You
can't complain about Cohen's unreliability and dishonesty on the one
hand and defend Trump (in spite of his well documented dishonesty and
unreliability) on the other. Not, and be taken seriously.
Indeed, reasonable people and history will call you out as a defender of lies and atrocities. A hypocrite. A scoundrel.
They're saving a place for you on the garbage heap of history, GOP defenders of this administration. And, Lord willing, it won't be long.
Indeed, reasonable people and history will call you out as a defender of lies and atrocities. A hypocrite. A scoundrel.
They're saving a place for you on the garbage heap of history, GOP defenders of this administration. And, Lord willing, it won't be long.
127 comments:
Criminal trials of criminals higher up the chain... are never prosecuted without the invaluable testimony of lower criminals telling the truth because the jig is up for them.
A warning for blind followers of Trump (and silent, displeased collaborators):
“It's that sort of behavior that I'm responsible for. I'm responsible for your silliness because I did the same thing that you are doing now for ten years. I protected Mr. Trump for ten years, and the fact that you pull up a news article that has no value to it and you want to use that as the premise for discrediting me that I'm not the person that people called at 3:00 in the morning would make you inaccurate. In actuality, it would make a liar which would put you into the same position that I am in, and I can only warn people the more people that follow Mr. Trump as I did blindly are going to suffer the same consequences that I'm suffering.
The real issue here is once again, Dan, you want to believe the nasty things Cohen says about Trump, even though he's been found to have lied about so much. In other words, he'd just be a liar to you, untrustworthy in every way, had he not turned on Trump in order to lessen the heat now upon him. You have no legitimate reason to believe what he says about Trump. You just need, in your routinely unchristian manner, to believe that NOW Cohen's speaking truthfully.
You do the very same thing with Trump as well. He's just a liar, you say, and can't be believed, but you believe every salacious thing he's bragged about himself. On those stories he's totally honest because of your pathetic need to believe them. You WANT him to be as bad as you portray him to be. You're sick.
Do you honestly believe the Trump is not liar? A con man? Racist? Sexual deviant? Untrustworthy?
You're welcome to give him a pass on all these things, if you want.
But if you don't believe these things, given ALL that we know, all that we've heard from him, all of his own people who testified about his general untrustworthiness and amorality, that would be rather naive.
But believe he's a great man if you want.
Marshall is deaf to warnings. Even from those going to jail. Too deep into the lie.
I honestly believe that Trump is a liar, probably a con man, untrustworthy, and that his personal and sexual moral standards are low. I’ve yet to see any that definitively proved he’s a racist. But, those are the reasons why I didn’t support him or vote for him.
Having said that, Trumps failings don’t prove that Cohen is telling the Truth.
Of course, the lack of proof of collusion with the Russians is going to get buried in this recitation of all the things we already knew about Trump.
What’s also interesting is that Dan’s list of character failings can be applied to pretty much all of humanity.
No, Craig. It can't. My friends, fellow church members and colleagues are not liars or a con artists. They certainly don't make false claims multiple times every day. They are trustworthy and have shown themselves to be and they are not sexual deviants. And they're not overtly racism (I happen to believe that all of us carry scars of racism, but there's a difference in scale and nothing like the scale of Trump in any of my friends).
On top of that, they're not leaders of the free world. So, no, Craig. Literally, no. Trump's failings (again, according to his own words and the testimony of his own colleagues) can not be applied to all of humanity.
This is part of the problem of those who embrace calvinism and the "humanity = worms" approach to life... it makes you less able to distinguish the reality of people's character.
Not only does Trump's list of character failings" not apply to humanity, it doesn't even apply to the last two presidents (Obama and Bush). For all of Bush's failings, he was not overtly racist, not a daily liar, not a sexual deviant nor a con man. Neither was Obama. At all. Truly, neither was Clinton, although he certainly comes closer to fitting in with some of Trump's failings, but not nearly at the scale of Trump.
No, in Trump, you have a man who conservatives and his colleagues alike (along with most of progressive folks) agree that he is an outlier in the amorality/immorality scale.
Again, you can believe he's just as bad as YOU if you want, but he's not just as bad as me, my loved ones, my friends, my church folk, my colleagues at work or really, anyone I know except for some folk with some pretty bad mental illnesses and life stories.
So, maybe it's the case that Calvinism has blinded you to corruption... or maybe it's the case that you and your loved ones and friends all ARE truly awful people (I, for one, don't think that is the case, but you can make that claim if you want). I don't know. But it's not true in general, not in the circles I travel.
Maybe it's just the case that progressive people are better people than your conservative self and friends? I wouldn't even begin to suggest it's all conservatives, because my beloved conservative friends and family are not people whose "character failings are comparable to Trumps.
Get a better class of people to hang out with, Craig. Start attending a progressive church, that might help you.
Of course, the lack of proof of collusion with the Russians is going to get buried in this recitation of all the things we already knew about Trump.
Well, part of the problem is that Trump himself and those he has chosen to surround himself with are so caught up in lies and amorality that it's difficult to tell where the true crimes are. MAYBE he doesn't have a cash trail leading to Russian involvement/entanglement. MAYBE the meetings he and his people have had with Russian types are innocent. We just don't know because of the lack of transparency and the false claims and attempts to hide facts make it difficult to tell.
The thing is, WITH all that we DO know, it is reasonable to say, "Release your taxes, make yourself and your affairs transparent... You APPEAR to be someone who is ripe for being coopted by bad actors like the Russians..." and to investigate what he/they are hiding/obfuscating.
But, it would take someone with a special sort of naive to believe that they're trustworthy, given what we do know.
And, again, if he's "merely" a con man, a person who cheats using his charity (a FUCKING CHARITY!) to enrich himself and his family, a man who simply can't be trusted... for reasonable people, that is enough to say that he can't be trusted. And to recognize that he can't be trusted at a whole new level not comparable to other recent leaders or just the general public.
"Do you honestly believe the Trump is not liar?"
Not to any degree that you've ever been able to suggest is worse than the lies told by Obama, Hillary, the Democratic Party in general and you personally.
"A con man?"
What "con" specifically do you have in mind?
"Racist?"
No. Not that anyone's been able to prove. He has, in the meantime, been given an award for contributing to the improvement of inner-city black kids. Is that the con you had in mind? How did it work, exactly?
"Sexual deviant?"
Not the worst we've seen, if one insists on using such a term, and not worse than those you support, celebrate and enable.
"Untrustworthy?"
As a husband, sure. As a business man, it depends upon who you talk to. As president, no more than most and clearly far less than some, particularly the last one.
"You're welcome to give him a pass on all these things, if you want."
I give him a pass on nothing, except that he's not what you want to be true about him. On YOUR portrayal of him, I don't give you a pass at all. You should be, but aren't at all, ashamed of yourself for your disordered obsession with your fantasy about him.
"But if you don't believe these things, given ALL that we know,"---you don't know shit. You believe about him what you want to believe regardless of the truth of it.--- "all that we've heard from him,"---again, you call him a liar out of one side of your mouth, but believe all the salacious things about which he's bragged, saying out of the other side of your mouth that these things are true. Then you dare wonder about when "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is appropriate.--- "all of his own people who testified about his general untrustworthiness and amorality,"---while at the same time ignoring what all others of his own people say that contradict such things, proving again that you only concern yourself with negatives about him, believing only those things while ignoring the many good things of him said by others. You're pathetic in your disordered hatred of the man and it belies your claims of being a Christian.---" that would be rather naive."---"Naive" is your perception of the world, life and reality.
As I read your responses to Craig, it is crystal clear that you see what you want to see and ignore that which you don't. More specifically, you have a huge and blatant problem with what constitutes lies and deviancy.
As to the former, I've continually requested an example of one single lie from Trump that is of any significance...that has been as blatant and heinous as those told by Obama, Hillary and/or the Democratic Party as a matter of party policy. You ignore this request and continue bleating.
“There’s good people on both sides.” One of the sides being neo-Nazis.
Above: “I honestly believe that Trump is a liar, probably a con man... I’ve yet to see any that definitively proved he’s a racist.”
Dan, your post holds accountable those who deny the obvious. Craig denied the obvious racism because he does not know what racism is. And he perpetuates it at the very least by the sin of omission.
Craig wants white male protection from the truth.
Marshall cannot see Trump’s denial of Russian interference in the election as a lie to the American people. While all of our intelligence agencies and the Legislative branch of our government is horrified by Russian interference in our election.
Feodor cited Craig...
“I honestly believe that Trump is a liar, probably a con man... I’ve yet to see any that definitively proved he’s a racist.”
then Feodor said...
Craig holds to the belief that he, a white man, is crystal clear on what racism is.
[Feodor, no need to make up a quote from Craig, just cite his own words, please... I certainly agree that way too many white people are way to anxious to tell black folk that racism is "fixed...")
Marshall, Trump's false claims have been meticulously documented and they run in the thousands. If I were citing some RARE and EXTREME claim that, for instance, Trump said in a conversation in 1981 that he waged war on Mars and established a peaceful human settlement there and it was difficult to find the citation, I'd be glad to do you work for you. But the pervert makes claims on almost a daily basis and they number from 5-60 a day, most days... It's not like it's hard to find.
Again, you are ENTIRELY FREE to believe that Trump is honest and reliable, not a cheater or con man (who makes profits off of his "charity!")... but to do so paints you as incredibly naive, criminally uninformed or deliberately blindly partisan.
You believe him if you want. He'll be glad to sell you some steak and a college degree.
There just ain't no cure for being stupidly gullible but hard life lessons and being embarrassed and duped.
Trump’s lies are obvious. Trump’s racism is obvious.
Craig’s social morality can’t abide obvious lies, but can abide obvious racism. Why? Because Craig is implicated in Trump’s obvious racism: Craig supports Trump’s racist policies.
So, in order to repress his own conscience, Craig cannot believe Trump is a racist, despite the obvious fact. Since Craig believes himself to be too good to be racist, he has to manufacture a goodness beyond racism for Trump. Despite the fact that Trump is also a cheat and a liar.
Craig out loud: “Trump is a cheat and a liar.”
Craig’s repressive subconscious: “But he’s too good to be a racist. As am I.”
Maybe Craig could share his thinking on the things that Trump has said which Craig finds short of “definitive” racism? Perhaps he sees things we do not? Is he willing to make that case, show what is racist standards and how Mr Trump’s standards don’t definitively qualify?
Dan,
I’m really sorry if you fail to see that all of humanity shares Trump’s moral failings to some degree. If you want to make the argument that Tump should be held to a higher standard, then you’re in agreement with me, but to deny the fact that humanity has these same sorts of character failings seems unrealistic.
Are you suggesting that profiting from a “charity” is something that would be considered wrong under any circumstance, or just with Trump.
As to your poor explanation of Calvinism, I’ll graciously chalk that up to your lack on knowledge about the subject instead of you intentionally misstating things.
I do appreciate you choosing to take the honorable road.
FYI, I’ve asked you Dan, numerous times to provide examples of Trump using explicitly, directly racist language and/or actual instances of him using the power of his office to enact laws or executive orders that are explicitly and specifically racist, I’m wide open to seeing this evidence.
It’s interesting that I agree with you on virtually all of Trump’s character failings. I’m probably even more critical of the multiple divorces and affairs than you. Yet the fact that I don’t see evidence of racism somehow means I’m excusing Trump’s failings is just strange.
FYI, thank you for agreeing that there is no evidence of collusion (which was supposed to be the point) with the Russians.
Also, just because the rest of the world shares certain sins with Trump doesn’t mean that there aren’t degrees of difference between people and how depraved they are.
I suspect you know that you’re falsely representing reformed theology, but that you’re willing to do so in order to try to make your point.
So... no justification for failing to see racism where the whole world sees racism.
Craig is not alone, obviously. He’s of a type.
“Shortly before November’s midterm elections I interviewed a Donald Trump supporter, coming out of a debate between three local candidates in a congressional race, asking how she felt about the president’s attitude to women. “I need to see the facts and the actual documentation,” she said. “I can’t just do all this hearsay.”
“What about when he says he personally grabs women and kisses them,” I prodded. “That was him saying that.”
“I have not personally seen him do that,” she said.
“But he said it though,” I insisted.
“I haven’t seen it. I haven’t heard it for myself.”
_______
The Trump Administration's Record of Racism
http://democracyincolor.com/recordofracism/
Dan, I appreciate your honorable behavior so far. Hopefully you’ll continue.
So... zero capacity to engage with documentation of Trump’s racist record. Not a good look.
Followed by the hypocrisy of sarcastic diversion slandering someone else’s “honor” while unable to defend your own claim that Trump isn’t racist?
Priceless hypocrisy.
Craig...
I’m really sorry if you fail to see that all of humanity shares Trump’s moral failings to some degree.
It’s interesting that I agree with you on virtually all of Trump’s character failings.
But we don't. YOU minimize his behavior, saying that he's just like the rest of us, we're all imperfect, to some degree.
I DO NOT AGREE with that shallow misunderstanding of his behavior.
I do not make hundreds of false claims a year. No one I know does. You almost certainly don't.
I AND MY FRIENDS ARE NOT LIKE TRUMP.
Are you like Trump in the deep depravity of his false claims?
My friends and I do NOT sexually assault women nor ogle naked teen-aged girls, nor do I joke about how my position of wealth and privilege mean I can get away with it, laughing at the assault and harassment.
I AND MY FRIENDS ARE NOT LIKE TRUMP.
Are you like Trump in the deep depravity of his sexual perversions/assaults/harassment/debasement of women?
Please answer these questions in bold before you say anything else.
And if you give vague, milquetoast, obtuse answers, you are finished here.
No, I’m not “in the deep depravity of his false claims”, yet I and everyone I know makes false claims.
No, I’m not “in the deep depravity of his sexual perversions/assaults/harassment/debasement of women”, yet I know multitudes of people who struggle with various sexual failings.
The problem is that you know people who lie and who fail in areas of sexuality, you just want to compare them to Trump so they come off looking “better” to your superficial viewpoint.
If you’re seriously suggesting that no one among your circle of friends “ogles” women, or looks at porn, then I’m willing to bet that someone is lying about it.
Before you play this game, how about you read what I’ve written.
If this is all you’ve got, I’ll leave you to your own devices, and hope you’ll continue to behave honorably.
You see, Craig, the difference between me and you... why we are not in agreement but in fundamental disagreement ... is because you appear to be saying that, "man, I generally don't like this guy... I don't like the way he behaves... it's sort of bad you know, like all of us are bad."
That's NOT what I'm saying. At all.
I, and folks like me, are saying that he is fundamentally flawed and unfit for office because of the very serious and degraded nature of his character. He's not merely "just a sinner, you know, like we're all sinners."
He is amoral, he is immoral, he is irrational, he is untrustworthy in a way that differentiates him from other presidential candidates.
I and my friends are not unfit for office because of our behavior. He is.
You do not appear to be willing to go that far. You're just saying that you sort of vaguely don't like him and don't think he's very moral... but then you say you know, like the rest of us.
No. He's not like the rest of us. At least not my friends and community. Again, perhaps conservatives around you are worse people than the people I know.
Normalizing Trump’s behavior as President after eight years of saying Mr Obama didn’t measure up is nothing other than the most brazen racist position one can take.
As well as the most irrationally unbalanced lunacy ever to be common among such a large number of hate caged white people still functioning in the world.
"Marshall, Trump's false claims have been meticulously documented and they run in the thousands."
And yet, in vain, I ask for and do not receive just one example of a lie of true consequence. Still waiting. You demand "hard data" for truth claims Craig or I present, and crap your Pampers if we don't provide. I've probably looked at more "lies" "meticulously documented" than have you and have not seen any such "lie" of consequence. What's more, you could not list 100 "lies" that are distinct from each other, much less "thousands", nor can anyone else.
"But the pervert makes claims on almost a daily basis and they number from 5-60 a day, most days... It's not like it's hard to find."
And yet you can't provide just one of any consequence. Not one that rises even to the level of "if you like your health insurance..." and certainly not one that is as egregious as "a woman has the right to murder her own child", which is white-washed with another lie of "right to choose". And speaking of lies...
"Again, you are ENTIRELY FREE to believe that Trump is honest..."
Where did I so much as hint this? There's a massive difference between saying he's "honest" versus not sweating insignificant expressions that are more often hyperbole, over-statements, self-promotion...the types of things that are not uncommon, even if not AS common, in most every politician, none more so than those YOU support like a school girl screaming for Justin Bieber.
"...and reliable..."
He's reliably worked to fulfill his campaign promises and succeeded with many of them thus far. It's kinda what normal people expect of a politician for whom they voted.
"not a cheater or con man (who makes profits off of his "charity!")..." (like the Clinton's and Haiti!) And speaking of con-artists, you could hardly be more hypocritical given the character of the typical leftist politician these days. Give me a freakin' break!
"...to do so paints you as incredibly naive, criminally uninformed or deliberately blindly partisan."
You're projecting. Worse, you're making a blatant attempt to minimize the sins of your own by inflating the sins of Trump. You insist on focusing on his behavior before his election to pretend his sexual habits have had any effect on his job performance as president, because you're so pathetically desperate to make it so. But it still is meaningless, and becomes less and less so the more his proposals benefit American...which they've been doing very well so far, thank you very much.
"There just ain't no cure for being stupidly gullible but hard life lessons and being embarrassed and duped."
That's true, but you're so given over to it all that I fear there's no hope for you.
"But we don't. YOU minimize his behavior, saying that he's just like the rest of us, we're all imperfect, to some degree."
Neither of us is minimizing his behavior, but rather looking at it objectively and with perspective. YOU are inflating the seriousness of his behavior to demonize him while at the same time ignoring the sins of your own. Once again, I've reviewed all of your posts during the Obama years and you've NEVER criticized him for his far greater lies and political crimes, pretending he's a better man because, so far as anyone knows, he's not cheated on his wife (likely out of fear of her).
The problem here is that you can't get over the fact that he was supported and elected at all. But that's a done deal now and you think his character flaws are enough to have him removed from office. THEY. ARE. NOT! Of the three of us who are engaged here, plus the troll, I'm the only one who voted for the guy, but like all of you, I opposed him initially because of his character flaws. He made it passed the primaries and there was no legitimate choice but to cast my vote for him (and no...the choice of not voting was NOT a legitimate one...nor was voting for someone who could not win). The right choice...the moral choice...was to vote for him to prevent disaster. Thankfully, at least so far, he's proven my choice was a good one and he's performed well beyond my greatest fears, despite often speaking in a most cringe-inducing manner. And being the partisan hack you are, you need to keep fresh his past behaviors, over-hype the severity of his current behaviors and totally ignore the great things he's accomplished, because you can't stand that he's been this good, far exceeding the accomplishments of the empty suit who exposed your own stupid gullibility.
"I do not make hundreds of false claims a year."
But you make your far worse false claims hundreds of times a year, just like Obama did and just like Dems in general do as if it's your purpose for existing.
"I AND MY FRIENDS ARE NOT LIKE TRUMP."
You shouldn't speak for your friends, but you are worse for the depravity you support. You just choose to redefine what constitutes depravity to serve your agenda, just like all lefties do.
----------------
"My friends and I do NOT sexually assault women nor ogle naked teen-aged girls, nor do I joke about how my position of wealth and privilege mean I can get away with it, laughing at the assault and harassment."
Here you go lying again. You have no proof, and there's been no legitimate examples of Trump assaulting women. You simply choose to believe every claim of inappropriate behavior lodged against him, and despite your insistence that he can't be believed...because he's such a liar...you choose to believe him when he speaks about how he responds to hot chicks. Oh no. He's not lying there, is he, Danny boy? How can you tell?
Oh yes, and let's make sure we say he ogled naked TEEN-AGED girls, because, you know, Dan turns away from the sight of a beautiful, fully developed girl of youthful appearance. Right. Is walking in on naked beauty pageant contestants wrong? Damned right it's wrong. It's just as wrong if they were older girls, too. But let's just focus on the TEEN-AGED girls in order to more greatly demonize the guy. You're not fooling anyone with this ploy.
"Are you like Trump in the deep depravity of his sexual perversions/assaults/harassment/debasement of women?"
No. But neither is Craig or I like you in your deep depravity of support, celebration and enabling of the sexual immorality you favor. Neither of us minimize ANY sexual immorality...unlike you.
"You see, Craig, the difference between me and you..."
The difference between Craig and you is that, unlike you, Craig doesn't demand that you oppose someone in EXACTLY the same way as he, to EXACTLY the same extent as he or for EXACTLY the same reasons as he. Nor does he demand that you do so in order to continue in discourse.
"I, and folks like me, are saying that he is fundamentally flawed and unfit for office because of the very serious and degraded nature of his character."
Yet despite his character flaws, he's proven again and again that he's more than merely "fit" for office, but that the more egregious of his flaws have not manifested while he's been in office, and his lesser flaws are insignificant except as they exist as the only straws to which immoral people like you can cling in your deranged opposition to him.
"No. He's not like the rest of us. At least not my friends and community"
I truly, sincerely and absolutely honestly thank God for that. For were Trump like you and your friends (given you present them as being like you), we'd have a Hillary or Bernie in office instead of Trump. Despite his character flaws, he's not as bad as either of them, and not as egregiously dishonest as those like you.
Marshall, I'll play your game, but then, you MUST admit it is a false claim, that you were stupid for not recognizing it, apologize and promise to work against Trump the remaining time in the office.
That, or don't return to comment on this post.
Trump claimed REPEATEDLY that "the press is the enemy of the people..."
When pushed, he "generously" said that "only" 80% of the press is the enemy of the people.
"But the fake news is. And the fake news is comprised of -- it's a lot. It's a big chunk, OK? Somebody said, 'What's the chunk?' I said, '80 percent.' It's a lot. It's a lot."
This is just plain dumb as a rock, dumb-ass false claim.
First of all, what in the world does he MEAN by "enemy of the people..."? That the press is working to overturn/undermine the gov't? THERE IS NO DATA TO SUPPORT SUCH A STUPID ASS CLAIM. It's false, it's unsupported, it's plain stupid, appealing to only the most stupid, gullible, idiotic people.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TRUMP HAS ZERO DATA TO SUPPORT HIS STUPID ASS CLAIM OF 80% OF THE PRESS BEING AN "ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE..."?
There is only ONE factual, real world answer to this question, Marshall.
Answer this ONE question correctly. Admit that you were an idiot to miss such a big, serious and completely asinine false claim. Apologize. Work against Trump's administration, because an administration making such serious false stupid claims is a dangerous administration.
That, or move on.
Your first sentence MUST BE, "I was wrong, I apologize."
Nothing else will be read, short of starting with your repentance."
And really, Marshall, I'm tired of you ignoring/not recognizing reality. Admit that this is a stupidly false claim or don't come back here ever again. Such ignorance is just a pathetic, sad waste of time.
"Enemy of the people/state" defined/given historic context, from Wikipedia...
The Soviet Union made extensive use of the term (Russian: враг народа, vrag naroda), as it fit well with the idea that the people were in control. The term was used by Vladimir Lenin after coming to power, as early as in the decree of 28 November 1917:
"all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with
enemies of the people,
are hereby to be considered
outlaws, and
are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court."
And...
On 25 December 1793 Robespierre stated: "The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation;
it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death".
The Law of 22 Prairial in 1794 extended the remit of the Revolutionary Tribunal to punish
"enemies of the people",
with some political crimes punishable by death, including "spreading false news to divide or trouble the people"
Or, here's your favorite nonsense fear mongering magazine, American Thinker, complaining about being labeled "an enemy of the state" because such a designation rightly means you're a physical threat to normal citizens. They rightly recognized that "enemy of the state" is a dangerous/serious term to be thrown around, even though there appears to be no one calling this author, or that magazine or "80% of the free press" to be an enemy of the state... certainly Obama didn't.
You know why Obama didn't do that?
1. it would be a stupid ass claim to make
2. Only idiots would believe it and people who supported him were not idiots.
This lying guy tells the truth more than Trump:
“North Korea accused the Trump Administration of being a billionaires’ club that harbors a “policy of racism” while exacerbating social inequalities and denying freedom of the press and health coverage to citizens.”
Jesus God. Trump is despicable.
“Some really bad things happened to Otto,” Trump said. “But Kim tells me that he didn’t know about it and I will take him at his word.”
"You see, Craig, the difference between me and you... why we are not in agreement but in fundamental disagreement ... is because you appear to be saying that, "man, I generally don't like this guy... I don't like the way he behaves... it's sort of bad you know, like all of us are bad.""
You see, Dan, the problem you have here is that you are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) choosing to misinterpret what I've said. I presume it has to do with you wanting to confirm your existing preconceptions, but can't know that for sure.
If you really do live in some sort of enclave where people don't tell lies or (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "look at women lustfully", more power to you. But for the rest of us, who look at the evidence of the destructive power of porn and in a society where adultery is a spectator sport, maybe you should show some grace. Maybe dial back the "Me and my friends are better than everyone else." pride and just chill out.
The fact is, that I've never supported Trump, and I've been consistent in saying that it is for reasons of his lack of character. You can try to manipulate and twist that reality, you can allow and encourage others to lie about that reality, but you can't change the reality.
If you can't see the reality that we are in fundamental agreement on Trump and his lack of character, it's because you've chosen prejudice over reality.
Craig:
“... all of humanity shares Trump’s moral failings to some degree.”
“The fact is, that I've never supported Trump, and I've been consistent in saying that it is for reasons of his lack of character.”
I repeat:
Normalizing Trump’s behavior as President after eight years of saying Mr Obama didn’t measure up is nothing other than the most brazen racist position one can take.
Dan,
If lying really bothers you, then you’ll do the right and honorable thing. If you don’t...
Point to the lie and give reasons why it is a lie. If you cannot do that then you are a lying thug in your complaint.
Craig, you would communicate much better if you weren't so vague and so very much of what you say. What lying?
If you really do live in some sort of enclave where people don't tell lies or (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter) "look at women lustfully", more power to you
THIS, Craig, is what we're talking about. THIS is the normalization of the perversion that is your current conservative president and his deviancy.
It is not unusual or abnormal for human beings to make false claims. We've all done this.
What IS unusual is to be in a position of power and to publicly, stupidly make 5-60 false claims a day, day in and day out, nearly every day for two years.
I'm not saying "If you've made a false claim in your life, you're not fit to be president."
I AM saying, "If you make false claims multiple times a day, over and over, even after being corrected with the actual data... if you make STUPIDLY false claims daily, over and over... hundreds of them made publicly for months and months at a time... THAT makes you unfit for president."
One (the occasional false claim) is normal and not good, but not too much to worry about, especially if you are glad to stand corrected when it's pointed out to be wrong. The other is bizarre, dangerous, and makes you untrustworthy and not a little irrational. It points to a deeper mental problem, or at least raises concerns about such.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE DISTINCT CONCERNS... one being rather petty and minor and the other being deeply disturbing and a line that should not be crossed nor tolerated?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COME ACROSS AS LITERALLY NORMALIZING THE DEEPLY ABNORMAL WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE “... all of humanity shares Trump’s moral failings to some degree.”..?
Yes, Craig, the people around me ARE good people who no doubt have made some false claims. NO, Craig, the people around me DO NOT TELL multiple lies each and every day, stupidly false claims for public consumption.
Yes, Craig, most men I know have had troubles with inappropriate lust.
No, Craig, NONE of the good men around me boast about forcibly kissing women without their permission, grab women by the crotch and laugh about getting away with it because of their privilege and wealth. NONE of the men around me publicly boast about ogling half naked teen-aged girls.
These are deeply disturbing behaviors that good people/good men do NOT engage in. It's a line that should not be crossed nor abided.
One final question, Craig...
Do you and the men around you engage in behavior such as Trump boasted and laughed about? Do you and your male friends boast about manhandling women and ogling half naked teen aged girls?
Please answer all the bold questions or stop commenting here.
Why? Because it is NOT good to normalize deeply deviant behavior and that is literally what your words are doing. Perhaps you don't realize it, but that's what your words are saying... "...all of humanity shares Trump's moral failings to some degree..."
We're not talking about SOME DEGREE. We're talking about a degree that cannot be tolerated.
Aren’t we really talking about choosing to listen to conscience when it provokes guilt and repenting if what goes on in one’s head?
Versus choking the life out one’s own moral life?
Pretty sure that Jesus distinguished between those wanting and trying to be good and those who judged others in place of improving oneself. The difference is absolute. Colluding with covering up that difference is the way to perdition.
Dan,
If you can't discern the difference between truth and lies here in your own blog, what possible reason would anyone have for believing that you can differentiate between the tow in any context. Just a hint. When things are attributed to me that I clearly didn't say, that might be a clue for you. Of course, you'd have to read the comments to discern that.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?"
Yes, I've pointed it out multiple times.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE DISTINCT CONCERNS... one being rather petty and minor and the other being deeply disturbing and a line that should not be crossed nor tolerated?"
Yes, I've pointed it out multiple times. Your question does bring up an interesting point. What is an "acceptable" lie or an "acceptable" amount of lies? What's the magic number that is an ok amount of lies to tell? Where is the line? Is it a number? Is it harm? Is there a consistent scale, or does POTUS (every one of them) get held to a higher standard?
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COME ACROSS AS LITERALLY NORMALIZING THE DEEPLY ABNORMAL WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE “... all of humanity shares Trump’s moral failings to some degree.”..?"
If pointing out the reality that literally all of humanity engages in the same sorts of behavior to a greater or lesser degree as Trump, is "normalizing" Trumps behavior then I guess that's just the reality.
You do understand the concept of degree, don't you? You do understand that everyone on the planet lies, don't you? You do understand that you are applying some mystery, arbitrary standard of "too many" lies, don't you? You do understand that there is a huge number of American men who indulge in porn on a regular basis? You do understand the harm that the porn industry causes? You can't seriously tell me that no one in your circle of friends watches or reads porn. You also can't tell me that talking about something (still no proof that Trump grabbed any women by the genitals), is worse than watching someone else do it?
"Do you and the men around you engage in behavior such as Trump boasted and laughed about? Do you and your male friends boast about manhandling women and ogling half naked teen aged girls?"
Not on a regular basis, no.
Are you aware that studies show over 75% of men watch porn. Do you know that one of the most watched categories of porn is "teen"? So, the statistics say that there is a pretty good chance that some of your friends are online regularly watching teenaged girls having sex.
So, the issue isn't what I or my friends do, it's what the statistics (you know that data) say that the majority of men are doing.
So, I'd say that the sexual degradation of women in our society has pretty much been normalized regardless of Trump's contribution to the decline of society.
Craig is so shallow he can’t fathom that if he says he’s hungry that he has Inferred that he needs to eat.
Craig: I’m hungry.
Normal response: what would you like to eat?
Craig: I didn’t say I want to eat. You’ve defamed me!
Trump is a racist. The event called The Central Park 5 is enough evidence.
“Ava DuVernay's Central Park Five Series 'When They See Us' Is Going to Be a Gut-Punch for Trump. Trump famously railed against the wrongfully convicted teens. Now DuVernay is going to tell their story.”
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gyamjy/ava-duvernays-central-park-five-series-when-they-see-us-is-going-to-be-a-gut-punch-for-trump-vgtrn?utm_source=vicefbus
Trump is a racist. The event called The Central Park 5 is enough evidence.
“Ava DuVernay's Central Park Five Series 'When They See Us' Is Going to Be a Gut-Punch for Trump. Trump famously railed against the wrongfully convicted teens. Now DuVernay is going to tell their story.”
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gyamjy/ava-duvernays-central-park-five-series-when-they-see-us-is-going-to-be-a-gut-punch-for-trump-vgtrn?utm_source=vicefbus
And Marshall is done here.
Don't bother commenting here further, Marshall. Ever. Short of an apology and recognition of your error for supporting stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press.
Just go away.
If you can't see the reality that we are in fundamental agreement on Trump and his lack of character, it's because you've chosen prejudice over reality.
So, you AGREE with me that there is literally no serious comparison between the way and volume of Trump's lies and the false claims of most of the rest of us? That yes, people DO make some false claims and it's just part of being imperfect humans, but that there is a cataclysmic difference between making some, occasional false claims and the huge number of day in and day out false claims of Trump?
If you agree with that, do you agree that this makes Trump fundamentally unfit for office? That no one who makes false claims at the rate that Trump does should be supported in office by we, the people, as it is just dangerously unstable?
Do you TRULY agree with me or are you just spreading BS?
What is an "acceptable" lie or an "acceptable" amount of lies? What's the magic number that is an ok amount of lies to tell? Where is the line? Is it a number? Is it harm? Is there a consistent scale
No, there's not a number. But at some point, it becomes clear, or it should become clear.
Obama's one false claim that everyone will get to keep their doctors was a bad false claim/twist of reality (as were the however many more handful of false claims he made in his eight years), but that's forgivable in a politician or anyone else.
Trump's 8000 (or whatever the number is) of false claims in two years is NOT acceptable and should not be tolerated.
Do you disagree? Do you think that unless we can specify a number, then we can't object to ANYONE making false claims, no matter how large the number or how serious the lies or how stupid the false claims or the dedication to those false claims?
This IS consistent because it doesn't matter if it was Obama or Clinton or Bush or Trump... ANYONE making hundreds of false claims publicly every year should be rejected as unfit for office. Do you understand that this IS a consistent position?
You do understand that you are applying some mystery, arbitrary standard of "too many" lies, don't you?
You SAID you understand, but then you ask this question, suggesting you don't understand a thing.
Yes, I understand that I don't have a specific number - that NO ONE has a specific number - of how many false claims are too many. That doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.
So, DO YOU truly understand there is a fundamental difference between the occasional false claim common to humanity and hundreds of PUBLIC false claims every year?
If your doctor sent a bill to you that was too high and you pointed out the mistake and he apologized and acknowledged and fixed it, that would be one thing.
if he did that two or three times, that would be another thing... probably still forgivable.
If he did it ten times in one year... that would be deeply concerning.
If he did it 4000 times in one year, he's moved beyond forgivable, beyond concerning... it's moved into the criminal harassment level.
Do you have a NUMBER where he crossed over? No, of course not. Doesn't mean that he didn't cross a line.
You do understand that there is a huge number of American men who indulge in porn on a regular basis?
I'm not talking about watching porn. I'm talking about a fucking piece of shit who LAUGHED publicly with another man about grabbing women by the pussy and laughed about how he could get away with it because he was rich and powerful... I'm talking about a man who LAUGHED on a public radio show about ogling teen-aged girls.
If any of my friends publicly laughed on a radio show about ogling teen-aged naked girls, they would have crossed a line.
Your problem is you appear to want to reduce Trump's perverted beyond decency level of public hedonism, false claims and vulgar indecencies to something that is somehow comparable to what some people do in the shame of their private lives.
So, NO, God damn you, NO, none of my friends do any of these PUBLIC indecencies that Trump is doing. We're not perverted that way and they don't defend his perversions and lies by appealing to private sins of humanity.
There are some lines that should not be crossed.
I understand that you’re not interested in a conversation, but in an affirmation.
It should be clear (because I’ve said it repeatedly), that I don’t think Trump is fit for the office of president. If you can’t understand that clearly articulated point, then I can’t help you. You clearly feel a need to ask the same, already answered, question multiple times.
I’ve got nothing else, and no desire to play your petty games.
the issue isn't what I or my friends do, it's what the statistics (you know that data) say that the majority of men are doing.
So, I'd say that the sexual degradation of women in our society has pretty much been normalized regardless of Trump's contribution to the decline of society.
Yes, there is WAY too much harassment of women by men.
Which is PRECISELY WHY we can NOT allow this perverted sack of shit deviant lying con man get by with parading his perverse sexual assaults on girls and women in public.
If Trump were privately watching porn at home, that would be gross and disgusting, but it would be private and unknown and he would NOT be publicly promoting the degradation and attacks and rape of women and girls. But when you laugh about it on a public radio show, THAT is promoting rape culture and violence towards women and girls. When you laugh about sexual assaulting women with your friends, THAT is promoting rape culture and violence towards women.
It's too bad you can't recognize the difference in the degree of perversions and bad behavior.
Craig continues to try to normalize this “President” by comparing him to everyone else. 40,000 people are killed by guns every year. If Trump shot someone dead on 5th Avenue, Craig infers that he would say he doesn’t like it, but, hey, 40,001 isn’t really significant.
Mr Obama was a class act of decency. Let Craig call for Trump’s impeachment on character grounds.
“Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said the American public "learned" on Wednesday that federal prosecutors have evidence President Trump committed a crime. "Career prosecutors here in New York have evidence that the president of the United States committed a felony by ordering and paying Michael Cohen to break the law," Napolitano said while speaking on Fox News. "How do we know that? They told that to the federal judge. Under the rules, they can't tell that to the federal judge unless they actually have that hardcore evidence. Under the rules, they can't tell that to the federal judge unless they intend to do something with that evidence."
Dan,
In your monomaniacal fervor to absolutely destroy Trump, you just gave a virtual pass to the more than 75% of American men who watch porn. Your, “it’s not so bad to degrade women in private” stance is incoherent and bizarre. The data and evidence are out there to demonstrate that the “private” degradation of watching porn leads to the public degradation of women as more and more young men demand what they see from real women.
It’s too bad that you can’t read and have to lie about what I “can’t recognize”.
And, Dan, you correctly put your finger on Craig's Reformed Theology as a contributor to the brutality we see. Though, to be precise, it is Craig's 19th century Reformed Theology that is the problem: in its excessive emphasis on sin in private, individual behavior (a corruption of grace) and neglect of communal ritual participation and corporate identity (a corruption of the body of
Christ). Granted, in this, 19th century Reformed Theology shared a skewed approach with all rigorously brittle reformed American protestantism. This is the reasons that the Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century arose: reformed protestantism was killing off brotherhood and love.
Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist, preached God's love for those most down and out just as much as for those who had achieved comfortability. Dwight Moody preached that the poor only need to focus on the promise of salvation.
The rest is the history of the schism of reformed theology.
Let Trump be condemned with all other porn abusing misogynists as are all other porn abusing misogynists: a private citizen.
Let Trump as President be removed.
Craig, being unable to keep two thoughts and subjects in his head at once, keeps trying to normalize Trump as President by diverting attention to a whole 'nother issue.
Good points, all, Feodor.
Craig, I am tired of your vagueness. If you want to comment here please first answer these questions directly and clearly ...
Do you think Trump is fundamentally unfit to be president? You have said you don't approve of him and wouldn't vote for him, but do you think he is fundamentally unfit?
If you agree that he is fundamentally unfit, on what consistent rational basis do you think he is unfit for office?
For my part, I'm not saying having told lies in the past makes one unfit for presidency. By that measure no one would be fit for office. And since I vote for people that would make me inconsistent. So it's not merely having told lies that makes one unfit for office.
So one thing that differentiates Trump from everyone else is the degree of his lies, the sheer volume. He makes false claims multiple times nearly every day. Thousands in a year.
That makes him unfit for office. while Obama or Bush or Clinton all may have lied, they have not lied to that degree. And that is why I am consistent in my reason in opposition to Trump, thinking that he is fundamentally unfit. Because anyone who lies at that level is unfit for office, is simply not trustworthy.
Do you see the difference?
Another reason I find Trump unfit for office is his misogynistic View of women. He has publicly laughed about assaulting and harassing women is publicly boasted and laughed about ogling teenaged girls in the dressing room.
It's not merely that he was unfaithful to his wife. By that measure an awful lot of men would be unfit for office. It's not merely ogling pictures of naked women who were paid to pose in pornographic movies. By that measure, most men would be unfit for office.
So I'm not saying that merely having a history of engaging in consensual but unsavory sexual activity makes one unfit for office. I'm saying abusive harassing mocking treatment of girls and women is a line too far. And for that reason, Trump is unfit for office. And that is the difference between him and Bill Clinton, for instance. Or Ronald Reagan, for that matter.
What consistent rational basis do you have for thinking Trump is unfit for office? Please answer if you want to comment here anymore.
And for God's sake, quit normalizing the degree of his perversion and depravity.
Short of some apologies, some repentance, and some backtracking, as well as some recognition of some basic reality, Craig and Marshall are finished commenting here. Ever.
Dan,
Yes, I believe Trump is unfit for office. I believe he is unfit for office due to the multiple character failings I’ve detailed previously. Primarily his dishonesty, and his infidelity.
Had you read my previous comments here and elsewhere, you’d know this.
Unfortunately you’re just looking for excuses to shut down people who don’t agree with you to the degree you’d like.
I realize that silencing dissent is the new pastime of the left, so you’re in good company.
I applaud Craig for saying Trump needs to go. Now he should apologize for all those irrational - and as he gives evidence now: duplicitous - arguments for shutting down Mr Obama, a paragon of virtue but with whom Craig disagreed.
And given what Craig has tried to divert to today, he should argue for using billions of dollars not on a Wall - which studies have shown won't change a thing - but using billions in security dollars to address abusive misogyny entering our airport borders.
"The recent arrest warrant filed against Robert K. Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots — and the solicitation charges filed against nearly 300 men in multiple jurisdictions as part of the same case — riveted national attention to a stretch of Highway 1 along Florida’s Treasure Coast dotted with strip malls, gas stations and sapphire ocean views. Across the region, parlors were empty and many frequent clients were phoning their lawyers, wondering if more warrants were going to drop.
Law enforcement officials said there were an estimated 9,000 illicit massage parlors across the country, from Orlando to Los Angeles. The epicenter of this national underground is the bustling Chinatown in Flushing, in the New York City borough of Queens. Women — typically Chinese, but also Korean, Thai and East European — arrive at Kennedy International Airport, learn the trade and are sent out to places like Virginia, Iowa, Texas and Florida. Women are recruited locally through ads in Chinese-language newspapers or over the social network WeChat."
I'll give you another chance, Craig. On what consistent basis do you think Trump is unfit for office? That is are you saying anybody who has lied is unfit for office? Anyone who has committed adultery is unfit for office? Is that your measure? Be specific. Then explain how you can support a regen or a bush both of whom have history of Lies and Reagan who has had affairs. Do you see the problem you have? Your standard is vague and whimsical. You're being inconsistent.
Another question for you to answer, to help you understand why you come off as vague and wishy-washy ...
So, just because we can't put an exact number on where a line is crossed, do you recognize the reality that we CAN recognize a line has been crossed?
We all recognize the reality that making false claims is not good. We all recognize the reality that all humans make some false claims. We all agree, I think, that having made false claims does not make one unfit for office. Likewise, I think most rational people can agree that at some point if one tells too many lies, makes too many false claims, that that person will be deemed untrustworthy. Indeed, most rational people can know the reality that if one makes false claims at a ridiculous amount, one would have moved into the entirely unfit for office category.
Just because we can't put a number on where that person cross the line, does not mean that they did not cross the line.
Do you recognize that reality that almost certainly most rational adults can agree with? If you can recognize that reality, do you see why you come across as defending Trump when you mock me for not having an exact number? You are normalizing his deviancy. Do you recognize that reality? Please answer. Or go away forever.
Again, I think Trump is unfit for office because of his infidelities (If he doesn’t hold his marriage vows in high esteem, why would he hold his oath of office in high esteem). I also think that Trump’s attitude towards the truth is a problem. He says whatever he thinks will help him in the moment, without regard to the truth if his comments. Further, his inability to control himself on social media etc, is a problem.
No, as I’ve said, since everyone in history had lied it would be unreasonable to hold that standard.
Yes, I believe that infidelity is a disqualification for the presidency. Society doesn’t agree with me, but I place a high value on fidelity and integrity, an affair demonstrates a failure of both.
I realize the rational position that there will never be a perfect candidate for political office and that the best I can do is to identify the candidate who is the best compromise with my ideal candidate. In other words, I acknowledge reality and am honest in assessing the candidates I vote for.
I I don’t have a problem at all, my standards of who I support are personal, I’m not trying to impose them on others.
Yes. Yes.
Except I don’t mock you for not having a line, I merely point out that you have no measurable standard (which you’ve been bitching about when it comes to me), and that you don’t apply the same standards to yourself that you do to others.
No, because I’ve clearly not defended Trump. Just because you’re prejudiced doesn’t mean your prejudice is reality.
If you can’t provide a quote where I’m specifically “normalizing” his deviancy, you should consider not making that claim. So, no I don’t recognize your prejudice as reality.
It’s clear that you have no interest in a conversation as the term is normally used.
You either want a sycophant to parrot your vitriol and kiss your ass.
Or you want someone who will answer your question as nauseum, jump through whatever arbitrary hoops you whimsically come up with, and who you can threaten and dominate.
I’m not going to say I’m done, but I’m going to assume that you’ll delete and lie about any further comments I make and will act accordingly.
So, you think (given his affairs and infidelity to his wife) that Reagan was unfit for office?
I'm fine with that being your position as long as you're consistent.
And, for you, having a history of Lies make someone unfit for office. But what does that mean? Does that mean that everyone who has lied is unfit for office? You've left that undefined and vague. That's the problem.
This sycophant, Craig, just schooled you on Reformed history and fracture. And detailed the disengaged, isolationist camp you claim as just.
Even the diversion goal of your diversionary tactic to get away is found to be corrupt. Your shallow claim about abusive misogyny blames individuals because then you don’t have to support collective action to really address the issue. You believe only in judgment. Not acting in love. Unless, of course, it is paternalistic trips out of the country where you can feel like a little white savior.
Talk to yourself, hypocrite. You can’t even work well with Marshall to get what you’ve asked for.
Since Craig has no comeback for what you and I generally agree to, Dan, he resorts to name calling: sychophant and groupie. With a total inability to respond to his hypocrisies and his own religious heritage. That’s a loser’s way to engage. It’s a particular kind of shallow corruption that he has mastered.
Marshall, I'll give you ONE more chance to respond with something short of an admission of your mistaken false claims.
1. DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People."
2. If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state.
3. If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it.
4. If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition).
5. If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact.
Just that, naught else. Last chance.
Trump’s most destructive, brutalizing lie is about the border. And this is what he has accomplished.
The federal government received more than 4,500 complaints in four years about the sexual abuse of immigrant children who were being held at government-funded detention facilities, including an increase in complaints while the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the border was in place, the Justice Department revealed this week.
God you are a shallow, sick pervert.
"For most of the four years covered by the report, the number of allegations made to the Office of Refugee Resettlement stayed about the same from month to month. But the number of complaints rose after the Trump administration enacted its separation policy. From March 2018 to July 2018, the agency received 859 complaints, the largest number of reports during any five-month span in the previous four years."
_____
"you will whine about "kids in cages" out of one side... while complaining of sexual abuse of kids who aren't "in cages" out of the other"
Exactly. I don't care about where kids are abused, I don't want them abused. That you want to make partisan politics about, what?, location where children are abused? (you seem confused) is just part of your moral corruption.
_____
You've never had a problem with legalized slavery. Why the moral facade, now?
_____
It's not that you don't know math, Marshall, you don't even know relative numbers. In February, 76,103 immigrants. Yeah, highest in year. In 2000, 200,000 illegal immigrants would cross over. In the 1990s, over a million would cross in a month.
Where is your fucking national emergency, you immoral liar? Thanks for validating your ignorance.
____
Four major studies of data from the Trump government prove that illegal immigrants commit fewer violent and non-violent crimes per person than native born Americans. And legal immigrants even less.
What is wrong with America? Guns. So NOT exceptional on crime.
Let me repeat that for our remedial morons: February’s data shows the highest number of illegal immigrant crossings in years... while we have more military and national guard troops positioned there than ever before. People are in crisis and still coming from countries we broke with our drug habit.
And STILL, this not even CLOSE to comparable to the early 2000s when 2000,000 people would cross.
Which doesn’t compare to the 1990s when a million people would cross!
There is no national emergency. Trump and his minions like you are lying like Satan.
And unlike those years where the majority of crossers were single men, now - just as sick Secretary Neilsen said - the majority are desperate women and children. And this administration and people like you love to brutalize the more vulnerable. You, Marshall, like to abuse as vulnerable a group as you can find.
Christ abhors what’s in your heart.
200,000 in one month in 2000 - three times as many as this (panic!) February.
1 million in one month in the 90s. More than ten times our fake national emergency. Ten times.
(You can thank NAFTA for taking away a national emergency.)
Look it up. And look up the testimony of Trump’s Homeland Secretary to Congress yesterday: no longer is it mostly single men like in the past. The majority are vulnerable populations: women and children. It’s your government, Marshall. She could be lying.
When I talk to God (you’d know this if you talked to God), the transcript reads: God, [comma] you’re a loving, living mystery.
Not God you’re a hateful, brutalizing anti-Christian, [comma] Marshall.
You’re the Grand Inquisitor: looking at Christ and spitting on him.
I've decided that I will once again respond to your questions that I've already answered as can be proven be re-posting the comments of mine you deleted...since I saved them. Rather than re-post them at this time...because you can't be trusted to be honorable...I'll simply answer them once again:
"1. DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People.""
Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:
An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason.
I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example. While it has a separate entry for "enemy of the people", the definition is less specific. As the state is primarily the people, it can also refer to the government of the people. Neither entry takes pains to distinguish between the two, so that makes the expressions more interchangeable as well as less "standard" than you need it to be.
"2. If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state."
When I stated that there is no standard definition in my previous comment that you deleted, I erred in doing so. It is far more accurate to say that there is no standard application of the expression. All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"
You chose, with clear intent to advantage your Trump-hatred, only those examples of the expression's use by the worst actors in history against those who opposed them. By doing this, you purposely demonize Trump as being just like them. But by doing this, you ignore the reality that forces for good can also identify specific entities as acting against the best interests of the state/people. One example would be to label the 19 terrorists on 9/11 as enemies of the state/people. If any American politician, Dem or Rep, used the term then, I doubt you'd fail to agree with the sentiment. You wouldn't dare compare the politician who did, Dem or Rep, with the worst despots in history. But you went out of your way to do it here with regard to Trump.
"3. If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it."
Clearly I have a far better grasp of the term than do you.
"4. If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition)."
I provided numerous links to articles that presented examples of the falsehood promoted by various left-leaning media entries. I will re-post them here if checking them out at my blog, where I posted them after you deleted them here, is too much effort. A few clicks shouldn't put you out too much. One source was from Snopes.com, who isn't known for it's conservatism. To pretend that a media that can't help but spin stories to portray Trump in the worst light...indeed, they tend to spin stories to promote liberal points of view and have for some time...isn't detrimental to the people is to be complicit in the practice. As there is very little effort to be truly objective and impartial in their reporting, the media has indeed become that which does not serve the people so much as that which serves one ideology over another.
"5. If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact."
So clearly, I have indeed done that (it wasn't hard to do given the preponderance of evidence in support of the premise). This opinion, in fact, has far more evidence in support of it than does your opinion on Scripture and SSM (to name just one).
I further insist that this demand of yours demonstrates the subjectivity of the leftist demands regarding definitions. You can make marriage and family mean whatever best suits you...and damn the actual definitions...but when a word or expression is used in a manner not to your liking or advantage, you whine. Worse, the use of any word or expression by politicians to make their points is also subjective in the same way. Note the tired and dishonest "war on women" comments. That is among the many that is totally dishonest...dishonestly applied as it has no true relationship to that which it intends to attack...while "enemy of the people"...even if you disagree with Trump's argument against the left-leaning news outlets...is at least based on a firmly held opinion.
Now...I would appreciate your swift response (NOT DELETION) as to whether or not this satisfies your request, or failing that, an explanation for exactly where you find fault in my replies. There has been so much nonsense put forth by you and your dishonest ally to which I'd like to respond. I don't want to see those comments deleted as well over this.
Chief remedial moron has no new answers, as he admits.
And never answered to facts:
February’s data shows the highest number of illegal immigrant crossings in years... while we have more military and national guard troops positioned there than ever before. People are in crisis and still coming from countries we broke with our drug habit.
And STILL, this not even CLOSE to comparable to the early 2000s when 2000,000 people A MONTH would cross.
Which doesn’t compare to the 1990s when 1 MILLION PEOPLE A MONTH would cross!
There is no national emergency. Trump and his minions like you are lying like Satan.
feo,
Your comments are nonsensical and demonstrates partisan hackery...not facts or truth.
My bad, Marshall, you’re right. My time spans are off. I’ll fix it when ainget back home.
You’re problem is that annual illegal immigration has decreased dramatically over the last two decades. And in the 90s, before NAFTA, it was even worse. There is zero national emergency compared to years when it was 2 and 3 times worse.
I’ll give you the numbers later.
Don't need the numbers. You think numbers constitute the emergency. I'm saying it doesn't. Even with absolutely no one attempting to cross in between legal ports of entry...sneaking in...the emergency is that the freakin' door is open. The potential for harm of having that door open is the emergency.
But aside from that obvious fact, the numbers we're experiencing are serious enough and don't need to be any worse in order to constitute a serious problem. I know you hate to acknowledge reality, but that's the fact. There are too many entering by illegal means. Erecting barriers to stymie those attempts is essential with regard to reducing those numbers even more. That it was worse in years past doesn't mean it's not bad enough now to constitute an emergency. That's just an idiotic argument.
That your emergencies are fantasies is not news. Your mental doges and diversions and denials don't count.
But this exchange started when you were alarmed at the headlines saying that February's numbers of 76,103 illegal immigrants is the highest month in years. It's your hysteria at that number that started it. And now you lie and say numbers don't matter to you?
What a liar.
And as I pointed out way back when you were panting with panic, these years constitute a dramatic drop in annual illegal immigration over the last two decades. And the 90s were even higher in numbers than the early '00s.
In the last two decades there has been an 76% percent drop in border arrests.
Total annual Southwest Border Apprehensions.
2000: 1.6 million
2001: 1.2 million
2002: 920,000
2003: 900,000
2004: 1.1 million
2005: 1.2 million
2006: 1 million
2007: 850,000
2008: 700,000
2009: 500,000
2010: 450,000
2011: 350.000
2012: 380,000
2013: 410,000
2014: 480,000
2015: 320,000
2016: 410,000
2017: 300,000
2018: 400,000
Pointing to February numbers simply demonstrated that things are worse. You want to pretend they're not because previous years had higher numbers. Then I made a distinction between how many cross versus the fact that the opportunity exists for those illegal crossings. I'm not dismissing the numbers at all. It validates the claim that an emergency exists. But my personal opinion isn't a matter of numbers.
I'm also saying that the larger numbers of the past don't mean the lesser numbers of February indicates there's no emergency. THAT is absolute stupidity on your part. What's the magic number, then? How many illegal crossing do YOU believe constitutes an emergency?
So you say there's no emergency. The numbers say different. I say the numbers don't matter because with a wide open border the numbers can be any amount and that potential is what makes the lack of a barrier the true emergency. Try to pay attention. If you want to go off on tangents, you have to keep in mind the starting point.
Pointing to February numbers simply demonstrated that things are worse, but only in February. Reality isn't built on one month's numbers. What February reveals, 24 months into Trump's assault on people running from massive violence, rape, and threat, is that they are determined more than ever to get their kids to better places. The bottom line is that you thrill to treating them brutally: they are not white. And you will defend that thrill with all the irrational thinking you can scrap up.
Pointing to Feb numbers because they are worse belies the lie that no crisis exists at the border. Pretending the higher than lately numbers is meaningless to that end because it's been even worse in the past is simply the same type of arbitrary and subjective nonsense we see you use in rationalizing the murder one's own child. The emergency is the open border. Any number of people illegally crossing those unprotected areas is proof the emergency exists.
Trump's not assaulting anyone by enforcing the law. Indeed, until we can investigate the asylum claims of those caught breaking our law (as well as those who seek asylum the legal way), we don't know who's running from what. And given that you are so concerned that they are indeed running from harm, international law insists they seek asylum from the first country outside their own to which they come, and that any of those countries between their home and here is obliged to provide it. That they choose to skip those countries and sneak in here before being caught and then claiming asylum suggests their claim is BS.
If you truly cared about the plight of real refugees, you would seek to improve the conditions of the lands from which they flee, instead of exploiting the situation to dump on Trump. There's nothing at all irrational about my position that either you or Dan has been able to identify, and the constant pretense that the skin color of those crossing illegally has any bearing on my position proves that all irrational thinking is yours. I don't care who is trying to cross illegally. I want them to stop trying to do that and respect our laws and sovereignty.
But you keep on lying, feo. That's what you do.
You lie right in front of numbers. February isn’t a national crisis. The Republican Senators told you so. Illegal immigration is down 76% over two decades. That’s progress.
You call it an emergency because the truth isn’t in you. You’re a sellout to Trump, a man who calls for violence and is loved by mass shooters.
You may well be in your way to committing violence. You’re already cooking with crazy.
It's an emergency because illegal crossings are easy when no barrier inhibits their attempts. You're a sellout to deceit and those who exist only to disparage Trump, the GOP and all center-right individuals who deal in reality, truth and morality.
I'm done with the back and forth unless you have something substantive and factual to submit. You haven't yet, so I won't hold my breath.
Trump supporters have killed more people in the last 72 hours than illegal immigrants have in 30 years. That’s an emergency.
40,000 Americans die by gun violence every year. And you don’t care enough about them to call it a national emergency.
You support caging children who’ve harmed no one; where a thousand have been sexually abused; thousands more physically and emotionally abused. You’re a tool of Satan.
I doubt you’ve productively used much oxygen at all in some years. You waste breath all the time, and your corrupt thinking all the time.
So, you've retreated back to your comfort zone of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations. Not at all surprising.
I just follow the trail of your stink and call out the names of what you throw out the window of your fleeing car.
So you need to believe. But again, now that you're position has been found fallacious and ignorant, personal attacks are all you have left. Oh yeah...you're a Christian, all right!
Facts: Illegal immigration is at all time 40 year low. It’s decreased 76% since 2000. To call illegal immigration a national emergency is hateful lies.
Facts: Gun violence kills 40,000 Americans a year.
Facts: Lead in water is poisoning whole towns and cities.
The obvious and moral conclusion is that you don’t care about Americans. You thrill to get your hate on. Clear and honest to moral people: you’re a sellout to hate.
Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose.
Fact: Murders of Americans by other Americans is another issue and wholly irrelevant to this discussion. That you continue to bring it up is akin to a white flag.
Fact: Lead in water is even less relevant and does nothing to mitigate tge fact that our open border is a national emergency that needs to be addressed.
The obvious and moral conclusion is that you don't care about Americans. You're obsessed with expressing your hatred for them and their president for wanting to secure our borders and thus protect Americans. Clear and honest to honest, moral people...as well as actual Christians: you're totally given over to your sin nature and TDS.
Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose.
Then why do you leave the northern border a national emergency?
Fact: Murders of Americans by other Americans is another issue and wholly irrelevant to this discussion. That you continue to bring it up is akin to a white flag.
The other “issue” is 40,000 Americans killed. Every year. When you ignore 99.98% of violent deaths and claim that 0.02% constitutes the emergency, you’ve raised questions about your sanity.
Fact: Lead in water is even less relevant and does nothing to mitigate tge fact that our open border is a national emergency that needs to be addressed.
We are fully aware that born children are viable objects of your thrill to brutality. Thanks for your confirmation..
The obvious and moral conclusion is that you are a tool of Satan.
"Then why do you leave the northern border a national emergency?"
I'm not up for interpreting poorly constructed sentences. Re-word it in a manner that makes sense.
"When you ignore 99.98% of violent deaths and claim that 0.02% constitutes the emergency, you’ve raised questions about your sanity."
Nice try. The subject is the southern border. By focusing on the subject, I'm unable to avoid ignoring about a billion other topics and issues. Fortunately one issue I can't ignore when dealing with you is you're incredibly disordered thinking.
"We are fully aware that born children are viable objects of your thrill to brutality."
So you need to believe. But once again we see that you're trying to pretend I'm unconcerned about issues not relevant to the conversation, because you arguments have been exposed as the crap they are. Thanks for your confirmation.
"The obvious and moral conclusion is that you are a tool of Satan."
The obvious and moral conclusion is that you're Satan. And a tool.
God what a dolt.
Marshall: "Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose."
Marshall on the national emergency of a border that is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose [with Canada]: ... [crickets]
______
"When you ignore 99.98% of violent deaths and claim that 0.02% constitutes the emergency..."
Marshall: "Nice try. The subject is the southern border."
Put the two together: Marshall is only concerned with protecting Americans against the handful of violent American deaths at the hands of illegal immigrant (0.02%) and not concerned with protecting Americans against the annual tens of thousands of violent deaths by guns (99.98%).
Easy conclusion: Marshall is so coldly, irrational brutal that his sanity is in question. His brutalizing kind of faith is no faith, it is thrill to brutality.
_____
1000 detained children have been sexually abused by people working on behalf of Trumps' order. Thousands more emotional abused.
Marshall: "Nah. Children detained at the Southern Border have nothing to do with the southern border."
Easy conclusion: you are one brutalizing bastard, trying to deny, divert, dodge, and lie your way out of the screaming, Christ killing injustice of caging and abusing children.
God you're a moral menace.
"God what a dolt."
Yes, you truly are. But I'm striving to be patient with you.
"Marshall on the national emergency of a border that is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose [with Canada]"
feo on the false premise that there's no need to concentrate our border protection efforts where the greatest evidence of illegal crossings take place. When feo's hovel is once again infested with vermin, he worries about areas where they could get in rather than where they ARE getting in.
"Put the two together"
No. You put THIS together: The issue here has been the problems at the border. When the discussion begins on the topic of guns, we'll discuss that problem then. But as you're losing another debate, you once again try to bring up unrelated issues, as well as engaging in personal attacks...his favorite white flags.
"1000 detained children have been sexually abused by people working on behalf of Trumps' order."
Provide evidence and the source for that evidence. You're the only one I've ever seen push this narrative.
"Marshall: "Nah. Children detained at the Southern Border have nothing to do with the southern border.""
Liar. I've never said anything remotely resembling this. You're not even a good liar. Low intellect people like you rarely are.
"Easy conclusion:"
You mean "easy lie", because nothing that follows the above is true.
"God you're a moral menace."
Unless you're crying out for forgiveness after repenting of your false and lying behavior, you should never dare speak the Name of the Lord. You have no understanding of what constitutes morality.
Wow. You don't know what you believe from one day to the next.
Your claim on the 18th: "Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose."
And now: "...the false premise that there's no need to concentrate our border protection efforts where the greatest evidence of illegal crossings take place..."
We are long familiar with what you do with actual facts. Look how you denied your own "Fact" in just one day.
No one loses a debate to someone who contradicts themselves so quickly and so unknowingly.
You lie to yourself within 24 hours.
Just so you do get lost again:
When you say, "It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose"...
That applies to our northern border which is far more unprotected and far more open than our souther boded. And 4! times longer..
Wow, indeed, feo. You try so hard to find fault in my words and continue to fail time and time again. There is no inconsistency between the two quotes you posted:
"Your claim on the 18th: "Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose."
And now: "...the false premise that there's no need to concentrate our border protection efforts where the greatest evidence of illegal crossings take place..."
Each statement addresses two things distinct from each other. The first established the problem. The second refers to how to go about addressing the problem. That is, while the first states the fact that our borders are unprotected and open to illegal crossings, the second insists we focus on the border where most illegal crossings take place. One would think a superior intellect would see that distinction. Of course you're not one of those, so...
"We are long familiar with what you do with actual facts."
We're long familiar with what you like to believe I do with actual facts. That's not the same as what I actually do with actual facts. The latter doesn't work well for you.
"Look how you denied your own "Fact" in just one day."
Clearly I didn't do that. By which I mean, "clearly to those with an actual intellect". But I just explained it to you, so you're covered.
"No one loses a debate to someone who contradicts themselves so quickly and so unknowingly."
But you continue to lose to me, because despite your every attempt to misrepresent my positions, as well as your every attempt to go off on tangents to avoid facing your oh so obvious inadequacies, you can't get around the fact that I'm not at all shaken from maintaining my focus and consistency on my solid positions.
"You lie to yourself within 24 hours."
So you like to believe in order to feel good about yourself. I see no evidence that such a belief is working to that end.
"When you say, "It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose"...
That applies to our northern border which is far more unprotected and far more open than our souther boded. And 4! times longer.."
Yeah, so? Again, with scores of cockroaches coming into your shack through the back door, are you going to focus your efforts on the front door where far fewer cockroaches enter, even though the front door is bigger? Is that your argument? Really? Somehow "buffoon" just doesn't really describe your level of buffoonery any more.
"Yeah, so?"
So, you are ignorant and willfully stupid. You cannot see how your own argument argues against your hate.
First you claimed it wasn't about numbers. Now you're all upset about things coming in through the back door (btw a frequent fear of the closeted self-hating homophobe).
So, you ignore you own claim.
You claim that a national emergency exists where the border is open, unprotected, and available for anyone to cross. That is the northern border. 4 times as long, 10 times as open, far less protected.
So, you ignore your own claim.
So, you want to be stupid.
Being stupid means you don't have to admit that there is no national emergency along the desert border because
-immigration is down 76% in two decades and 85% from three decades ago;
- almost all the drugs are coming in through the ports
- you've sold your soul to the most foul President we've ever had and the most brutalizing one in 190 years.
You are a true piece of shit, morally speaking.
"So, you are ignorant and willfully stupid."
Not that you've ever been able to prove. You just need to believe it. It must suck to lose so often to one you want to believe is inferior!
"You cannot see how your own argument argues against your hate."
I can't see what doesn't exist. You, evidently, see what you want to see...what you need to see in order to feed your unjustly overinflated ego. It must suck to lose so often to one you want to believe is inferior!
"First you claimed it wasn't about numbers."
Because it's true. More specifically, it isn't about how many come across illegally. It's about the fact that they can.
"Now you're all upset about things coming in through the back door (btw a frequent fear of the closeted self-hating homophobe)."
Ah. Keeping it classy, I see. Losing drives you to the depths right away, and now you're going deeper and deeper. Also, I'm not "self-hating" and I'm certainly not closeted about anything in which I believe. And "homophobe" is YOU, but explaining why would get my comment deleted. I can admit, however, to being a "moronophobe". Morons like you scare the hell out of me.
"So, you ignore you own claim."
Nope. You have bad comprehension skills.
"You claim that a national emergency exists where the border is open, unprotected, and available for anyone to cross. That is the northern border. 4 times as long, 10 times as open, far less protected."
This is true, but the flood of humanity is across our southern border and thus our southern border is where our attention is best focused. But you keep bringing the irrelevance. It's all you've got left. It must suck to lose so often to one you want to believe is inferior!
"So, you want to be stupid."
Nope. Except that it's not really smart to waste time with your stupidity. THAT'S stupid!
"Being stupid means you don't have to admit that there is no national emergency along the desert border..."
Nope. Being stupid means you pretend there is no national emergency along the southern border. Too many law enforcement agencies acknowledge that emergency. Who am I to disagree? I know who YOU are. The false priest!
"-immigration is down 76% in two decades and 85% from three decades ago;
- almost all the drugs are coming in through the ports"
Neither of which changes the fact that we need a barrier on our southern border.
"- you've sold your soul to the most foul President we've ever had and the most brutalizing one in 190 years."
Unlike you, my soul belongs to the One True God you actually think anyone believes you follow.
"You are a true piece of shit, morally speaking."
Spoken like an actual false priest who has no understanding of morality.
Finally! Thank you Marshall for these responses. You woke up a bit. No longer are you trying to make a rational-seeming argument, which you’ve never done. Ever. And thank god you are no longer trying to defend your failed arguments with lie and twisting diversion. All you have left is impotent denials.
And vitriol!
Since you are stupid, be stupid. Since you are mean, be mean. Since you are stupid and mean, you’re brutal.
I prefer you to prove these things as you just did. Because you can.
"And vitriol!
Since you are stupid, be stupid. Since you are mean, be mean. Since you are stupid and mean, you’re brutal."
Hypocritical irony? Ironic hypocrisy? Either way, it's strong in you.
My arguments are not "failed" arguments in any sense. You simply pretend they are because you can't get around them. You are really one dedicated liar...as a good false priest must be. Kudos.
So weak.
Yes. It's sad, but you really are so incredibly weak.
But it's good for a laugh!
So pathetic.
Yes. You're sad and pathetic. Thanks for the clarification.
So embarrassingly childish.
Sez the sad, pathetic and embarrassingly childish false priest who defaults to calling people things like "sad, pathetic and embarrassingly childish" when he's lost another debate. Just admit surrender, feo. I mean, why not? It might work better than trying to convince anyone you're intelligent or Christian!
God sees the committed brutalizing liar you’ve made yourself into.
Sez the defender of the murder of over 800,000 infants in the US last, who only pays lip service to any belief and/or devotion to the One True God of the Bible.
When you can identify an lie I've intentionally told in any blog comment of mine, that'll be the day. You liar.
And another diversion and lie.
Here's one of you many lies:
Marshall: "You think numbers constitute the emergency. I'm saying it doesn't.... Even with absolutely no one attempting to cross in between legal ports of entry...sneaking in...the emergency is that the freakin' door is open. The potential for harm of having that door open is the emergency... I say the numbers don't matter because with a wide open border the numbers can be any amount and that potential is what makes the lack of a barrier the true emergency.... Fact: It's not the number of illegal crossings that constitutes the emergency...it's that the border is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose."
Feodor: "Then why do you leave the northern border a national emergency?"
Marshall: "I don't understand."
Feodor: "Marshall on the national emergency of a border that is unprotected and open to illegal crossings by anyone for any purpose [with Canada]..."
Marshall: "uuuuhhhhh.... give me a second.... ummmmm. OH! This is true, but the flood of humanity is across our southern border."
______
I gave you the facts that illegal immigration at the southern border is down 76% since 2000. Then, 1.6 million were crossing. Now, 400,000.
You said numbers don't matter. You said openness matters.
I pointed out that the northern border is ten times more open than the souther border.
You say it's about numbers.
More lies by the son of the Father or Lies.
First, I fully understand what you're trying to do by constantly mentioning our northern border. Why not throw in our eastern and western coastlines to truly double-down on your BS.
So of all four sides of our nation, where is the greatest problem? That would be the southern border. So, while the northern border might be the largest unprotected span, it is not the border that sees the greatest amount of illegal crossings.
I'll try another tack for your deceitful mind. Two bridges need repairs. Both have the potential for falling down. The smaller, more traveled one is clearly about to fall, while the other larger, less traveled one seems likely to remain standing for significantly longer. To which do you direct your attention? The one that will last a bit, or the one about to fall? By your *snicker* logic, you'd expect the larger, less traveled bridge to be shored up first, while allowing people to die one the smaller collapsing bridge.
Yet in each case, both bridges are in need of repair, just as both borders are in need of securing. The problem...the emergency...is the poor state of the bridges, and the open borders. The focus needs to be where the greatest and most obvious manifestation of that emergency exists, which is the southern border. There, those who are most familiar with protecting that southern border insist without reservation that barriers are essential to mitigate the flow of illegal crossings and all the ill that comes with it.
In the meantime, since numbers mean so much to your simple mind, be so kind as to provide the exact number that divides crisis with non-crisis. You want to submit that the numbers of people crossing illegally in the last several years aren't enough, despite the annual totals being several hundred thousands, because it was worse in the past? That's just goofy. Said another way, your "facts" are irrelevant, as they guarantee nothing.
:Why not throw in our eastern and western coastlines"
Coast Guard and radar. But since almost all drugs come in through the ports, why aren't you concerned for ports instead of deserts? That's our greatest problem. Here's my version of what you call a lie.
"Whopping 3,200 pounds of cocaine found at Port of New York/Newark; largest seizure in 25 years is worth about $77M"
You're in the upside down. Always have been.
Wow. You're trying to score points by acknowledging the benefit of enforcement at ports of entry. Pretty stupid angle on your part. Rather typical for you.
So you’ve finally come your senses after all these months and given up the ludicrous “emergency” need for a wall spanning the southwest desert?
You’re welcome. Glad to bring anyone back from insanity, overeach, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
No. I agree with those who patrol the border for a living. The wall is essential for effectively doing their job. The emergency is real, and we're seeing the manifestation of that emergency with the great numbers of people crossing the border illegally.
Ports of entry have law enforcement present pretty much all the time. Reports of drug seizures are testament to that aspect of protection of the border at those points of entry. Those points of entry are narrow compared to vast, unprotected expanses of borderlines. They funnel people through that narrow area. There is no funneling in the open areas and as a result they are far more difficult to patrol and defend against invasive attempts. Physical barriers necessarily compel invaders to a less difficult point of entry, much the same way ports of entry do. Those areas become fewer and more easily patrolled because of the barriers restricting access for the length of border protected by them. The job of law enforcement becomes easier and more efficient. The numbers of people attempting to enter illegally drops due to the increased difficulty
So overall, as you try to bob and weave with your inane attempts at avoiding reality and the supreme logic of the position I defend, you prove your own incompetence at thinking at all, much less logically.
Marshall, for this comment I'm going to be nothing but as clear and as serious as I can be, since irony and satire are above you. Part of what is so tiring in showing how committed a liar you are is having to point out how you make stupidly contradictory statements from one comment to another. Like these:
1. You don't want to hear about the historical decrease in the numbers of illegal immigrants that has been going on for 25 years. Instead, you rested your explanation of "emergency" on how open the border is.
But when reminded that the northern border is far more open, you talk about the "scores" of cockroaches crossing the southern border. "Scores," Marshall indicates numbers.
2. Just yesterday - I can only assume that you were angry upon realizing how stupid you were - you try using my point about openness to talk about coastlines. I pointed out that you were forgetting that the Coast Guard and radar keeps illegal entry numbers way, way down. You seem to infer that this somehow weakens my argument. You say I am "pretty stupid" to "acknowledging the benefit of enforcement at ports of entry."
But wen I pointed out days ago that it is ports and airports where a real emergency of drug smuggling happens, you said, "Neither of which changes the fact that we need a barrier on our southern border." Which is an acknowledgment of the facts but a stupid denial of how the facts cannot support calling the situation at the southern border an emergency.
3. Still trying to blindly run into a lucky argument, you, just for now probably, rest your case on border agents' opinions. Here, perhaps, you are likely uninformed and not being stupid. Did you know that the union of border agents (National Border Patrol Council) had for years on their website this statement: "The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States.”
This was their position. Until January 4th. That was just after Trump brought union leaders to the WH for a meeting.
4. Finally, you infer that we are stopping drugs at ports just fine. That there is no need to do any more. No emergency.
Which means that, 1. You've agreed that almost all drugs are smuggled into the country through ports. 2. You infer that cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl are not really a problem we need to worry about. 3. You again say openness is THE KEY ISSUE (while shrugging off the fact a northern border that is far more open makes your key issue an empty concept). And 4. You put your trust in the reporting of agents.
I would be very please if you really did put your trust in agents.
"According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points. While those numbers deal only with drugs that are caught, border experts say the data accurately reflect the way drug cartels successfully smuggle narcotics into the country... ...intelligence received from arrested smugglers and law enforcement partners in Mexico indicate that cartels clearly prefer moving high-profit narcotics through the busy ports of entry because their chances of success are better there.... the example of the San Ysidro Port of Entry in southern California, the busiest port with 100,000 people crossing through each day. Port officials recently completed a multi-year, $750 million upgrade to add more Customs officers and inspection technology, but the sheer volume of traffic means smugglers' odds are still better going through there than other parts of the border.
"Regardless of the number of drug dogs and technology and intelligence, the potential of smuggling the drugs in through a port of entry is far greater. Your ability to be captured coming across between a port of entry is much greater," said Kerlikowske, now a professor of practice in criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University. "It's very clear that (drugs) come through the ports."
And from the CDC and DEA: "In 2017, more than 15,000 people died of drug overdoses involving heroin in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That works out to about 300 a week. But while 90 percent of the heroin sold in the United States comes from Mexico, virtually all of it comes through legal points of entry. “A small percentage of all heroin seized by CBP along the land border was between Ports of Entry (POEs),” the Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report. "
Don't pretend you're finding lies in my comments by lying in yours. Your first point is an example:
"1. You don't want to hear about the historical decrease in the numbers of illegal immigrants that has been going on for 25 years. Instead, you rested your explanation of "emergency" on how open the border is.
But when reminded that the northern border is far more open, you talk about the "scores" of cockroaches crossing the southern border. "Scores," Marshall indicates numbers."
I never said anything about cockroaches crossing the southern border. I spoke of them entering your house.
As to the "historical decrease", it is irrelevant to the question of the numbers flowing across now. It's nice to know that it's decreasing, but until it decreases to zero and we can be guaranteed it will remain at zero, the emergency exists.
Then, you dare question my intelligence in point #2:
"2. Just yesterday - I can only assume that you were angry upon realizing how stupid you were - you try using my point about openness to talk about coastlines. I pointed out that you were forgetting that the Coast Guard and radar keeps illegal entry numbers way, way down. You seem to infer that this somehow weakens my argument. You say I am "pretty stupid" to "acknowledging the benefit of enforcement at ports of entry.""
First, I wasn't even angry that you stupidly believe I'm stupid. But you did validate my position with your talk of Coast Guard and radar. It's part of the means by which we protect our national sovereignty from illicit invasion. But as history shows, a naval blockade, which is a form of physical barrier on the seas, would be even more effective in denying illegal entry via our shores.
More absurdity follows:
"But wen I pointed out days ago that it is ports and airports where a real emergency of drug smuggling happens, you said, "Neither of which changes the fact that we need a barrier on our southern border." Which is an acknowledgment of the facts but a stupid denial of how the facts cannot support calling the situation at the southern border an emergency."
First, the "real emergency" is not at the legal ports of entry. That is to say, that is a different issue. For while those entry ports are better staffed with law enforcement, and while they are set up to regulate and/or limit the flow of legal entry, criminals will still seek to move their illicit cargo through them. That has nothing to do with problem of unprotected border and the need to defend against the movement of people and drugs through those areas. Said another way, the ability to detect and prevent drugs through legal ports of entry has no bearing on what's going on in other areas. It's absurd to even suggest such a thing. There's no connection.
Your nonsense continues>>>
"3. Still trying to blindly run into a lucky argument, you, just for now probably, rest your case on border agents' opinions."
Again, you stupidly try to pretend I'm "resting my case" on that which you choose to believe, thinking you've got something to confound me. You fail here as well, because as you know, since you certainly studied the entire deleted NBPC website position, it says immediately after what you posted,
However, as long as we continue to operate under the current NBPS and ignore the problem that is causing illegal immigration, we realize fences and walls are essential.
So even from the time that was first posted to their website...which had been on it for years...they still understood the value in physical barriers. And this is true while recognizing they were aware of the limitations of physical barriers, as was evident from the bullet points that followed the above. Indeed, current supporters of a border wall also acknowledge those very same limitations. It's only the opponents of the wall who pretend supporters believe the wall is the end of the story....because you people lie.
Yet you're not done with your outright crap sandwich:
"4. Finally, you infer that we are stopping drugs at ports just fine. That there is no need to do any more. No emergency.
Which means that, 1. You've agreed that almost all drugs are smuggled into the country through ports. 2. You infer that cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl are not really a problem we need to worry about. 3. You again say openness is THE KEY ISSUE (while shrugging off the fact a northern border that is far more open makes your key issue an empty concept). And 4. You put your trust in the reporting of agents."
The first sentence is just stupid as I neither infer NOR imply any such thing.
1. I have not agree any such thing. My position is that there's no way to accurately measure such a thing, given those who move the drugs across unsecured areas don't check in with law enforcement so that their success is counted. That which is stopped at the ports of entry OR the unsecured areas can't account for how much gets through.
2. At no point in time did we even get into "worrying about" specific drugs, or even human trafficking for that matter. You'd do well to deal with the exact words I use, since you're so bad and interpreting anything I say regardless of what it is.
3. Of course open borders is the key issue. Without them, all illegal trafficking becomes more difficult. This is basic stuff. Indeed, it would be as difficult at least as it is to move illicit stuff through legal ports of entry. You're such a moron.
4. Among other smart people, yes, I put my trust in those doing the job. Silly me. I'm supposed to take your word over theirs? You apparently side with those who put their trust in the testimony of drug smugglers. What idiots!
What's more, the sources you are using base their position on what they intercept, not what they don't, which is far more difficult to tabulate. Look at that last line:
“A small percentage of all heroin seized by CBP along the land border was between Ports of Entry (POEs),”
What percentage is UN-seized? Again, are the smugglers self-reporting that which they managed to smuggle successfully?
I am SO sorry, Marshall! I only now have suddenly realized that we are speaking past each other. We simply are not using words in the same way. What a relief to find our basic problem in communication to each other. It just never occurred to me - until now as I say - that when you use the word, "emergency," you mean to say that things are better than before. It all makes sense now, when I read you in that way: illegal immigration was so much higher before when there was no emergency, but, now that things are better, it's an emergency! I get it!!
I was thrown off by your reference to Merriam-Webster days ago, but you're not using words according to denotation; you have your own, idiosyncratic, culture-warrior, counter-to-logic connotation that takes the rest of us time to get. Boy, are you mysterious and complicated.
And, "cockroach"?! You really had me thrown on that one. I confess, I was convinced that you were referring to people as cockroaches. I just couldn't understand that you meant domestic pets. That too may PETS were coming in the back door.
Again, I am SO sorry to have only just know realized how splendidly creative you are. And I mean "sorry" not in a Merriam-Webster fashion; which I know now you don't really prefer.
I mean sorry in a very idiosyncratic way. My very own way. See if you can figure out what I mean.
"I am SO sorry, Marshall!"
The first truthful thing I believe you may have ever said. You are indeed one sorry individual.
"It just never occurred to me - until now as I say - that when you use the word, "emergency," you mean to say that things are better than before."
It shouldn't have, as nothing I've said justifies such a stupid inference.
"It all makes sense now, when I read you in that way."
You say this as if it hasn't been your practice all along to read things as you need to have them be, rather than as they are. So much easier to pretend the worst is true about your opponent when you can't at all prove it's true.
"I was thrown off by your reference to Merriam-Webster days ago, but you're not using words according to denotation; you have your own, idiosyncratic, culture-warrior, counter-to-logic connotation that takes the rest of us time to get."
So you need to believe, as you need to believe the laughable fantasy that you're intellectually superior to anyone. I use words properly, without equivocation. Thus, it is truth, fact and logic that results in your slow comprehension, those things being so foreign to you.
"And, "cockroach"?! You really had me thrown on that one. I confess, I was convinced that you were referring to people as cockroaches."
Of course you were. That's how you lying lefties roll! You choose to infer that which was not intended and that which you couldn't, with a gun to your head, prove could have been. You WANT my analogy to mean I consider illegal aliens to be akin to cockroaches. You NEED my analogy to mean that, otherwise you have far less of which to accuse me...and that won't do for a scumbag like you. In the meantime, you fail to convince that you give two shits about those who cross our borders illegally. Your only goal is to prop yourself up as morally and/or intellectually superior while supporting that which is immoral as well as stupid.
"I just couldn't understand that you meant domestic pets."
Feel free to use whatever creature you want. The analogy still holds. Make it cute little ducklings, cuddly puppies or hot babes if you prefer. They're entering your home in large numbers, uninvited, doing as they please and entering from the front door as opposed to the other in greater percentage. Which door do you address first?
"See if you can figure out what I mean."
I figured you out long ago. You've done nothing...ever...to alter the reality of who and what you are. More's the pity.
So to be clear, 1.6 million illegal immigrants crossed into the US 20 years ago. Steadily decreasing for two decades, illegal immigration is now at 400,000 people a year. The vast majority - 90% of them - become illegal when they overstay their VISA. This means that they come legally by plane.
But Marshall wants to love taking $1 billion from our Defense Department to build fences in the desert.
Marshall is a remarkably committed idiot. In this instance, his brutality solely affects the US taxpayer.
Here's how we know you and your Overlord are lying to the country because you're so willfully stupid you lie to yourselves.
National emergencies are situations of the highest threat to the country. If one wants to examine our borders and determine if problems there reach national emergency concerns, one has to assess the level of of the highest impact. Obviously, far and away, the highest impact areas are:
1. Drug smuggling at our ports.
2. People coming on VISA and staying past their VISA.
That you repeatedly discount the facts is how much Trump owns your brain and further corrupted any Christ-like loving faith you once *may *have *had. So, to join him in lies, you are forced to use language to deny facts, divert from truth, dodge clear logic, and present bare idiotic, savaging ("cockroaches") depraved statements. Just like he does.
"... the visa overstay issue has no relevance to the illegal border crossing issue." The relevance is that VISA overstays are by far the source of illegal immigration - something you want to call an emergency. And yet you just denied the biggest source.
"... It's a separate issue under the wider umbrella of unauthorized presence in the country." And by far the biggest one. And you'd rather divert attention away from the biggest source.
When you manipulate your own conscience SO often, for SO long -- you lose yourself. And you exited the solar system a long time ago.
The topic is centrally how stupid you are in trying to define national emergency at places where 90% or drugs are NOT being smuggled in and where 90% of illegal immigrants are NOT crossing over.
You're a flat out idiot. Persistently and devotedly a liar and a fraud of thought.
Post a Comment