newly appointed Secretary of State. Gone in one year having failed to get Trump to take his advice.
Not to mention the separation and warehousing of infants and children for months, losing track of who the were and belonged to... and even where they were.
That’s early fascism and internment moral corduption
Here we have Trump attacking his own man at the Justice Dept for taking crimes committed by two GOP legislators seriously.
This is corrupt, stupidly corrupt. And dangerous. How do his apologists defend this level of corruption?
This is not normal. This is not acceptable.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-justice-department/index.html
Corrupt? Just because he's alarmed at the timing of this investigation? Get over yourself. Of course I remember all those posts you wrote against the real corruption of Obama:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/think-obama-administration-wasnt-corrupt-think-again/
https://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Chronicles-Obamas-Secrecy-Government/dp/147676705X
https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Corruption-Cheats-Crooks-Cronies/dp/1596986204
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018/1/26/obama-the-most-corrupt-president-in-american-history
You're a rank hypocrite and hater. Embrace grace, Dan.
Would you be opposed to Trump if he shot someone in the middle of the street in broad daylight with 1,000 GOP witnesses? Or would you still kiss Trump's ass and say that the murder was the fault of Obama and Clinton?
Never mind. We know the answer.
You want to believe that, because you're a hater. But the fact is that despite Trump's hyperbole suggesting otherwise to low intellect lefties filled with graceless hate, without legitimate justification for the act, no one...let me correct that...ABSOLUTELY NO ONE...and particularly not me...would support his retaining the office of the presidency for shooting someone in the middle of the street.
Also, I've blamed nothing Trump's done on anyone but Trump...EVER. I've simply demonstrated you hypocrisy by the stark absence of any posts related to the corruption and lies of either Obama and Clinton (or ANY lefty) while to go on and on ad nauseum about the failings of Trump.
You're a rank hypocrite and hater. Embrace grace, Dan.
I like how what it takes now to be a brave and Integrity-laden conservative is to be willing to come out and say clearly that, no you would NOT support a murderer. Well done, big M. You're practically Gandhi!
Yet lacking in integrity yourself, you've never called out any lefty politician for anything. One might think all lefty politicians are perfect angels if they had your blog as the only source for such things. In the meantime, you'll take every opportunity to rip on any conservative for anything real and...mostly...imagined.
But if you're going to go to extremes and then give me crap for responding to the extreme, it only serves to justify my low opinion of your integrity. But the fact remains that it isn't that I supported a low character guy like Trump. It's that I did so when a lower character creep like Hillary, or a stupid man like Bernie, and Trump won. I again insist my vote was moral as well as one that has paid dividends to the nation in ways that would never have occurred had either of his most major opponents in the general have succeeded in besting him.
The thing is, and this you lack the honesty to acknowledge and accept, is that voting for Trump...as well as my growing support for him as president...is NOT a vote for his low character. I oppose the immorality of homosexuality, but still enjoy Elton John music, and I laugh at Ellen DeGeneres and Jim Parsons. There character flaws don't detract from their talents, and clearly, neither has Trump's. Almost two years have gone by and and he's totally amazed me at being so much better than I had expected. I didn't want him as the GOP candidate, but it turned out quite well so far, and if nothing changes...for better OR for worse...I can't see why voting for him a second time would be a bad thing. Indeed, if it turns out that way, his quirks and flaws would be even less relevant than they are now. That is to say, that at this point and beyond, I'm far less supporting a philanderer or horndog than I am a successful president..whereas in Nov 2016, I was supporting a scumbag who's winning the presidency would mean a far worse scumbag wouldn't. I'm good all day long here, Danny-boy. In the meantime, so long as you support any pro-abortion leftist, you're the one supporting a murderer. Try to argue your way out of that fact!
So much better than Marshall expected.
"President Trump told reporters last week that he believes his administration “did a fantastic job” responding to Hurricane Maria..."
"The Federal Emergency Management Agency was so overwhelmed with other storms by the time Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico last year that more than half of the workers it was deploying to disasters were known to be unqualified for the jobs they were doing in the field.
That's one revelation from a Tuesday report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), which portrays a federal government stretched thin by successive disasters to hit the United States and its territories last year. Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico followed Harvey and Irma -- all within 26 days of each other, according to the lead author of the report.
"By the time Maria hit Puerto Rico, they were down to the bottom of the barrel," Chris Currie, director of emergency management issues at the GAO told reporters in a conference call Tuesday. "They were having a struggle getting people there -- and not just people, but qualified people."
Are you assuming he didn't mean "fantastic job considering the circumstances"? I'm sure you are, brutal hater.
Who doesn’t hate hearing that more Americans are dead? Trump doesn’t. And this behavior is “better” than Marshall expected - the reason he gives for loving this White House. Who is a brutal hater of his country? Marshall.
“I think we did a fantastic job in Puerto Rico," Trump told CNN's Jim Acosta during an exchange with reporters at the White House. "We're still helping Puerto Rico." Trump has trumpeted his handling of the storm's aftermath, including saying in the days afterward the storm had resulted in a relatively small number of deaths compared to a "real catastrophe like Katrina." Hurricane Katrina, which devastated parts of Louisiana in 2005, killed roughly 1,200.
The island's governor formally raised the death toll from 64 to 2,975 on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump, facing a drastically revised death toll in Puerto Rico a year after dual hurricanes devastated the island, offered a still-rosy outlook of his administration's handling of the disaster on Wednesday.“
A Senior Trump official just wrote an op-ed for The NY Times and says that Donald Trump is so disturbing and unhinged that many members of the cabinet have openly considered having him removed from the office via the 25th Amendment.
This White House that Marshalll thinks is better than expected?
This White House is living out a secret constitutional crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
So you're criticizing Trump for repeating the low death toll reported in the aftermath that was only recently revised to a much higher number? Got it. You are so sadly pathetic. And by the way...when are you going to demonstrate some integrity and the minimal courage of providing the link for your quotes? What do you fear in refusing to do that...I mean other than me proving again you're a fool?
One Denial and one Diversion. Just like Trump.
Day One: a lie to the American people.
“A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.
The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.
The detail was revealed in investigative reports released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act by the inspector general of the US interior department. They shed new light on the first self-inflicted crisis of Trump’s presidency, when his White House falsely claimed he had attracted the biggest ever inauguration audience.”
“The records detail a scramble within the National Park Service (NPS) on 21 January 2017 after an early-morning phone call between Trump and the acting NPS director, Michael Reynolds. They also state that Sean Spicer, then White House press secretary, called NPS officials repeatedly that day in pursuit of the more flattering photographs....
The newly disclosed details were not included in the inspector general’s office’s final report on its inquiry into the saga, which was published in June last year and gave a different account of the NPS photographer’s actions.“
Still indulging in the insignificant while ignoring the many beneficial accomplishments of this flawed, but effective man. The following gives a good summary of the flaws of other presidents in order to give some perspective:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/a_disloyal_coward_condemns_trump.html
But the brutalizing, hate-filled progressive "Christians" ignore the reality recalled by this article so as to more easily promote their brutalizing, hateful demonizing of Trump and those who support his presidency.
And still, the worst fake "Christian" of all continues to post quotes without citation, likely because his sources are as fake as he is.
One denial that constant lying to the American people means anything. (President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days.)
One reliance on distortion. (No reporters work for the AmericanDrinker - sheer fake ranting)
And yet more diversion. (Use google, chump: they’re quotes! How lazy are you?)
More Trump-like avoidance of the corruption within the man and in the worldview. Christ gnashes his teeth on such debauchery of faith.
The AmericanShitter is worse than that. It’s Satan’s dominion of racist, misogynist hate. Michael Savage?! God will damn that man.
Even Craig cannot stand with you in your defense of extraordinary brown shirted brutality.
[FYI Marshall, the following is scripture. Look it up.]
Thus says the Lord:
Where is your mother’s bill of divorce
with which I put her away?
Or which of my creditors is it
to whom I have sold you?
No, because of your sins you were sold,
and for your transgressions your mother was put away.
Why was no one there when I came?
Why did no one answer when I called?
Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem?
Or have I no power to deliver?
By my rebuke I dry up the sea,
I make the rivers a desert;
their fish stink for lack of water,
and die of thirst.
I clothe the heavens with blackness,
and make sackcloth their covering.
The Lord God has given me
the tongue of a teacher,[b]
that I may know how to sustain
the weary with a word.
Morning by morning he wakens—
wakens my ear
to listen as those who are taught.
The Lord God has opened my ear,
and I was not rebellious,
I did not turn backward.
I gave my back to those who struck me,
and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard;
I did not hide my face
from insult and spitting.
The Lord God helps me;
therefore I have not been disgraced;
therefore I have set my face like flint,
and I know that I shall not be put to shame;
he who vindicates me is near.
Who will contend with me?
Let us stand up together.
Who are my adversaries?
Let them confront me.
It is the Lord God who helps me;
who will declare me guilty?
All of them will wear out like a garment;
the moth will eat them up.
Who among you fears the Lord
and obeys the voice of his servant,
who walks in darkness
and has no light,
yet trusts in the name of the Lord
and relies upon his God?
But all of you are kindlers of fire,
lighters of firebrands.[c]
Walk in the flame of your fire,
and among the brands that you have kindled!
This is what you shall have from my hand:
you shall lie down in torment.
"One denial that constant lying to the American people means anything."
No such denial was made. That means you're lying again, Donald. No one actually counts his alleged lies one by one. So that's another lie.
My point has always been that he's not spewed any lies with the significance as the many egregious lies told by Obama, Hillary, Bernie, too and the Democratic Party as a matter of party policy. And the lies you and Dan tell routinely are far worse as well.
"One reliance on distortion."
Yet, being the liar you are, false priest, you've not identified any distortion, much less proven anything was distorted. But lefty distortion is a way of life.
"And yet more diversion."
No diversion on my part whatsoever. That's YOUR shtick, coward.
"More Trump-like avoidance of the corruption within the man and in the worldview."
Not another lie this time, but one you and Dan like to repeat. Thus, like you and the left in general, I will count that as an additional lie to all those you tell routinely.
Here's another lie: that you have any understanding at all of Trump's "world view", or that you've taken any time to even learn what that view might be. But given the beneficial nature of his achievements as president, the world view it suggests is not the least bit corrupt. If you weren't so corrupt yourself, you might understand that.
"Christ gnashes his teeth on such debauchery of faith."
You've shown no understanding of the faith whatsoever, so how would you know?
"The AmericanShitter is worse than that. It’s Satan’s dominion of racist, misogynist hate. Michael Savage?! God will damn that man."
I not familiar with "AmericanShitter" or why you'd cite such a thing...though I'm not surprised given your history. I also don't know why you'd bring up Michael Savage. But you should be concerned about your own damnation.
"Even Craig cannot stand with you in your defense of extraordinary brown shirted brutality."
This is funny. You keep saying stuff like this as if it's actually a thing.
As for quoting Scripture, you need to actually be a Christian and understand it before you can presume to use it against someone who respects and values it.
“No one actually counts his alleged lies one by one.“ Wrong. The Day One lie and cover up simply got the huge corruption going. 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/
“... you've not identified any distortion, much less proven anything was distorted” Wrong again. You lauded Trump’s picks as honorable. One dropped out because he wasn’t up to approval. One was indicted and the others except the moron Carson gone already. You tried to distort the record. Failed.
Someone, along with others, all of whom are rabid conservative religious right wingers... still find Trump intolerable. Morally and in democratic principles, they are so opposed to him they considered the 25th amendment to depose him.
These are your people. Trying to save the country from his abomination. But you find him “better” than you expected.
That’s how far gone you are from your claimed religious beliefs.
Your biggest lies are the ones you tell yourself: that you have faith - wrong; that you’re honorable - desperately wrong; that you know truth - no. You’re dysfunctiinslky sick in the head. Even by right wing Christian standards.
You’re an abomination, too, Trumper.
That's hysterical! The one time you post a link and it's to a far left rag that wants to charge me to read it's crappy article. Ain't given them YOUR money. But you go ahead and list the first two hundred false or misleading claims. I'll wait here. Shouldn't be to much trouble given how many times you re-posted your stupid comments at my blog and Craig's.
"You lauded Trump’s picks as honorable."
I believe you're full of crap once again and still. What I did was list some of his picks and compared them to some of Obama's to show that they are no worse and in many cases better. But "honorable"? I don't recall that I was looking to prove that specifically of any of them, though some of them certainly are.
"One was indicted and the others except the moron Carson gone already."
This is what the moron feo regards as a moron:
"He was the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland from 1984 until his retirement in 2013. As a pioneer in neurosurgery, Carson's achievements include performing the only successful separation of conjoined twins joined at the back of the head; pioneering the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb; performing the first completely successful separation of type-2 vertical craniopagus twins; developing new methods to treat brain-stem tumors; and reviving hemispherectomy techniques for controlling seizures."
Compared to Ben Carson, you can't even wipe your ass. I distorted nothing. You distort everything...it's how you roll as false priest.
"Morally and in democratic principles, they are so opposed to him they considered the 25th amendment to depose him."
There's nothing more or principled about considering removing a president under the 25th when he doesn't qualify for such a move. But then, you don't care about morality and principle. You're the false priest.
Trump absolutely IS better than I expected he'd be. You're a complete liar for pretending he hasn't been better than YOU thought he'd be. That's because you're the false priest who really is incapable of intelligent thought.
"That’s how far gone you are from your claimed religious beliefs."
I haven't strayed from my Christian beliefs at all. If you understood the Christian faith, you'd know that. But you're not a Christian. Never were.
"Your biggest lies are the ones you tell yourself"
Pretty much true of everyone, no one more so than you. It's how you roll as false priest.
I do have faith...you don't understand the word. I try to be honorable, and succeed more than fail. Can't say the same for you as you have proven yourself time and again to be without honor. Ironically, you wear your dishonor as a badge of honor. Again, it's how you roll as false priest...a role in which there is no honor. And as for truth, you have no standing to presume to know whether or not I'm aligned with it, for truth is such a great inconvenience to you and your heresies. Finally, there are no "right wing" Christian standards. There are only Christian standards. Not being a Christian, you wouldn't know that. Find a Christian and beg for instruction. You need it badly.
As honorable, reputable reporting does, the Washington Post doesn’t print distortions - or even opinions - as news. The article has documents in hand obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
Let me repeat that: documents in hand, documents with information that state facts, actions, and numbers. Documents that were left out of distorted public announcements intended to cover up Trump’s perpetual need for lies.
And so it has gone.
And you’re gone right along with him.
A moron thinks a surgeon can run a federal bureacracy; that a plumber should be president; that a bankruptcy king is a hugely successful man. That helicopter engineers are the best theologians.
One more time: committed evangelical right wing senior principals think Trump is a bad, dangerous man. Marshall thinks he’s better than expected.
Marshall was a closeted abomination from his own, former, claimed views. Now he’s out of the closet.
Immoral use of power.
“In its insatiable quest to rid the U.S. of immigrants, the Trump administration has been rounding up Vietnamese refugees who have been in the country for more than a quarter of a century and trying to send them back to Vietnam — despite a formal bilateral agreement that refugees who arrived here prior to the 1995 normalization of relations between the two countries would not be sent home.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray-in-yet-another-heavy-handed-1536161234-htmlstory.html
"A moron thinks a surgeon can run a federal bureacracy"
I don't know about any moron you have in mind, but the one you see in the mirror each day thinks he's smarter than the surgeon in question.
"that a plumber should be president"
This same moron you see in the mirror also ignores the plan of the founders that made every American a potential president, as anyone can be a great leader as history has shown time and time again, to say nothing of those common and flawed people God chose for the task.
" that a bankruptcy king is a hugely successful man"
When you have a financial empire as large as Trump's, then you can talk. The irony and stupidity of your comment is that while having claimed bankruptcy as often as he has, he actually is a hugely successful man. Indeed, he's even become president. "Moron", indeed.
"That helicopter engineers are the best theologians."
Not "the best", just far more knowledgeable about Scripture than you could ever be. You still have done NOTHING since I first posted his stuff to demonstrate in any way that he might be mistaken. This is common for you. You ignore the message when you see it's true, factual, logical and intelligent, and then lacking any of those qualities yourself, much less a counter argument that would demonstrate it, attack the messenger. So typical.
Diversionary lie: never said I could run a federal cabinet department.
Ignorant lie: the very reason for the Electoral College was to guard against rule by barbarians like yourself. Look it up, stupid.
Dodging denial of facts: if daddy had made me an empire and handed over a commercial real estate company that broke civil rights laws, I, too, could have made - and lost millions. Even you. His balance sheet is so weak he's been looking for Russian and Ukrainian funding. Hence all his impending legal problems... and his kids' legal problems. And Manafort. And Gates. And Flynn. etc.
I'll forgive your theological ignorance and that you don't even know what scripture is. But you disparage the image and likeness of God that blesses our intellectual gifts from the Creator. Thereby you become, like so many white people going irrationally crazy over the collapse of the myth of whiteness, self-destructive.
On his blog, trying to obtain license for God to behave in ungodly ways without violating God's own nature, Craig makes the incredibly obtuse complaint for a Christian:
"“I'm pretty sure the point is that we want to shrink God down to the level we can comprehend.”
Wow. How does a Christian completely miss the centrality of Christ's incarnation? It's the event that comprehensively carries the entire meaning of Christian faith: that God took flesh so that we might take on eternity.
Craig has glaringly failed to capture how Christianity means anything at all. He cannot find the Christ )who come to earth in human flesh) in christianity. And he demonstrates utter ignorance that the New Testament is half comprised of nothing but that very story and that the other half tells us outright that...
No one ever has to shrink God down to the level we can comprehend. God has done it in Christ.
Let's ask Craig to pray, as one trying to become a christian, on St. Paul's words which should orient Craig to what his claimed faith actual claims:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And elsewhere:
“Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that “the person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that comes from faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say?
“The word is near you,
on your lips and in your heart”
And pray that Marshall knows how to find these quotes - and reads and takes them to heart, as well.
Trump’s cavalier attitude toward Americans in the paths of hurricanes is, by itself, justification for Dan’s indictment of him.
“The Department of Homeland Security transferred nearly $10 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a budget document released by a Democratic senator late Wednesday night, diverting funds from the relief agency just as a major hurricane barrels toward the East Coast. The document, which was released by the office of Senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, shows that the money would come from FEMA’s operations and support budget and was transferred into accounts at ICE to pay for detention and removal operations.”
......
“President Trump patted himself on the back Tuesday for an “incredibly successful” job done in Puerto Rico, where the government estimates that nearly 3,000 people died as a result of Hurricane Maria last year.... “I think that Puerto Rico was an incredible, unsung success,” Mr. Trump said.“
Diversioary lie: pretending I even had the entirely laughable idea of you running the bath water, much less any governmental entity. You sought to disparage Carson. I pointed out that you don't possess the intelligence render such an opinion about another...particularly one of Carson's abilities.
Ignorant lie: that I'm a barbarian the Electoral College would block from the presidenct, and that you're of a level of character that allows you room to make such a judgement of anyone. Additional lie implied: that you've ever been able to prove stupidity on my part.
Dodging denial of reality: that for all his flaws...real, and especially the imagined by jealous and hateful people like you...Trump is still very clearly highly successful. You couldn’t equal his successes with twice what he had when he began. That's not praise of Trump. It's a statement of truth about you.
When your every attack is based on self-loathing, you expose the emptiness where your soul is supposed to be. I still await the day when you can support your default position chrges of racism. It's the cowardly tactic of one with nothing to offer.
One of Carson’s abilities isn’t running a federal bureau. The original point you keep trying to deny but keep forgetting. Short attention span of yours.
I don’t need yonorive your stupidity. You take care of that with every comment. Thank you!
You really don’t know his business record. Every boom a bust. Casinos? Disaster. How do you fail when everyone comes in the door spending money? Trump did. Busted your claimed “morality” too.
These comments are related to facts. Carson is failing at HUD because he hates its purpose. Electoral College was a buffer against peasants with pitchforks. Trump has lost huge money and destroyed thousands of jobs.
But you can’t deal with facts and reality.
"One of Carson’s abilities isn’t running a federal bureau."
Perhaps not. That remains to be seen, as he's been in that position relatively briefly. But more importantly, I did not ignore that point you made. I was referring to your own lack of intellectual ability to make such a judgement on anyone else, particularly a person who has achieved so much, including running a department in a major hospital from a relatively young age. Thus, you fail on both your suggestion regarding his abilities (to the extent that he has such small period to make the assessment) to run a department of any kind, as well as your intellectual capacity to judge the intelligence of anyone.
But here's the real point I was refuting: your depiction of Carson as a moron. Only an actual moron would make such a claim about such an accomplished individual. You fit the bill for that perfectly...as you always do.
"I don’t need yonorive your stupidity. You take care of that with every comment."
Saying so doesn't make it so. But like most lefties, particularly the most hard core, saying so is all you need due to your inability to actually defend your position. And to date, you've not come within a universe of proving anything of the kind. You're simply not smart enough even if did demonstrate stupidity!
"You really don’t know his business record. Every boom a bust. Casinos? Disaster. How do you fail when everyone comes in the door spending money? Trump did."
I know it no better or worse than you (I'm being generous...I likely know it far better than you given how little you know about anything). There are failures along with the successes of every successful individual. Those failures are part of how they became successful. It's far more common than for one to go from square one to success without any failures.
More relevant now is his many successes as president in less than two years. This just chafes your self-loathing lefty ass like nothing else can. Very entertaining.
"Busted your claimed “morality” too."
Given your devotion to immorality, you aren't qualified to determine whether or not I've been "busted".
"Carson is failing at HUD because he hates its purpose."
So now you redefine what constitutes failing in order to validate your stupidity. Not surprising from a false priest. "Hating its purpose" means nothing without explaining the purpose and why Carson objects to it.
"Electoral College was a buffer against peasants with pitchforks."
It's a buffer against buffoons like yourself who are so easily manipulated by smooth talking a con-men, such as the typical Democrat or Socialist politician. You chumps fall for all the crap those crooks secrete.
As to Trump's abilities, here's a rare example of perspective from a leftist source. (You're welcome for the hyperlink to make your failure easier to see.) Deal with those realities and facts.
Fox News: Ben Carson, the former brain surgeon and current secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said last week that performing brain surgery is easier than running the federal agency.
National Review: Ben Carson’s HUD Clocks Disappointing First Year
Washington Post: Ben Carson, or the tale of the disappearing Cabinet secretary
The Root: Gifted Handouts: How Questionable Ethics Are Plaguing Ben Carson's Time at HUD
Thank you the citation, Marshall. Makes copying Trumps uncountable failures easy.
“Trump Has Several Business Bankruptcies on His Record - Trump-controlled businesses have sought bankruptcy protection several times after those entities — nearly all of them casino properties — were several hundreds of millions of dollars or more in debt:
#1) Trump Taj Mahal (1991): The Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City opened in 1990, with Trump financing the completion of its construction with $675 million in junk bonds at 14% interest. By the following year the casino itself was in debt to the tune of $3 billion, while Trump himself owed some $900 million in personal liabilities.
#2 and #3) Trump’s Castle and Trump Plaza Casinos (1992): Less than a year after the Taj Mahal bankruptcy Trump filed for Chapter 11 protection again... The Plaza ($550 million in debt) and the Castle ($338 million in debt)
#4) Trump Plaza Hotel (1992): Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy protection a third time in 1992
#5) Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts (2004): In 1995, Donald Trump established Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts as a publicly traded company, an entity that eventually consolidated his three Atlantic City casinos (Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Castle, and Trump Plaza), along with other properties, under one company. In 2004, Trump sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the company, with filings listing about $1.8 billion in debt.
#6) Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009): After its 2004 bankruptcy, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts (TER), and that latter entity went Chapter 11 in 2009 with a debt of $1.2 billion.
THAT’S EIGHT AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS OF FAILED DEBT!!!!!!!
He’s a horrible failure!
And your site lists these further failed business interests:
As well, Donald Trump has undertaken a number of business projects that ultimately failed (or failed to live up to his lofty projections) without resulting in bankrupcties, including:
Trump Steaks
GoTrump (online travel site)
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
Trump Mortgage
Trump: The Game
Trump Magazine
Trump University
Trump Ice (bottled water)
The New Jersey Generals (pro football team)
Tour de Trump (bicycle race)
Trump Network (nutritional supplements)
Trumped! (syndicated radio spot)
THIS IS YOUR IDEA OF SUCCESS?!
Trump Passes 5,000-Lie Mark In Washington Post Database
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/trump-passes-5000-lie-mark-in-washington-post-database/
Dan, your point about the moral and civic travesty of the Trump administration made fantastically and appallingly clear:
“THE HAGUE — In a city that symbolizes international peace and justice, the ambassador from Burundi has had a lonely job. As her government faces accusations of murder, rape and torture, she has made the unpopular argument that the International Criminal Court should butt out. The ambassador, Vestine Nahimana, says the court is a politicized, unchecked intrusion on Burundi’s sovereignty. “It’s difficult,” Ms. Nahimana said in an interview here. “In a way, we’ve been isolated.”
No longer. Her critiques echo those of warlords and despots whose arguments have long been dismissed by the West. But Burundi’s position got a powerful voice of support this week from President Trump, whose national security adviser, John R. Bolton, declared the international court “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous,” and threatened sanctions against the court’s prosecutors and judges who pursued cases against Americans.”
https://nyti.ms/2Nb95Yp?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Regarding your last comment, you seem intent on demonstrating both your stupidity and your partisan hackery. Only one with such hatefulness where his soul is supposed to be would suggest that because bad actors agree with the rational and logical arguments of a good actor means the good actor isn't good after all. It's the same insipid, vacuous and deceitful arguments you sad characters make in trying to tie Trump to racists because his message has some appeal to their evil attitudes. But then, I guess when you've no real plan that appeals to anyone, good or bad, and no real argument that mitigates the achievements of this administration, lies are all you can offer.
"The 5,000th lie, according to the Post, was a tweet about the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller that “Russian ‘collusion’ was just an excuse by the Democrats for having lost the Election!”"
Wow! And then feo's link goes on to say...
"That is Trump’s opinion, and nothing has occurred that renders it a lie or misleading in the least."
Right there, we learn all we need to know about this notion of how many lies Trump tells. Even Stan one day told me that if Dan actually believes his heresies, then he isn't actually "lying". An opinion might be false, might be based on bad info. But an opinion isn't a lie by definition. And in the case of this "5,000th" lie, only the pathetically desperate would count it as such. And it's not a bad opinion given the lamentations of the left that the world will end now that Trump is president...when life in this country has been improving.
Indeed, as one reads feo's link, it clearly makes a mockery of the whole notion of how many lies Trump has supposedly told since taking the Oath of Office. Clearly feo did not read his own link, or was too aroused by the notion that Trump is "now up to 5,000", that he failed to see it was mocking the whole WaPo tally all along. Good gosh, and this guy dares refers to Ben Carson as a "moron"!!
"THIS IS YOUR IDEA OF SUCCESS?!"
If that was the full and complete story of his record in business, no. I would not be. But clearly it isn't the complete story at all, as the Snopes piece clearly points out. If it was, we wouldn't likely even know the guy's name, and he even more likely wouldn't have as many failures as listed. Even such a well-read and highly-educated buffoon like you should suppose that there had to be successes mixed in there somewhere in order for him to be where he is today. But you're too much of a pagan to truly speak truthfully of anything or anybody that conflicts with your fake-Christianity and self-loathing. How sad for you!
More hateful, violence mongering behavior Marshall will make excuses for:
NRA TV depicts ‘Thomas & Friends' characters in KKK hoods
“The NRA is going after the long-time animated children's television show "Thomas & Friends."
NRA TV host Dana Loesch appeared on the association's TV show, "Relentless" and slammed "Thomas & Friends" for partnering with the United Nations to increase diversity on the program.
Last month the show introduced two new female characters, one of which was painted with an African-inspired face and is voiced by actress Yvonne Grundy, who is originally from Kenya.
Loesch slammed the iconic "Thomas & Friends" characters and then showed them on screen wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods while on flaming train tracks.”
Dan, this is twisted, sick-in-the-head rationalizing that allows God to be a “good” kind of murderer while you plain old murderer is bad:
“... that because bad actors agree with the rational and logical arguments of a good actor means the good actor isn't good after all.”
“But clearly it isn't the complete story at all, as the Snopes piece clearly points out. If it was, we wouldn't likely even know the guy's name...”
Michael Milkin
Kenneth Lay
Jeffrey K. Skillin
Dennis Kozlowski
Bernie Madoff
Martin Shkreli
Yeah, I see your point, Marshall. All exceptionally well known businessmen who made a billion or more. Trump’s company.
More stuff with no links. Not only stupid, but lazy, too. But I did the digging which confirmed what I have always believed about Dan and feo: they don't provide links because their use of them would backfire on them, as it does once again here> Loesch isn't doing a damned thing "violent" or "hateful". She is showing righteous amazement at the idiocy of the leftist "diversity" nonsense. As my link says, what the hell is wrong with the left that they feel it necessary to assign race or sex to inanimate objects? Do self-loathing, white guilt ninnies like feo think so poorly of black people that they believe blacks are outraged that kid shows don't have "black" trains? Incredible! With "friends" like feo, the black community needs no enemies!
And in yet another failed attempt to prove his alleged intellectual superiority, feo lists a half dozen people convicted of crimes as if doing so disproves my previous factual statements regarding Trump being successful. Assuming that each of these men are indeed guilty of crimes (it's not assured in all of their cases---YOU do the research now), their convictions do nothing to mitigate that they each attained a very high level of success before being corrupted enough to run afoul of the law.
Trump is a successful business man. Period. There's no debate on this issue.
But that's not all. feo appeals to Dan for validation of his desperate charge that I'm engaging in "twisted, sick-in-the-head rationalizing" by suggesting something amiss in John Bolton's rational, intelligent and logical objection to the International Criminal Court. It doesn't matter how many bad actors use his argument to avoid being held accountable for their criminal actions. What's truly sick and twisted is your evil obsession with smearing anyone who isn't as goofy a leftist pagan as you are.
Finally, for now because no doubt feo will again try to weasel his way out of the hole he dug for himself, he continues to try to deflect from his audacious and malicious attack on Ben Carson as "a moron".
"Fox News: Ben Carson, the former brain surgeon and current secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said last week that performing brain surgery is easier than running the federal agency."
This doesn't mean he regards himself as not up to the task. It's merely an assessment of how messed up the agency is. Perhaps he will indeed be a failure at running this agency. But you certainly aren't smart enough to determine whether that failure is due to his inability versus the state of the agency itself...one, by the way, that isn't absolutely necessary in the first place.
Give it up, feo. Thinking isn't your strong point.
Marshall thinks:
1. He knows the black community.
2. What they think
3. That black folks aren’t included in “liberals” (violates his claim that he knows what black folks think; hint: look at election returns, idiot.)
Here are black run opinion sites:
The Root: “The NRA Is So Mad About Thomas the Tank Engine’s Nlack Friends, They Out a KKK Hood on Him
https://www.theroot.com/the-nra-is-so-mad-about-thomas-the-tank-engines-black-f-1828975983
The Grio: Crazy Train! NRA blasted for putting KKK hoods on popular children’s toy
https://thegrio.com/2018/09/13/crazy-train-nra-blasted-for-putting-kkk-hoods-on-popular-childrens-toy/
(I love to include citations for black critical thought sources: Marshall hates it because it’s water he needs soooo badly but hasn’t the first clue how to drink.)
Marshall thinks $8.5 billion debt is no big deal got a white man. But saving American auto business and providing 15 million Americans with healthcare is evil from the most dignified and electric President we’ve had since Kennedy: because he is a black man. (And 0 indictments in Obama's administration. Not even 2 years and Trump is catching Nixon’s Record.)
Marshall’s sick in the head.
"Marshall thinks:
1. He knows the black community."
Never so much as hinted such a thing, sad and pathetic false priest. I simply insist you're a poor spokesboy for them. Again, with "friends" like you, they don't need enemies.
"2. What they think"
Again, never so much as hinted such a thing. Indeed, when I wonder what they think, I ask them. For example, I asked quite a few of those with whom I work if ever there's a time when they believe it is appropriate or OK for a white guy to call someone, "nigger". To date, I've not found one who says anything but "NO!" (It's an ongoing poll...there are lots of people I encounter)
"3. That black folks aren’t included in “liberals” (violates his claim that he knows what black folks think; hint: look at election returns, idiot.)"
More than the first two, I've never so much as hinted such a thing. While I've found a couple where I work that have soundly rejected the Democratic Party for its history of exploiting blacks, most seem to be leftists as far as how they vote and who they support. So you can put that thought back up the dark, smelly orifice from which you pulled it. It bears no resemblance to reality.
As to your sites, they miss the point as badly as you did. Especially so is the first one, this "Michael Harriott". What a racist! But neither one reflects what Loesch was doing in her rant. She was mocking the "diversity" crap pushed by the leftists. There was no "outrage" by anyone about it, just the boredom people feel by lefties inundating every aspect of the culture with that which does NOTHING to improve it...but instead causes more and more division. But then, you lefties aren't very bright at all, with few dimmer than feo the false priest.
BTW, if those two links are examples of "black critical thought", the black community is worse off than I thought. Thank God for real thinkers like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and the like.
"Marshall thinks $8.5 billion debt is no big deal"
This is getting tiring, but like all of the above, I've never so much as hinted at such a thing. You're really bad at this.
And as if that wasn't bad enough (you can always top yourself with even greater nonsense), as this article explains (though not likely in small enough words for your to understand), Obama only took credit for what was already begun by his predecessor (typical) as if he did it all on his own. And of course, he didn't save the auto business, but only two companies that didn't need the subsidies to right their ships.
And how many were insured because of Obumble is questionable as well. According to lefty Politifact:
"About 20 million people gained coverage and about 14.5 million of those were under Medicaid or CHIP. But a sizeable fraction of that 14.5 million were eligible before the Affordable Care Act took effect. One estimate said about a quarter of them were previously eligible. Another estimate put it as high as half."
In any case, I, once more, never so much as hinted that "saving" the auto industry or providing anyone with insurance (something one should be doing for one's self, btw) is "evil". And no, your boy isn't "dignified" simply because he isn't narcissistic in quite the same crude manner as Trump. And what good is "electric" if nothing is powered by that energy source...such as the economy. Obama's color has nothing to do with my accurate assessment of his worthlessness. It's his impotence and lack of achievement. I don't give a flying rat's feo what color he is. He's an idiot.
1. "Never so much as hinted such a thing" Here's your ham-handing hinting:
"Do self-loathing, white guilt ninnies like feo think so poorly of black people that they believe blacks are outraged that kid shows don't have "black" trains?"
As anyone who cares for and loves black people would know... they are outraged. And should be. And so are those who care for and love black people - as well as and those who take accountability for white people's racist history.
2. Marshall thought he knew that black folks wouldn't be outraged. Because he thinks white men know everything about everyone else. Marshall is a racist idiot.
3. Doesn't take guilt to love black people. Only to think that you know better than they do what they think and feel about NRA TV putting KKK hoods on children toys.
Marshall knows nothing of the generational pain that black folks feel at being unable to grow up seeing themselves represented - and represented rightly - in dominant white culture. Unable to buy dolls that look like their children; unable to watch children shows that look like them; unable to see themselves in ads as buying cars, houses, insurance, taking a cruise, etc. The messaging from Hollywood and advertising and all kinds of American culture (to go along with physical and financial oppression) has a long and deeply affecting history up to only quite recently when, in a great turn of events, the black body isn't reviled like it was for 400 years . And yet the right wing, evangelical fundamentalists, extremists, and almost all Republicans and most white people still foster it, support it or tolerate it.
Marshall is a vile racist. KKK hoods on toys? Not a problem in his lynch-longing eyes.
Fellas, knock it off. Feodor, you continue to be correct with your facts, while Marshall continues to not be or continues to peddle bad opinion after bad opinion, but continued attacks on Marshall don't serve any purpose. State the facts and let it end with that.
I know it's difficult to know where to draw the line. I certainly have a hard time finding that line between calling people out on false or spurious claims and attacking them, as a person, but let's try to do better. Especially you, Feodor. I try to hold progressive types to a higher level of behavior and your attacks on these two just don't serve to advance much, it seems to me.
Marshall, off topic and derogatory comments will be deleted, just to manage things here. I've been deleting Feodor at a 2-to-1 pace of both you and Craig, but I will continue to delete yours, too, if they're off topic or you're just using it as an opportunity to impugn someone's character.
Calling racists out in their racism is the necessary refusal to collude with nice white silence and the only way to change the majority of white unconsciousness of our white supremacist inheritance.
We face the same choice christian Germans faced in remaining silent or speaking out in resistance to early Nazi brutality - before the Nazi party achieved power. But we dont face anything like the risk they did.
"1. "Never so much as hinted such a thing" Here's your ham-handing hinting:"
Considering what follows it pointed at you and not the black community, it fails to support your contention that "Marshall thinks he knows the black community." So if you're convinced that blacks are outraged that kid shows don't have "black" trains", where's your hard data? Where's your poll? And no, they shouldn't be. It's absurd. IT'S A FREAKIN' TRAIN!!! What kind of black people do you hang with? The black people I know apparently aren't as shallow.
And yet, I don't pretend to speak for the black community just because I know black people. You hate yourself badly enough to think you are black, but again, with "friends" like you...
"2. Marshall thought he knew that black folks wouldn't be outraged."
STILL didn't so much as hint anything like this, despite how desperately you want it to be true that I did. Go back again and look at what I actually said. What I said was about what YOU believe you know, not about what I "think" I know. Again, if I want to know what black people think, I ask them straight up. I don't waste my time with a black-wannabe like you. That would be insulting to black people.
"Because he thinks white men know everything about everyone else."
Huh? How can I get you to send me what you're smoking?
"Marshall is a racist idiot."
I've been begging you for quite some time to prove either...racist or idiot, take your pick. But be a man and actually prove one of them. Or be an actual Christian and apologize for "impugning" my character. (Note to Dan: I don't have to impugn feo's character. He does fine on that score without my help.
"3. Doesn't take guilt to love black people."
Never so much as hinted...But it does take guilt to "take accountability for white people's racist history." Be accountable for YOUR racism, feo. I'm not a racist. I don't speak in terms of loving (enter race, religion or ethnicity here) people. I love people. Some, such as racists like you, not as much as others...but generally, as a Christian, I try to love everyone...and certainly I don't hate anyone...not even you. (No one who seems deserving of hate is worth the effort to do so)
"Only to think that you know better than they do what they think and feel about NRA TV putting KKK hoods on children toys."
And once again, because you hate, you and those "black voices" you cited willfully and knowingly distort what Loesch was doing with that picture...because the truth is not in you. Again, you impugn your own character with such lies.
more coming...
"Marshall knows nothing of the generational pain that black folks feel..."
Neither do you. You just like to pretend you do. But while it isn't difficult to imagine, I am more concerned with why any of them would waste their time focusing on such insignificant things, especially in a day and age when they are more than able to buy dolls that look like their children; more than able to watch children shows that look like them; more than able to see themselves in ads as buying cars, houses, insurance, taking a cruise, etc. Unfortunately, they have race-baiters among them, including the self-loathing, white guilt ninnies like you, who are more than happy to keep that focus on the past, because...you know...with "friends" like you...
"And yet the right wing, evangelical fundamentalists, extremists, and almost all Republicans and most white people still foster it, support it or tolerate it."
You're a liar. Plainly and simply, you're a liar who foments hatred and pretends the brutality is from others. YOU'RE the racist. Not me. I give the black community more credit by acknowledging they have all they need (thanks to the God in whom you only pretend to believe) to achieve whatever they choose to achieve. There are plenty of examples that prove that absolute truth. Why you prefer to tell them otherwise proves your racist nature. You should feel guilty. It's so appropriate.
OK, Dan. Pretend you have a reason to delete me.
No Marshall. Just another diversionary dodge of the truth by an irrationally enraged white man: you impune your own character. I just name what you’ve done.
In late August 2005, Hurricane Katrina at least 1,245 people died in the hurricane and subsequent floods, making it the deadliest United States hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane. Two investigations were carried out by both Houses of Congress.
Created 9/15/2005: The Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina reported.
Investigation begun less than two weeks after by The Senate Committee On Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
.....
2,975 Americans died in Puerto Rico as a result of Hurricane Maria. Twice the number of fatalities as Katrina.
Investigations by Republican controlled Congress?
None.
The point of this post, Gentlemen, is that this administration is hedonistic and perverse and just not normal or acceptable. Your last comment then, Feodor, is on topic. Comments about how racist Marshall or others might be is not on topic.
Not sure to which of feo's many irrelevant comments you're referring, Dan, but like you, he pretends previous administrations, particularly Obama's were angelic. None of that confirms the premise baesd far more on your own unChristian hatred than upon any real evidence. You're both engaging in rank partisan hackery, not an honest and objective assessment of the character and performance of this administration. I don't blame either of you for that, given how much more Trump has accomplished for the benefit of the nation compared to eight years of harm inflicted upon us and our allies by Obama & Co.
Marshall, I'm going to leave this up and use it to show you how what you're doing is NOT on topic and not relevant to reality.
like you, he pretends previous administrations, particularly Obama's were angelic.
This is a false claim. It is not reality.Of course, I have pointed out the problems with Obama's use of the drone attack policy started by W Bush. I have pointed out Obama's seriously problematic immigration policies. For instance. And of course, I would't even vote for B Clinton and I've said that he should have resigned after merely lying about sex with an intern. So, I'm consistent in my critique of Trump's MUCH WORSE sexual deviancy. Consistent, not partisan.
So, before saying another word ever again on my blog, Marshall, answer this question:
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT REALITY? That we neither "pretend" nor believe that Obam's administration was angelic?
There's only one real world right answer to that question. "Yes, of course that's not reality."
ANYTHING else is delusional, not grounded in reality.
No comments here until you can recognize this reality.
Now, you CAN say, "Yes, of course that not reality... I was being hyperbolic... I was exaggerating... I recognize that you all don't think previous administrations were angelic..." That is okay.
BUT, if you truly think that we think that previous administrations were angelic, you're delusional on that point.
Now, carrying on...
None of that confirms the premise baesd far more on your own unChristian hatred than upon any real evidence.
I have NO idea what you're even talking about here. Thus, this is not on topic, it's just meaningless gibberish as far as I can tell.
You're both engaging in rank partisan hackery, not an honest and objective assessment of the character and performance of this administration.
What we are doing is noting that THIS administration has lied VASTLY more than any previous administration, publicly, clearly, multiple times a day and increasingly. This is not normal and it's not healthy. It is not partisan hackery to point out that reality. Indeed, to attack us for pointing out that reality, THAT is partisan hackery. It's attacking us for pointing out facts that you don't like for no other reason than the one we're talking about is part of your tribe.
It IS reality, and thus, honest and objective to note that he's lying at an unprecedented rate.
Beyond the lying, there is the severe lack of character. Indeed, HIS OWN PEOPLE, over and over in report after report, are saying things like that he's amoral, that he lacks integrity, that he's fundamentally unfit for office. This is reality that his own people are pointing this out. That we're noting what his own people are saying is not partisanship, it's rational.
And I'll just let it go at that. Your last partisan nonsense is just that.
Answer the bold question before doing anything else, Marshall.
Yeah, “angelic” is a lying diversion used by a man who cannot make a rational argument. Marshall only wants to fill the air with smoke and deflect the glimpse of his empty kind with mirrors.
"The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — President Donald Trump's first full year in charge of the budget. That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017....
However, there’s a profound difference between the trillion-dollar deficits during the Obama years and those we’re headed into now. The Obama deficits came in the wake of the Great Recession and, while they were at least partly due to increased spending such as the 2009 stimulus package, one of the main reason for the size of the deficits in those years was the fact that
Federal revenues were still feeling the impact of the Great Recession for several years after the recession ended. Furthermore, those large deficits largely ended with the 2012 Fiscal Year. After that, they slowly began to fall to the point where they ended up below $500 billion in Obama’s second term. Part of the reason for that, of course, was due to the restraints on spending that were put in place due to the budget deals reached between the Republican House and the Obama Administration, but it’s also attributable to the fact that revenues began to return to normal as the economy recovered from what had been the worst economic downturn since the end of World War II.
These projected Trump Era deficits are different, though, because they’d be taking place during a period of economic growth. In fact, the Administration’s own forecasts are already assuming that the budget deficit will rise at the same time that they believe, without any real evidence, that economic growth will be far stronger in the coming years than it has been since the Great Recession ended."
Republicans are crushing our country. And Trump's tax cuts have turned difficulties into catastrophe.
"Rising federal budget deficits are boosting the U.S. Treasury’s borrowing and could restrain a fast-growing economy as the cost of credit rises, too. The yield of 10-year Treasury notes climbed above 3% for the first time since June, as the Treasury Department announced it would increase auctions of U.S. debt by an additional $30 billion over the next three months. That included higher sales of two-year, three-year and five-year notes and the introduction of a new short-term security with a two-month maturity. The Treasury gets cash to fund the government in exchange for selling the securities.
In all, the Treasury plans to borrow $329 billion from July through September—up $56 billion from the agency’s April estimate—in addition to $440 billion in October through December. The figures are 63% higher than what the Treasury borrowed during the same six-month period last year. The Treasury’s Borrowing Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from investment funds and banks, said the size of monthly debt auctions would need to continue ratcheting higher to fund government deficits in coming years.
The rising supply of debt could push up the cost of borrowing as the government seeks to attract investors, though many factors, including the inflation outlook, Federal Reserve decisions and shifting investor appetites for safe securities also play roles in setting interest rates. The size of U.S. government borrowing in coming years is hanging over the bond market. In addition to the increased spending forecast for the federal government, there is concern about lower tax revenue."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-treasury-plans-increased-auctions-to-fund-looming-trillion-dollar-deficits-1533126659
Marshall, I'm only reading far enough to see if you've answered the question in a non-delusional way. If I don't see that, it's deleted. Fyi.
Four full paragraphs to consider but Marshall avoids them with typical diversionary dodging. Want four more to dodge? No, of course you don’t.
“U.S. government on course to borrow the most money since the financial crisis”
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-treasury-borrowing-20180730-story.html%3foutputType=amp
“U.S. Treasury says first-quarter borrowing set record of $488 billion”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/567166002
“US government borrowing soars to highest level since recession, despite strong economy
The second-half borrowing estimate of US$769 billion is the highest since US$1.1 trillion in July-December 2008”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2157553/us-government-borrowing-soars-highest-level%3famp=1
“U.S. NATIONAL DEBT ADDS $1 TRILLION IN 6 MONTHS, PARTIALLY DUE TO TRUMP LEGISLATION”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/us-national-debt-adds-1-trillion-six-months-surpassing-21-trillion-mark-855946%3famp=1
“The Treasury is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, and at least that much afterward. Here's why it matters”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/02/05/treasury-set-to-borrow-nearly-a-trillion-in-2018-and-more-beyond.html
“U.S. Hurtling Toward $1 Trillion in Borrowing This Year, Double Last, the Highest in Six”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/05/u-s-hurtling-toward-1-trillion-in-borrowing-this-year-double-last-the-highest-in-six/amp/
“The US needs to borrow almost $300 billion this week - Uncle Sam needs to borrow a ton of money this week — in the middle of a fight with its biggest creditor. The United States plans to sell about $294 billion of debt, according to the Treasury Department. That's the highest for a week since the record set during the 2008 financial crisis.
Federal revenue is declining because of President Trump's tax cuts, so the government needs to borrow more to make ends meet. At the same time, Washington's borrowing costs have climbed rapidly in recent months.”
https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/investing/us-debt-sale-record-treasury/index.html
Marshall had made a false claim, saying...
like you, he pretends previous administrations, particularly Obama's were angelic.
I requested before saying another word ever again on my blog, Marshall, answer this question:
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT REALITY? That we neither "pretend" nor believe that Obama's administration was angelic?
The only rational, fact-based answer to this question is, "Yes, I fully understand that this is NOT reality, that you all didn't think Obama et al were angelic... that, indeed, you criticize many of their plans..."
Or words to that effect. I am fine with you, AFTER making it clear that you understand that reality, you go on to say something about how you were speaking hyperbolically or something like that. I just want to make it clear that you DO understand reality.
Contrariwise, if you truly think that we DID think the Obama and Clinton administrations were angelic, then I need you to say something like, "No, I do not recognize that as reality. I think that YOU two think they were nearly perfect or angelic..." And then stop right there and we'll take it from there. (That is, take it from the point where you admit you don't understand reality on this point.)
Well... if we're comparing criminal indictments of administrations, I believe the tally is Republicans, 44; Democrats 3. (And this after Nixon's 76.)
+17 in less than two years for Trump.
Criminal convictions? Republicans, 35; Democrats 1. (Again, after Nixon's 55.)
+5 in less than two years for Trump.
Giving a grand total for Republicans since Nixon: 61 criminal indictments, 40 convictions in 22 years.
And for the relatively angelic Democrats: 3... and 1 in 20 years.
Hooh boy.
But, no, drone killings and continuing imperialism in the developing world, Mr Obama gets a failing grade to change our way of behaving. Toward Russia, China, and Iran, he gets an A, for resisting bullying and working diplomacy to bring China and Iran into agreements for connection, which help world peace.
"I requested before saying another word ever again on my blog, Marshall, answer this question:
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT REALITY? That we neither "pretend" nor believe that Obama's administration was angelic?"
I answered this directly in my last comment you deleted, Dan (the Cowardly Lyin') Trabue. It was indeed a hyperbolic response to how you both inflate your grievances against Trump, while having said ZERO about far more serious behaviors of Obama and his administration...as well as the Democratic Party in general. YOU claim you've stood firmly against such behaviors routinely. I've been going through your archives from December 2008 to, so far, just about 2012 and have yet to find any such posts. As Craig and I have maintained, you say NOTHING about the sins of your own UNTIL you're called out for only doing so about those on the other side of the divide...and very weakly at that...token utterances at best. I'm still doing that research. I have no doubt I'll find no posts of yours that has any similar outrage as that of all the posts you've done to criticize conservatives, conservative Christians and the GOP. Thus, it's as if you consider them angelic and without blemish. It's a rhetorical flourish and your petulant demand that I respond to your inane question is a dodge.
“... your petulant demand that I respond to your inane question is a dodge.”
Exactly what I’ve said to you. You’ve copied me. Knowing, of course, that I’m your better.
“Part of what fascist politics does is get people to disassociate from reality. You get them to sign on to this fantasy version of reality, usually a nationalist narrative about the decline of the country and the need for a strong leader to return it to greatness, and from then on their anchor isn’t the world around them — it’s the leader.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/19/17847110/how-fascism-works-donald-trump-jason-stanley
It was indeed a hyperbolic response
The question, Marshall, answer the question I asked, DIRECTLY.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS NOT REALITY?
That we neither "pretend" nor believe that Obama's administration was angelic?
Don't jump ahead to the explanation without first answering the question directly.
"YES, that is not reality... I was being hyperbolic..."
Like that.
"Center-right"?! Trump?! That's an obvious lie since center of right Republicans consistently repudiate Trump. Show how you lie so easily and shallowly to make yourself feel better.
You're right, despising Trump doesn't make a Republican more of a conservative. Makes them more decent than they are.
President Reagan never had his lawyer pay off two porn stars to keep silent about his affairs while his wife was pregnant.
Thank you, Marshall, for defining for us what true conservatism is these days.
Clinton was fined, disbarred, and impeached. Let’s impeach Trump and call it even.
When you make Trump equivalent to an impeached President and ask why were complaing, you just sound like a raving idiot.
Your need for control of your little sand box isn’t enough to prop up your fake privileged sense of self. You don’t have any control. People like you don’t have any control. Look who your leader is. Look at your opioid addiction rate. Look at the rising mortality rate for under educatecwhite men like yourselves - the only group who has a rising mortality rate.
You’re all sick in the head.
When one doesn't need lies to prop up one's political corruption, it becomes easy to acknowledge that Bill Clinton - even with just the cloud of accusations he had in 1991 - could never be nominated today... in the Democratic Party.
In the Republican Party, hell, a white man can harass, assault, and coerce teens. Good to go for you guys.
Of course it’s easy to acknowledge that Clinton was a scumbag, decades after the fact. Of course, it ignores his wife’s complicity in the persecution of his victims and the eager sycophants who ran with the “He shouldn’t be held accountable for what he does in his private life.” excuse.
The timing is convenient.
Clearly acceding to Dan’s demands didn’t work, or Dan just added one more lie to his growing list.
Craig, you’re a two-faced lying hypocrite. You do the same out of fear of your own shallow intellect. Dan just wants an apology from you. But, no, you’re not sorry for being corrupt. You attacked him for receiving s gift from his kids, too.
Pro family? Liar.
1. Dan made a demand.
2. Dan promised that he’d stop deleting when I knuckled under to his demand
3. I knuckled under weeks ago, yet I’m still getting deleted.
4. Ergo, one more lie.
No, I did not attack him for receiving a gift from his kids. Your claim is simply not true.
But please, keep it up, I so appreciate your excellence in putting words in other people’s mouths.
Where’s your apology? It was so long ago, you can’t even name the day, your witnesses haven’t appeared. Why should I believe you?
Where is that apology?
Your demand that I apologize for something you’ve imagined and can’t prove, is irrational and senseless.
I’m not. Dan is. He demands an apology. You say you’ve knuckled under. That means an apology.
Try to follow along with your own words.
I’ve done what he asked, the fact that you presume to make demands in his name just exemplifies your monomaniacal impulses.
FYI, I have his demand, in his own words, it does not contain the word “apology”. Or any form of the word “apologize”.
Why did you delete me this time, Dan? Are you going to pretend I didn't answer your question again? Don't you realize...ever...that when you delete a comment your claim about it can't be substantiated by others? I know I complied with your ludicrous demand that was no more than another diversion. So why have you deleted me? It can't be due to my responses to feo, because his comments, which are no better or worse (I'm stretching the truth...his comments are ALWAYS worse) than were mine...which flies in the face of your claim that you delete your lefty friends twice as often as you delete people like Craig and me. Of what do you fear in allowing my comments to remain? (Rhetorical question...I know full well why you do it)
Well, then I can’t help you. I could have sworn there was an issue of insulting his family. (But you and Marshall did attack Dan for being such a great father that his children gifted him with a trip.)
But if you feel hemmed in on these blogs of yours, Marshall’s, snd Dan’s, you only have yourself to blame. And Marshall. You two created your own problems with your pissant control-need tantrums.
Marshall deletes me because he’s scared of his intellectual betters. Look how Bubba couldn’t take being bested so often. He ran off and hasn’t been seen since.
That's quite a fantasy world you've created for yourself. It's not at all unusual for Bubba to disappear for a time, just as it's common for Dan to so as well.
And my reasons for deleting your more recent inane comments (as opposed to your past inane comments I never deleted) are well known by this time...and to yourself as well. My intellectual betters are all on my side of the ideological divide. You aren't my better on any level, particularly on an intellectual one. More importantly, you have an open invitation you lack the courage, honor and integrity to accept, having that invitation conditional to you meeting the terms your infantile behavior brought upon yourself. Trying to pretend that my struggles with getting Dan deleting my comments is in any way parallel to you is just another case of you lying.
Bubba's last words, two months ago: "I will reply at length when I can, probably tomorrow at the earliest, but even that might be an optimistic estimate."
You can tell yourself what you like. Blocking and deleting isn’t how you get more. It’s how you get less of what you can’t deal with.
God you’re an idiot.
I’ve never been exposed to anyone who has constructed quite this elaborate of a fantasy word to live in.
You can fool yourself all you like in your Wonkaland, Craig. Blocking and deleting isn’t how you get more. It’s how you get less of what you can’t deal with.
God you’re an idiot.
Neither of you can deal with the numbers that research brings us. Neither of you can choose the very actions that significantly reduce gun deaths, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexual assault, and rocketing healthcare costs.
But you both choose to fear out of control illegal immigration - IT'S GOING DOWN; out of control muslim terrorism - RIGHT WING WHITE MEN COMMIT MORE TERROR ADN MORE DEADLY TERROR THAN ANYONE ELSE; and the out of control violence of black folks, brown folks, and women who accuse men of assault years later when they can finally come to grips with shame and a disbelieving white culture - UDER-EDUCATED WHITE MEN ARE THE ONLY DEMOGRAPHIC WHO ARE KILLING THEMSELVES AT A RISING RATE.
God but you two are shallow minds trolling corrupt morals.
You've made these assertions, feo, but you've not made the connections between them and the outcomes you want to believe will result. Most of that you've offered isn't even evidence that supports your claims at all. Worse, it rarely has relevance.
Speaking of relevance, what I've blocked or deleted had none related to that for which I've been waiting. I await it still, but you prefer to pretend you're somehow prevented from presenting. Try pretending harder and see if that will make it more true.
That's all I'll say on that as Dan prefers we stay on topic.
These are not assertions. You’ve openly and repeatedly denied the preponderant findings of actual research and data. Sometimes you rely on the rotted crutch of American Thinker, which is an institution with neither academic nor journalistic controls and ethics but instead a desperate e-Rag of the dodge, the diversion, the straight up manufacture of lies. Other times you rely only on your own authority. An authority worth one bag of Cheetos and a Diet Coke.
The implication of your most recent screed is that it’s bad to advocate for controlling things like illegal immigration or Muslim terrorism, or violence perpetrated by people of any skin color. Your position appears to be something like “When I advocate for things to be controlled, it’s a good thing. When those I hate advocate for things to be controlled, it’s a bad thing.”. It’s as if you are suggesting that control is inherently bad.
Craig, you've removed the words you said about my family member on your blog? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
No. Maybe it’s the implication for a shallow minded imbecile. Taking care of extremeist terrorism began after 9/11 with a reorganization of our national security, a reorganization of getting on to a flight, a creation of watch lists, international cooperation on identifying and taking. We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars putting military grade weapons and defense vehicles in police hands.
3,500 Americans, roughly, have been killed by extremist Muslim terrorists from 9/11 to today.
3,500 Americans are killed in gun violence every year in this country.
But you, shit-faced brains, and almost all Republicans won’t do anything about it- cannot even lament the mass murders of school children, but only play your little sandbox games to satisfy your white needs for comfort.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Quite some time ago.
Of course I’m not the one arguing that supporting control of harmful things is bad. But, as usual, I appreciate your desire to impose your prejudices on others.
You’re the one saying that society does not need to worry about things that kill Americans 20 times more than the things you want to worry about: the things that we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars on and rearranged significant structure of our lives as citizens and arming our police.
That’s the level of denial, diversion, and disregard for American lives that you are displaying.
You can’t even answer Dan’s simple and clear question.
Except I’ve never said that, and I answered Dan’s question, but other than those two minor details, spot on.
Post a Comment