https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/dems-justin-fairfax-resign/index.html
From a CNN news story about the recent revelations in Virginia politics about top leaders in the Democrat Party...
"While we believe that anyone accused of
such a grievous and harmful act must receive the due process prescribed
by the Constitution, we can't see it in the best interest of the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the Lieutenant Governor to remain in his
role," the group added.
Late Friday
night, both of Virginia's powerful Democratic US senators -- Tim Kaine
and Mark Warner -- called on Fairfax to resign in separate statements.
US Rep. Bobby Scott, a Viginia Democrat who sources tell CNN was approached by initial Fairfax accuser Vanessa Tyson a year ago with her allegation of assault, said that if either allegation against Fairfax is true, he must resign.
"The recent allegations against Lt Governor Fairfax are disturbing and extremely serious," Scott tweeted.
"Both allegations must be investigated immediately. If either is found
to be true -- and there appears to be significant corroborating evidence
-- then the Lt Governor should resign immediately."
Former
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called for Fairfax to resign soon after
Watson's allegations surfaced, something he did not do after Tyson's
allegations were made public in a lengthy, detailed statement.
"The
allegations against Justin Fairfax are serious and credible," McAuliffe
said in a statement. "It is clear to me that he can no longer
effectively serve the people of Virginia as Lieutenant Governor. I call
for his immediate resignation."
========
Yay, Democrats, holding people accountable and taking credible charges seriously. Good for you.
Lead the way, by example. SOMEone has to.
Yet another serious sign as to why we MUST start voting for women in serious numbers - their representation should be at least 50% in political offices, given their representation in the population. And, given the very bad history that so many men in power have of abusing power, I'd suggest it's time for something like more than 50% representation of women and minorities.
The White Guys had a good run. It's time to release the power that white men have enjoyed/abused for so long and for, we the people, to give women, people of color, gay folk, transgender folk, and immigrants a turn, see if they can manage to avoid the temptation of letting power corrupt.
40 comments:
Is the lower, italicized half your words, or another quote of someone else?
My words.
Until any or all of these folx are actually removed from office, perhaps the self congratulations might be premature.
Y’all should be especially proud of the fact that y’all sat on these allegations for over a year. That’s pretty awesome too.
Until you make the first call for Trump to step down and for the GOP to actively oppose him for his lies, his overt idiocies, his xenophobic, racist and sexist policies and words, your opinions are just meaningless hypocrisy and cowardice. Move on.
There is no legitimate reason...that anyone's uncovered thus far...that justifies a call for him to step down. None. On the contrary, he's done more to justify support for a second term based on his overall performance as president thus far. You, Dan, simply lack the honesty and/or courage to face that reality.
His approval numbers among blacks is up according to Rasmussen in Oct of '18. They are up as well among the Hispanic population. Here's an old piece that goes back to the campaign period. While some things have changed since then (Omarosa Manigault, for example) and some of what it in the link seems more political talk than anything (hard to tell with a guy so inarticulate and rhetorically unpolished as he), it does nonetheless demonstrate that charges of racism are false and rather idiotic.
As for women, this list appeared in The Hill in Jan of '18:
"His list of female appointees is long: Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the United Nations (not only a woman but also child of Indian American Sikh immigrants); Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation; Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force; Sarah Sanders, White House Press Secretary; Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President; Linda McMahon, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration; Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education; Jovita Carranza, U.S. Treasurer (also a minority and first-generation Mexican American immigrant); Neomi Rao, Regulation Czar (also a minority and daughter of parents from India); Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (also a minority); Heather Brand, Associate Attorney General; Kelly Sadler, Director of Surrogate & Coalitions Outreach; Mercedes Schlapp, Senior Communications Advisor (also a minority whose father was once a political prisoner of Fidel Castro); Ivanka Trump, Advisor to the President; Hope Hicks, Communications Director; Jessica Ditto, Deputy Director of Communications; and Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Adviser who according to White House sources will remain in her position through the end of January and will likely be replaced by another woman after Powell completes her first year in office."
Yeah...what a sexist.
As to xenophobia, that too is unfounded. Insisting on securing the border isn't "xenophobic". It's rational and necessary, especially from where he's sitting as president. Now, I've some problems with some of his actions regarding the process of legal immigration, but that too is likely tied to his desire to secure the nation and also to ensure that who are welcomed are the best and brightest...those who will most benefit the nation. Having married two foreigners, it's pretty goofy to throw around words like "xenophobic" with regard to Trump.
And as to calling him out, that's been done by both Craig and myself as well as by actual conservatives (not just those you like because, like you, they hate the guy). But to step down? Stupidity and hate drives such a demand...not that he's been a bad and/or ineffective president...like Barack Obama was.
With all that in mind, Craig's snark regarding calling out Dems is justified...particularly with regard to you personally, given that it is not something you do unless pressed by one of us. I've gone back through your archives, beginning about three months before Obama took office, and checked out every damned post looking for one that criticizes Obama...or ANY left-wing politician...and have found next to nothing. I've jotted down three things I found that would qualify as criticism in the strictest sense of the word, and they're all pretty insignificant given all he provided for the purpose. So yeah, it's more than a little uncommon for Dems to be called out for their any of their many shortcomings, and incredibly so for you. Don't try to deny it. As I've said. I've checked.
AS to your italicized portion of your post, you've got to be freakin' kidding. (I know you're not...who would seriously think so at this point?)
"Yet another serious sign as to why we MUST start voting for women in serious numbers - their representation should be at least 50% in political offices, given their representation in the population."
No. Only a buffoon would think this constitutes justification for voting for women. Only merit qualifies anyone for my vote, and the votes of rational, thoughtful and mature citizens. Sex, race, weight...whatever...have no bearing on why one should be elected. Only the strength of their positions, as well as of their track record in other elected positions or in their private sector reputations should compel intelligent voters to support a candidate.
"And, given the very bad history that so many men in power have of abusing power, I'd suggest it's time for something like more than 50% representation of women and minorities."
Neither gender nor race will alter the percentage of abusers in politics. We can see this is true already when considering abject fools like Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and other women.
And what of the racism of a good portion of the Congressional Black Caucus? Hell, Obama won election due to his skin color and he turned out to be the empty suit both his stints as IL State Senator and US Senator demonstrated he was (and still is, by the way).
"The White Guys had a good run. It's time to release the power that white men have enjoyed/abused for so long and for, we the people, to give women, people of color, gay folk, transgender folk, and immigrants a turn, see if they can manage to avoid the temptation of letting power corrupt."
Aside from the overt racism of this position, as well as the fact that we've had people from each of the above named group in positions of the federal government, only an idiot would think that there would not result the same percentage of people in government as flawed as those (mostly from the Democrat side) who have been running the government all these years.
Thus, because of the abject stupidity of the suggestion, I'm going to assume the whole post what just a tongue-in-cheek exercise. I'm going to say that I don't believe that even YOU would actually believe such drivel.
I await your proof that I'm wrong to do so.
And there are plenty of women who merit being voted for, Marshall. The question, then, is WHY do we have a system that so unfairly represents women, minorities and the marginalized? WHERE is the voice of the poor in our representation? WHERE are the voices of women?
NO taxation without representation.
Only a buffoon would argue against this.
As to your ignorance of what constitutes racism, that's on you.
My point stands. Feel free to stand on the wrong side of morality, justice and history and OPPOSE women and minorities getting equal representation, Marshall. But shame on you, if you do.
As a point of fact:
"Women make up around 19 percent of all members of Congress and less than 25 percent of all state legislators. They also make up six of the nation's 50 governors, or 12 percent."
From a 2016 article. The numbers may have changed slightly, but not significantly.
Likewise, 0% of our presidents have been women.
This IS LITERALLY under-representation, just as a point of fact.
The same is true for other minorities and certainly for the poor. Just as a point of fact.
http://theconversation.com/the-116th-congress-has-more-women-and-people-of-color-than-ever-but-theres-still-room-to-improve-105930
Now, argue against that reality if you want to appear delusional or accept that reality, that's on you.
If white conservative religious fundamentalist types had no representation in congress, would you be concerned? What if they had NEVER had much representation in Congress?
People need a voice in how their gov't is run. No voice, no justice.
Don't stand against equal representation, Marshall. Support justice and equal representation or get the hell out of the way.
Such sexist and racist and stupid injustice belongs in the 19th century. Dinosaurs go extinct for a reason.
Craig combines this shallow argument “what is being argued that voting for people based on things like race, gender, country of origin, etc is a foolish way to choose your governmental representatives...”
with this shallow argument: “why do black people vote so much for white Democrats when they don’t benefit more than from Republicans?”
He doesn’t care about senselessly contradicting himself as long as he feels like he’s saying something strategic to the last ten minutes.
Another way he and a Marshall do this is in the inability to hold two thoughts in their head at the same time. The true way to foster democracy is to have pluralist representation. The reason that gender, race, etc are vital. But also because power has been solely in the hands of straight white men. And brutality has paralleled that fact for 400 years.
And produced the brutaluzingly anti-Democratic policies that Marshall and Craig thrill to.
Those who have been brutalized by power are in the best position to correct immoral democracies. But the interests for such groups are not cared for by each discrete member. Only those who can reflect upon and embody those interests have the moral capacity to represent those interests better. And even then, differences of opinion result. Only true, uneducated bigots try to make the argument that if women best represent women then any woman will do, right? How infantile an understanding of the human person.
And since 98% of black women vote for humane policies, I’ll follow that group. Sadly, Mia Long falls in the partially deceived 2%. As she herself now realizes.
Trump's vision of the world is "no real relationships, just convenient transactions... Because Republicans never take minority communities into their home and citizens into their homes and into their hearts, they stay with Democrats and bureaucrats in Washington because they do take them home -- or at least make them feel like they have a home."
And that realization by Mia Love (sorry, not Long), is exactly why she has the capacity to be good for Utah and the country when all the white men in the GOP have none.
" Feel free to stand on the wrong side of morality, justice and history and OPPOSE women and minorities getting equal representation, Marshall. But shame on you, if you do."
You do nothing with the above comment to eliminate the nonsensical nature of your position. I'm definitely NOT on the "wrong side" of morality, especially given YOUR staunch support for numerous immoral positions.
There is no "injustice" in the percentages of representatives that are one gender or the other (there are only two), one race as opposed to another or how many are of some "minority" group. That's idiotic to and idiotic degree. You would have to prove that there is some agenda afoot to insure the election of only one group of Americans. Good luck with that!
"As to your ignorance of what constitutes racism, that's on you."
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm quite well aware of what constitutes racism.
"This IS LITERALLY under-representation, just as a point of fact."
This is LITERALLY people being elected because their supporters outnumbered those of any other candidate. Again, bring the proof that the reasons have to do with gender, race or whatever. Until you can, you're position is idiotic...an opinion far less valid than most.
"Now, argue against that reality if you want to appear delusional or accept that reality, that's on you."
Thanks for the challenge, though it is an easy one to meet. It's a reality that is absolutely insignificant. Millions of incredibly stupid people voted for Barack Obama simply because of his skin color. Those same idiots were prepared to vote for Hillary because she's female. Both politicians have proven themselves absolutely unworthy to run a lemonade stand, far much less a nation. This was obvious to people who vote based upon merit and qualifications, not race, gender or other insignificant superficial traits. Those would be almost entirely people from the conservative side of the ideological divide. Good gosh! If I wanted the stupidest person possible for public office, I still wouldn't look at those unimportant traits, but would still look as which Democrat had the track record demonstrating the most stupidity.
"If white conservative religious fundamentalist types had no representation in congress, would you be concerned? What if they had NEVER had much representation in Congress?"
What the hell's wrong with you? If a candidate had a track record of Constitutional soundness, and campaigned on the same, he represents perfectly everyone who claims to be an American. It wouldn't matter to me what color or sex those reps were. It seems you're no more American than you are Christian if you don't get this simple principle!
"Such sexist and racist and stupid injustice belongs in the 19th century."
The incredible irony that you lack the intellect to grasp is that your position reflects all those things because you DEMAND the superficial be elevated to such importance. You are dangerous to the nation.
The history of the oppression of people by race and gender and sexual orientation in this nation is real and hardly superficial. Justice comes from representation, not shit-faced wishful thinking and patronizing assurances that "those rich white guys really WILL do justice by you THIS time..."
Go away, Marshall, you've lost this argument by the sheer vapidity and immorality of your positions.
And, lest you not understand words, by "GO AWAY," I mean stop commenting unless you have something meaningful to say more than, "Nu unh! rich white men perpetuating their own wealth and power really ARE great and should be trusted to decide for everyone else!"
Just move on. You're only embarrassing yourself and further providing evidence of your own lack of understanding of justice and liberty and race relations.
Marshall...
It wouldn't matter to me what color or sex those reps were. It seems you're no more American than you are Christian if you don't get this simple principle!
This sort of sums up our differences. Or rather, your lack of understanding of reality and historical accuracy.
From a basic US History page...
"A fundamental difference of opinion had developed between British authorities and the Americans on the related issues of taxing the colonists and their representation in Parliament.
On the surface, the Americans held to the view of
ACTUAL REPRESENTATION,
meaning that in order to be taxed by Parliament, the Americans rightly should have actual legislators seated and voting in London.
The British, on the other hand, supported the concept of
VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION,
which was based on the belief that a Member of Parliament virtually represented every person in the empire and there was no need for a specific representative from Virginia or Massachusetts, for example.
Now, it is true that they certainly weren't thinking of women, LGBTQ folks or black folks needing or deserving representation then, BUT NOW WE KNOW BETTER.
A legislature with no or skewed representation of your group is not an actual representation. You're asking us to trust rich white guys (by and large) to decide things for us contrary to our values or interests or the interests of anyone other than rich white guys. No thanks. This philosophy is the one thing that fundamentally started this great American Experiment.
It doesn't really matter. In spite of your whining and the efforts of rich white guys to skew votes their way, your on your way out. You're a dinosaur done in by your own irrelevancy and holding on to values that are contrary to justice and liberty.
No great worries, though. No doubt we all have learned more from the way that rich and powerful white men have oppressed others and we know that such oppression is wrong, so you don't have to worry or whine about oppression or that sort of violent payback. You'll just continue to dwindle in terms of power and relevance and voice, as it should be.
Marshall: "This is LITERALLY people being elected because their supporters outnumbered those of any other candidate."
Trump lost the vote.
Marshall: "If a candidate had a track record of Constitutional soundness, and campaigned on the same, he represents perfectly everyone who claims to be an American. It wouldn't matter to me what color or sex those reps were. It seems you're no more American than you are Christian if you don't get this simple principle!
Mr Trump has been blocked by the Supreme Court and Federal courts more often than Mr Obama. Mr Obama doesn't disparage women or any particular woman. Mr Trump does. Mr Obama doesn't disparage citizens of other countries or immigrants from those countries that work here, say, as a latino Judge. Mr Trump does. Mr Obama didn't lie every day. Mr Trump does.
Trump: "Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic."
Truth: "The harm the order refers to is a decline in public safety. But that decline doesn’t appear to exist. To the contrary: Sanctuary cities show lower crime and higher economic well-being, a new analysis published by the Center for American Progress and the National Immigration Law Center shows."
Trump: "The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country."
Truth: Dee Margo, Republican mayor of El Paso: "In fact, between 1996 and 2006, the number of reported violent crimes fell by more than 34 percent. Construction on the border fencing in El Paso did not start until 2008 and it was completed by mid-2009."
Truth: Republican El Paso Rep. Veronica Escobar sent a letter to President Donald Trump on Thursday asking him to correct the record on his misleading State of the Union remarks about El Paso and to apologize to El Pasoans for misrepresenting their hometown. “El Paso has never been one of the most ‘dangerous cities’ in the country, and our safety and security has long been a point of pride. These distortions about our vibrant community are harmful to our reputation and degrade our spirit."
Truth: "The president is just wrong about the wall and wrong about El Paso,” said Jon Barela, a lifelong Republican and chief executive of the Borderplex Alliance, an organization promoting economic development in a cross-border industrial hub."
Clearly, color does matter to Marshall. Black and brown don't count.
Marshall lies to us. Openly. Marshall lies to Craig. And Marshall lies to himself.
"The history of the oppression of people by race and gender and sexual orientation in this nation is real and hardly superficial."
Then it's a damned good thing I never said it was nor even hinted as much. It's this sort of crap that belies your criticisms of my side of the divide over perceived failures to grasp reality and understand YOUR positions. This clearly shows it is you who suffers from these types of shortcomings.
"Justice comes from representation, not shit-faced wishful thinking and patronizing assurances that "those rich white guys really WILL do justice by you THIS time...""
Again, good thing I've never so much as hinted as such a thing.
But justice comes from the equal application of the law without regard to the superficial traits you believe will make a difference if represented in government proportional to the nation's population. You clearly have no idea of the principles on which our form of government...as well as the nation itself...was formed.
"And there are plenty of women who merit being voted for, Marshall."
Sure there are...Sarah Palin, Nicky Haley, Marsha Blackburn and others elected to office or appointed to others. The point is whether or not they should have been elected due to their gender, or rather, should their gender have been (or was their gender) considered as making them more worthy of the office to which they eventually held. The only correct answer is: NO. If one could determine that their male opponents (in the primaries, of course. running against Dems doesn't count as no Dem is a better choice...especially these days) were absolutely equal in proposals, track record and the ability to defeat the other party's candidate, then perhaps one might be justified in giving the woman a chance. But that's no better than a coin toss at that point, which would actually better reflect the notion of justice and fairness than her gender.
Gotta go...
There are plenty of women who would be great elected officials, unfortunately Dan’s support of women only goes as far as those with a D behind their name.
Dan doesn’t support women as a general category so much as women who will advocate for his particular agenda. It’s almost like he’s looking for women do do his political bidding.
I'll leave your comment, Craig, just so I can address the point, even if you're hypocritical in your criticism, here.
I would only vote for candidates whose policies I supported. If a candidate, regardless of gender, supported ending abortion, or opposing immigration, or opposing support for refugees, etc, etc... and I didn't agree with those policy positions, I would not vote for them. Of course.
What I'm actually saying is that Democrats and Greens need to run women and minorities, as they are factually under-represented. Of course, they need to be qualified and intelligent and wise, but there are plenty of women and minorities (of course) who fit the bill. Given two similarly qualified candidates in primaries, I'm calling upon Democrats to support women, minorities and the poor/more working class candidates.
I don't really care what the GOP does, as today's GOP has policy positions that almost always would preclude them from getting my support (i.e., they advocate harmful, racist, oppressive, or just plain stupid policies, way too often on way too many issues). IF the GOP were to surprise me and nominate a woman or minority candidate who was progressive and supported refugee rights, human rights, smart, balanced budgets, responsible environmental policies, etc, well, of course, I'd be inclined to give them a chance, providing they also demonstrated that they were independent and not likely to roll into the fold of the bad policy GOP types.
But yes, for once you're right. I DO support candidates who support my "particular agenda..." i.e., ideals that I agree with. But... who doesn't do that?
Do YOU vote for candidates who support multiple policy positions you oppose?
And NO, you are NOT right, and indeed, you just made the sort of stupid ass, evil-minded false claims that the GOP/conservative party has identified itself with... I am NOT looking for women to do my political bidding. I'm looking for candidates who agree to good policy positions. AND, I support the notion of Democrats running more women and men standing down.
I've been asked to run for council member in my district but I gave that a hard pass years ago. We have more than enough White Male representation in my city. That's all I'm saying.
It's just reasonable.
Now, Craig, until you make the first call for Trump to step down and for the GOP to actively oppose him for his lies, his overt idiocies, his xenophobic, racist and sexist policies and words, your opinions are just meaningless hypocrisy and cowardice. Move on.
Are you suggesting that anti-Semitism is s “policy” you support?
Again, leaving this one, just because it is so blindingly stupid and symbolic of all that is wrong with the modern brainless model of "conservatism."
Yes, Craig, anti-Semitism is a policy that I support. That's rational. That doesn't make you look batshit crazy.
Look, Craig, I'll give you ONE more chance to make a comment here if you answer this reasonable question that I've already asked and you've already dodged/ignored.
Yes, I DO vote for people who advocate policies I agree with and vote AGAINST people who advocate policies I'm opposed to.
THIS IS NORMAL and to be expected. There is NOTHING wrong with this.
Do you agree with this simple overtly obvious conclusion about informed voting in a Republic?
Since we’ve already agreed on that, why the demand that I repeat my agreement.
Yes, most people vote for people who purport to support policies they agree with.
I have to note that despite your demand that I call for Trump to step down ( which I’ve done multiple times. Isn’t it logical that I wouldn’t have a problem asking someone I don’t support to step down?)
I have to note the reality that you personally haven’t called for the VA three to step down, nor have you called out the anti-Semites in your party. I guess I’m one step ahead on this.
FYI, posting a quote from other people calling on the black guy to resign, isn’t you calling for the old white liberals to step down. Maybe you could do what you demand of others.
I can’t wait to see what excuse you come up with for deleting comments that agree with you.
1. So, WHY make a case of specifically noting at least twice "So, you are standing for something that is reasonable to stand for..." It makes it sound like you have a problem with it, when it's only reasonable.
WHY phrase it like this... "Dan doesn’t support women as a general category so much as women who will advocate for his particular agenda...."
Instead of "Dan supports people who support policies he agrees with..."?
Do you recognize that this makes it sound like a hostile statement, rather than a statement that you agree with?
Do you recognize "his particular agenda" has a negative connotation, ESPECIALLY when it is followed with "He wants women to do his bidding..."? Are you blind to the hostile connotation in the words you used? Or are you deliberately trying to denigrate and demonize?
Please answer.
2. HERE is what I asked you to do:
until you make the first call for Trump to step down
AND
for the GOP to actively oppose him for his
lies,
his overt idiocies,
his xenophobic, racist and sexist policies
AND words,
your opinions are just meaningless hypocrisy and cowardice.
I'm glad that you take milquetoast, mild, vague "eh, he ain't that great" sort of vague calls sort of against trump, kinda, I'm asking for more.
Do you understand what I'm asking?
Start writing to Stan, to Marshall, to others and making calls for the denunciation for his specific serious fatal flaws, his fanning the flames of racism - and calling out his supporters for defending his racist language - his overt sexism and creepy sexual predatory relationship towards women, etc, if you want to be taken seriously.
Germany didn't need citizens to say, "eh, you know, I don't really care so much for Hitler... he's not the best... i wish he wouldn't be so harsh in his language..." They needed adults to be adults and to take serious adult stands against the threats of Nazism and calling out Hitler's supporters specifically for supporting him.
And I'm NOT saying Trump=Hitler. I'm saying Trump is the worst president we've ever had and his attacks on the free press, on facts, his fanning the flames of racism are a serious problem and a threat to a stable Republic... before you misstate what I'm saying, wasting time disagreeing with the people wishing "that you wouldn't be so harsh towards the Nazis..." and their less dangerous, but STILL dangerous descendants today.
3. Do you recognize that even the question of "do you support anti-semitism" makes you sound either evil or insane?
Keep the answer to that one brief, it's not a hard question.
You lie about Trump. You ascribe to him traits that his words, actions and policies do not, except that you need them to.
He is NOT racist, and his words, actions and policies have not been racist in any way. Prove otherwise with actual evidence.
He has not exhibited sexism in his words, actions or policies, and his many appointments of women bear ghis out. Prove your charge with evidence.
He has not exhibited xenophobia in any way, and his devotion to securing our borders in no way proves anything other than that he takes his job seriously.
You have yet to point to any "lie" that is significant, worse than hyperbole and/ or self-promotion or worse and more damaging than any of the many lies you tell, support and defend. Indeed, you're a far worse liar than Trump and by your standards, you should have given up social media long ago.
Trump has set a record of going 3 days without being racist. So impressive from him.
Three days ago, of course, Trump alluded to the Trail of Tears in a tweet, making fun of Elizabeth Warren.
"Trump should know this history. While the Obama administration sought to take Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill, Trump put a portrait of Jackson, whose Indian Removal Act led to the Trail of Tears in the 1830s, in the Oval Office.
And in case anyone didn't get the joke, his son Don Jr. shared it and added "Savage!!! I love my President."
The structure of this new Trail of Tears tweet was nearly identical to one from January in which he invoked Wounded Knee -- site of the massacre of Lakota Indians by the US military in 1890."
Marshall, I get that you either don't care to understand or are not capable of understanding the reality of Trump's overt racism, lying and perversions. Even though fundamentalist ultra-conservatives like Al Mohler (and others like him) make it abundantly clear what sort of deviant this boy-man is.
I just repeat: You'll just continue to dwindle in terms of power and relevance and voice, as it should be.
Al Mohler recognizes this. (Maybe Craig does... it's hard to say with his milquetoast mamby-pamby non-position.)
Maybe one day, you will, as well.
I'll leave you with Mohler's words about this pervert in office, this lying hedonist piece of shit you are glad to defend and align with...
“When it comes to Donald Trump, evangelicals are going to have to ask the huge question, ‘Is it worth
destroying our moral credibility
to support someone who is
beneath the baseline level of human decency
for anyone who should deserve our vote?
... But Mohler cautioned evangelicals to think carefully about how publicly supporting Trump, a candidate
“we would not allow our children to be around,”
undermines their moral credibility.
“Can we put up with someone and can we offer them our vote and support when we know that person not only sounds like what he presumes and presents as a playboy, but as
a sexual predator?”
“This is so far over the line that I think we have to recognize we wouldn’t want this person as our next door neighbor, much less as the inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And long term I’m afraid people are going to remember evangelicals in this election for
supporting the unsupportable and
defending the absolutely indefensible.”
Mohler said “character is an indispensable issue” and Trump “eclipses" Bill Clinton with his unrepentant adultery and support of the pornography industry."
http://news.sbts.edu/2016/10/12/evangelical-support-trump-destroys-moral-credibility-mohler-says-cnn-tonight/
Mohler, of course, is only concerned about the great sexual deviancy and perversion of this idiot of a POS that you evangelical fundamentalists have put in office, but at least in that regards he gets it right. Sexual predator. Wouldn't allow your children to be near him. Perversions. Crosses a line.
But I guess you see Mohler as a wimpy Trump-hating liberal, no doubt.
The facts are there. I HAVE pointed you to them. Feodor has, as well. That you refuse to open your eyes and see the lies and perversions and racism (also seen by many evangelical conservatives) doesn't mean that it's not the reality.
So, while I don't care about your answer, I DO wonder that one day, years from now after Trump had to either resign in disgrace, get impeached, get indicted and/or gone to jail (he probably won't... lying, cheating, criminal pervert or not, he's filthy rich and the filthy rich in our broken system get to avoid jail, by and large)... after all that happens in the next year or two, and after the experts and scholars and historians look back on his failed presidency with even more data in hand and denounce him as amongst our worst presidents, will you THEN be embarrassed at the amount of support you gave a man that even Al Mohler recognizes as a disgrace and a blight upon the name of evangelical conservative-dom?
Lord, open their eyes and lead them to repentance.
Craig, who doesn't understand enough to comment here rationally, suggested I need to start holding Democrats accountable. Somehow MISSING THE POINT OF THIS VERY POST...
"Yay, Democrats, holding people accountable and taking credible charges seriously. Good for you."
Just for the record.
Of course, Moehler should spend more time dealing with sex abuse by SBC clergy than wading into politics.
? I'll leave this for the sheer WTF nature of the comment.
Are you suggesting Mohler was WRONG to point out the overtly obvious of Trump's gross perversity and hedonism and how evangelicals are wrecking any shreds of decency and credibility they may have had?
Yes, of course, the ultra-conservative SBC should be taking on sex abuse problems. But they can do both, right?
THIS is what people talk about when they talk about your misleading, vague and nutty sounding responses to rational adult conversations, Craig. What the hell are you saying?
The ONE good thing I can think of Mohler doing in the last several decades IS wading into politics to call a pervert a pervert and say shame on evangelicals for supporting him!
Craig, while it's only one bit of research, there IS research that says because men have more testosterone than women, and because testosterone can lead to corruption, that men ARE more prone to allowing power to lead them to corrupt. Also, men are DEFINITELY more likely to sexually assault or harass women than vice versa, just in general terms, as well as to prey on children.
So, a case can be made that is not completely baseless that men are fundamentally LESS WELL SUITED to positions of power than women. For their own sake and the sake of the people they represent, it may be a good idea to keep men out of public office.
"Second, they found that testosterone also mattered. In this case, high testosterone made high-power leaders even more selfish. Power and testosterone appear to be a corrosive brew."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201501/power-corrupts-and-testosterone-corrupts-absolutely
FYI. I'll be looking into this more.
"Marshall, I get that you either don't care to understand or are not capable of understanding the reality of Trump's overt racism, lying and perversions."
The reality is that you have a sick need to regard Trump as you do, ignoring the many wonderful things he's done for America in the short time he's been in office. There's no "reality" of overt racism on his part, though there clearly is on yours and feo's. You also engage in far worse lying than does Trump, whose "lies" that have harmed American you've been strangely unable to present. And perversions? Like what, exactly, since he's taken office. I'm aware of absolutely no accusations of lewd and lascivious lechery on his part since taking the Oath of Office. Maybe you're confusing the word "reality" with another.
You can cite Mohler all you like. His comments from before the election ignored, as did you, the far greater danger to America with a Clinton win. It is ludicrous to speak of "moral credibility" as if Hillary wasn't waiting in the wings. Mohler's concerns were shared by most real Christians (find one and ask) during the primaries, but after Trump managed to pull off that unexpected win, the choice was crystal clear even with the threat that he'd be horrible. But praise God, Trump's been a blessing and Mohler's concerns, and the concerns of so many of us, as legitimate as they were, have been thus been proved wrong. Based on these first two years, there's absolutely no chance than ANY historian would list Trump among the worst American presidents. The very thought is laughable. I even heard that Erick Erickson, who I believe may have begun the #NeverTrump meme because he found him off-putting as well, just endorsed Trump for re-election in 2020 due to Trump's great work as president so far.
But you cling to your ambiguous charges against the man, and this dated critique of Mohler's and think you're on to something. So, anytime you wanna present the big lie Trump told that has harmed the nation, you might then begin to have an actual case against him as a president. We all know he was a horn dog. You lie about everything else.
I tried to look at your link, but unfortunately, as is too often the case, one must pay money to read the actual study. All that is free to see is the abstract and any review of the study the periodical presents. As to that, it seems to think that testosterone affect moral choice. This is goofy. Testosterone levels affect whether or not one is aggressive or passive. It has no bearing on the moral choices one makes. One can be highly aggressive without ever engaging in bad behavior. Nothing regarding this study expresses any confirmation as to the moral character of the subjects. As we are all corrupt, only an understanding and devotion to morality and virtue can tame our sin natures. The more devoted we are, the less tempted toward outside influences to corruption. High T levels in corrupt leaders is correlation, not causation.
According to Politico, the title of your post is exactly right. WTF VA Democrats? Why won’t you hold the racists and rapists accountable?
It’s gotta hurt a little when a post like this backfires because y’all won’t hold your own to account.
Have we heard anything from Craig on actual voter fraud by the GOP in North Carolina?
Or is he just continuing his Righty Lecturing?
Dan,
You wrote a post about the transitive property, do the assumptions in that post apply to everyone, or just you?
Do you plan to consistently enforce your “on topic policy”?
You, just a little above: “It’s gotta hurt a little when a post like this backfires because y’all won’t hold your own to account.”
Feeling ashamed, Craig, and don’t want to admit it?
You tried to transition to hypocrisy from Dan... and ended up a hypocrite and a colluder with lies.
It is impressive, Craig, how often you use the trope of hypocrisy so often and so clearly do not understand how well you practice it.
Post a Comment