I wonder
if there will come a time
when people who have been
fooled by a con man
who was utterly corrupt
and dishonest
and harmful in his words and actions
and this con man's corruption
was so painfully obvious
that a large majority of people
around the globe
knew about it
but were unable to convince
the people fooled by him
I wonder
if there will ever come a time
when those taken in by the Con
will recognize the depths of the depravity
of the con man
and the degree to which they were fooled
and if they will recognize how obvious
it should have been to them?
Will there ever come a time
where those conned by the deviant
will get angry at him for the Con?
Will there ever come a time
where they will get angry at
themselves
for failing to see what most of the world could see?
Or will they take this Con
to the grave with them
confident that they were right
and that historians
and experts
and scholars
and regular people
fellow citizens
and others around the world
were all mistaken?
Will there ever be a time
when they come
undone
by grief and fury?
53 comments:
Sure, Dan. When haters like you prove the conman has truly conned us in some way. In the meantime, while he's accomplished so many great things for all, and kept so many of his promises, he's either proven a remarkable inability to con, or proven those who accuse him of being a conmsn are liars and haters
I'll leave this for now, Marshal. Answer the question, though: WHAT IF?
IF IF IF you learn (what the rest of us see as obvious) that Trump is utterly corrupt, amoral and dishonest... that indeed, he suffers from some set of mental conditions that have left him sickly narcissistic and sociopathic, and that he was NEVER fit for office, that he truly was one of the worst presidents in US history (as experts tell us) because of his utter corruption and unfitness... and yet you were willing to vote for him twice because he convinced you,
1. That he WAS fit (when he wasn't) and
2. that he had sufficient honesty and integrity to serve in the office (and he doesn't) and
3. that he WASN'T openly fanning racist and misogynistic flames and
you were truly wrong to have voted for him...
IF and when you recognize that is the case, will you be angry at him for fooling you?
At yourself for failing to recognize his utter corruption and unfitness?
Or will you blame Clinton still and just forego all person responsibility for your bad actions?
And I know the answer to that. You will, of course, STILL blame Clinton. "If she weren't such an awful candidate, I wouldn't have felt forced to vote for Trump..."
But what if God's own Self says to you, "Yadope! Clinton was flawed, but she wasn't unfit. Trump was an obvious deviant, racist and corrupt con man! You and the white evangelical world were SO wrong in electing such an awful man to office! What were you all THINKING?! You've set back decency and the cause of the church back 150 years!"
...what will you say then?
he's either proven a remarkable inability to con, or proven those who accuse him of being a conmsn are liars and haters
Here's the thing, Marshal: He is NOT a slick con man. He is oafish and buffoonish and a clumsy con. He's so inept at conning people that it's hard to believe that he gets away with it. He uses his "best" words ("all the smartest people..." "Everyone says..." "it'll be the best and biggest ever, believe me..." on and on and on) that con men use and makes such transparently stupid false and unsupported claims that there's no way reasonable adults should be taken in by his cons.
And yet...
And I don't think that the ~35% of voters who actively support Trump are not reasonable, generally speaking. But something about the politics of our time and the appeal of a pervert buffoon who claims to represent "the little guys" and by his pitches to fear and demonization of "the other," that they've been blinded to his clumsy cons that no one should fall prey to. I suspect it's in part due to that biological thing about conservative brains being motivated by fear and the way he plays the fear card ("they're an invading horde..." "they're the enemy of the people..." "Can you believe it, they want to destroy the US..." that the fear part of the brains of the ~35% overwhelms the reason part.
But that's just a guess.
"IF and when you recognize that is the case, will you be angry at him for fooling you?"
I'm going to assume THIS is the question burning in your corrupt soul. So I'll play the game and then explain where you go so sinfully wrong in your position.
IF (the most important word in your question) whatever the hell crimes you accuse Trump are PROVEN to be true, I would be upset with GOP primary voters that I had no other alternative in Nov. 2016 but to vote for Trump, the guy who, at that time, I found to be an unworthy choice for president. You see, Dan...you fraud...I, like Craig, have continued to remind buffoons like you that Trump was most certainly NOT the man I wanted for the job back in 2016. (And yes, I will continue to maintain...because it is rock solid true...that he was the lesser of two evils and hence, the better choice for the nation at that time.)
But the problem is that so much of what you pathetically need to believe is true about Trump is not, you've not provided evidence that it might be, and nothing he's done during his presidency demonstrates that my decision to vote for him was wrong. Indeed, he's proven tremendously that it was a great decision after all! Honest people everywhere acknowledge this plain and obvious...and easily provable...fact.
In the meantime, you lie. Consistently, in far worse ways about Trump than in any way you want to believe he's lied at all.
I'm going to leave it at this because you can't be trusted to engage like a man, and certainly like a Christian...something you continue to prove you couldn't possibly be. I'll just have to expand on my response at my blog where you haven't the balls to engage because you won't have control over the many truths I'll publish there. Your entire post is bullshit and hypocritical. You make assertions you couldn't possibly back up. For example, if there were so many experts who oppose(d) Trump, it should have been easy...and wholly a sign of integrity and honor on your part---not at all traits you possess...to have provided half a dozen links with those "experts" explaining their positions in detail. So again, you're a fraud.
I'll let this comment stand, just by way of letting it show how out of touch you are.
First of all, the point was NOT "will you one day recognize that Trump was a less-than-perfect candidate...?" I GET that he wasn't your first choice. The point is will you one day recognize that he was fundamentally unfit for office and no rational person should have ever been delusional enough as to think he was possible okay for president.
No openly racist man is fit for office.
No openly sexual predatory man is fit for office.
No openly dishonest man is fit for office.
No openly corrupt man is fit for office.
No person THIS unintelligent is fit for the office of president.
No person suffering from the degree of mental illness is fit for office.
Any ONE of these things should cause rational adults to say, "well, no matter how awful the alternative is, I can't vote for THIS guy!" Any ONE of them. But you don't currently see it, apparently. The question is, one day, will you recognize this and, if so, will you be angry at the pervert for managing to fool you or will you be mad at yourself for being so blinded? Or perhaps with other Trump supporters for helping you buy into this delusion?
If you want to comment ANY further here, you'll have to answer that question. BEGIN with the assumption that you are blinded to these fatal flaws and that one day, you may begin to recognize them... IF and WHEN that happens, who will you be angry with?
As to this: You make assertions you couldn't possibly back up. For example, if there were so many experts who oppose(d) Trump, it should have been easy
?
WTF?
Do you TRULY not know the experts and scholars and rational professionals (left and right) that I HAVE talked about over the years and that any citizen should be aware of on this point?
The historians who already rate Trump as amongst the worst of presidents?
The generals and military leaders who have warned about Trump?
The conservative leaders who warned about Trump?
The scientists who, time after time, have rebuked Trump's anti-science rhetoric and colossal factual errors?
His own family (like his niece, the mental health expert) who warned about his mental failings and incapacities?
The business and financial experts who warned against his cons?
The rape and women's rights experts who warned against his misogyny?
The women who've been assaulted/harassed by him who've warned against his misogyny/predatory ways?
I could go on, but you are NOT that blind that you are unaware of the experts lined up against Trump, right?
You're going to have to be more specific about "that" question, as up to your last demand that I respond to "that" question, you posed so many...each of which I'm more than willing to answer directly, which is something you never do. Indeed, you can't even ask direct questions very well, much less answer them.
In the meantime, and as an example, youjust validate my last statement by asking 11 questions after posting a quote from me when simply supplying "experts" to support your assertions would have moved this conversation along more quickly. It's not about what or who I am familiar. It's about who or what you can offer up as proof of your allegations. You aren't particularly known for listening to bright people.
Repeating myself (in fairness, I was referring to THOSE questions, not THAT question, but it still seems obvious... THAT series of questions that led up to my statement)
1. The question is, one day, will you recognize this?
2. and, if so, will you be angry at the pervert for managing to fool you?
3, or will you be mad at yourself for being so blinded?
4. Or perhaps with other Trump supporters for helping you buy into this delusion?
If you want to comment ANY further here, you'll have to answer that (series of questions linked as one) question.
And now add one more:
5. Are you SERIOUSLY not aware of the historians who've called Trump amongst the worst?
6. Of the Generals and military experts who've denounced Trump?
7. The scientists who have condemned Trump?
8. His own family (and mental health expert), the niece who said he's fundamentally unfit for office?
Etc. Are you unaware of all the experts who've denounced Trump? Did you miss the many times I cited them? If you tell me that you are ignorant of the experts who've lined up against Trump, I'll supply them. But this should be obvious and known to any serious adult citizen of this nation. It's not like it's been hidden or that these experts have been quiet.
You tell me you're ignorant of it and I'll post links.
Or just grow up and look them up yourself.
Craig and Marshal and Stan, et al, will praise John Lewis. And they have to lie to themselves to do it. They have already quickly excused their conscience from the murders of Brionna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd just like they excused themselves from all racist murders by police and from all white brutality so often caught - though less than 1% of the total - on video these days. They defend “law and order.” They find something in the past to defame the murdered. ("He said something to a white woman.") They focus on destruction of property. ("We should save the Sunglass Hut! Those are good jobs!!") And they raise the murders of police not as deplorable crimes but in order to erase the other deplorable crime they cannot keep at the center. They manipulate honest debate and the beautiful multiplicity of opinions of the oppressed - none of whom, btw, are under any illusion that they are oppressed by racist white history and people.
But they will praise John Lewis and the 1960s. And they lie.
Property was destroyed in the 1960s. Police were murdered in the 1960s. Sinners then, too, were martyred. Sinners then, too, marched for righteous cause to try to save and to finally make America.
Of course John Lewis did not destroy property purposely. John Lewis did not kill police. But John Lewis confronted the racist brutality of America, of white American power, no less and no less forcefully than Black Lives Matter. Craig and Marshal and Stan, et al, praise the past to bury the future. Thereby they lie about John Lewis. In order to wall off their conscience from their agreement to prop up white brutality.
John Lewis was a great American Hero urging, still, for everyone to rise up in righteous protest, to confront white American power and its institutions of policing and policy making. "Get into good trouble." And he loved Black Lives Matter. At 80, weeks from dying of pancreatic cancer, he went out to visit the Black Lives Matter mural in DC, on the street framing the White House. And he loved it.
John Lewis lived his whole life with courage, righteousness, and faith. He never sold out. Never wavered. Never changed.
Craig and Marshal and Stan haven't changed either. They have never had courage. They have never had righteousness. They do not have faith.
"1. The question is, one day, will you recognize this?
2. and, if so, will you be angry at the pervert for managing to fool you?
3, or will you be mad at yourself for being so blinded?
4. Or perhaps with other Trump supporters for helping you buy into this delusion?
If you want to comment ANY further here, you'll have to answer that (series of questions linked as one) question."
In order to recognize something, that something must exist. In this case, you'd have to establish Trump has conned me. You can't do it, because I didn't cast my vote on some promise of his...that is, some grandiose promise not uncommon to political candidates vying for office...as much as to prevent a nation destroying Hillary Clinton presidency. As I've said many times, I didn't like either of these two candidates, but Trump was the unknown. Hillary was well known and there was no way I could do nothing to prevent her from ascending to the White House. The nation couldn't take it.
Was he "fundamentally unfit"? That's freakin' why I didn't support him in the primaries!! That is to say, based on his GOP Primary performance and the extent of my knowledge of Trump the person, I regarded him as unfit. How happy I've been to have found out he is far more than merely fit...he's really damned good at being president, even with all his quirks!!
Yeah, back then, I also insisted that no rational person could possibly regard him as presidential material...even suggesting that he'd be dangerous! Again, he clearly has proven me wrong and I could not be happier! I would never have imagined it possible back then considering how vociferous I was in debating against his pro-Trump supporters at work.
With all the great things he's done, how could I possibly be pissed at being "fooled"? For he certainly fooled me! I thought he'd be a disaster! I wouldn't say I was blinded, but I certainly pegged him wrong on that score!
As to other Trump supporters, as I said, I opposed them, and argued intently against their support for him. So glad they never listened!!
Looking back, I still can't say I was wrong about Ted Cruz. I hope he runs in 2024. But I wonder if he could have accomplished as many great things as has Trump. Now I believe that after Trump's second term is over, someone like Cruz will have an even better chance of winning in '24 and will likely be bolder in moving us further along a more beneficial conservative path that will build upon what Trump began (assuming during his second term Trump doesn't make a big mistake or his asshole opponents don't waste anymore of the nation's time and money trying to obstruct him).
"5. Are you SERIOUSLY not aware of the historians who've called Trump amongst the worst?"
You must be thinking of nonsense like this...
https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-worst-president-us-history-political-scientists-claim-2765338
...wherein the 13% of respondents who were Republicans may include Republican NeverTrumpers. Even were they all devoted Trump supporters, a mere 13% means a wholly biased group who wouldn't rate Trump highly if he personally cured cancer. Not to make too fine a point of it, there's this...
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2017/08/29/why-im-leaving-the-political-science-association/
...from one of their own who describes just how bad this group of "scholars" has become. Then of course there's the NeverTrumper Jon Meacham, so who cares what Trump-hating scholars say about Trump when they ignore his accomplishments when pretending he's worse than the likes of Obama and Carter?
https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2019-03-09-the-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-so-far/
"Worst president" my ass!
"6. Of the Generals and military experts who've denounced Trump?"
Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian who disagrees with your generals, many of whom are Democrat supporters themselves. It must also be acknowledged that generals aren't required to agree with a president, but only to advise him. It would be foolish to presume that subordinate officers and troops always agree with generals, so what's the difference? Yet, Trump has been very good on confounding Russia, on China, on taking out Iranian military leaders.
"7. The scientists who have condemned Trump?"
Same story. Who are these scientists and why would they be "condemning" Trump (especially since we know that Jesus doesn't condemn anyone, right Dan?)?
"8. His own family (and mental health expert), the niece who said he's fundamentally unfit for office?"
This is another one of those stories that just got you all orgasmic. Fred Trump III totally disagrees with his sister who is a staunch Dem and Hillary supporter.
There's all sorts of haters like you Dan, in politics, science the military...few of them can stand without someone existing in the same field with a totally opposite opinion of Trump.
"No openly racist man is fit for office."
Fortunately, Trump isn't racist, openly or otherwise.
"No openly sexual predatory man is fit for office."
Clinton was a predator. Hillary supported that predator and lied about his predatory ways. Trump was just an adulterer and horndog who, despite his immorality, hasn't brought it with him to the White House. Thus, it is irrelevant to whether or not he's fit for another term...he is.
"No openly dishonest man is fit for office."
Clearly then, no Democrat is fit, for they are all openly dishonest. Trump just shoots his mouth off.
"No openly corrupt man is fit for office."
Again, no Dem is therefore fit, for they all are corrupt in their positions on abortion and "LGBT rights".
I'm pretty much done with this. The reality is that it is YOU who refuses to acknowledge reality, and that's because of your own corruption, your own unChristian heart and hatefulness. The flawed man is doing a great job and is no more corrupt and vile than many of the Biblical figures God called to do His work. But you insist on hating and you do so with no real evidence that it is at all justified.
All we need to know that Trump is destroying our democracy is any 24 hour period.
Take today’s news:
1. Trump ordered federal agents to crackdown in Portland. So, US sheriffs, unmarked, abrogated the Bill of Rights of the US constitution by arresting peaceful protestors without declaring who they were or where they were taking US citizens.
2. Trump is waging a public health war on Americans. The Trump administration has balked at providing billions of dollars to fund coronavirus testing and shore up federal health agencies as the virus surges across the country, complicating efforts to reach agreement on the next round of pandemic aid.
Senate Republicans had drafted a proposal that would allocate $25 billion in grants to states for conducting testing and contact tracing, as well as about $10 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and about $15 billion for the National Institutes of Health, according to a person familiar with the tentative plans, who cautioned that the final dollar figures remained in flux. They had also proposed providing $5.5 billion to the State Department and $20 billion to the Pentagon to help counter the virus outbreak and potentially distribute a vaccine at home and abroad.
But in talks over the weekend, administration officials instead pushed to zero out the funding for testing and for the nation’s top health agencies, and to cut the Pentagon funding to $5 billion, according to another person familiar with the discussions.
Marshal... In order to recognize something, that something must exist. In this case, you'd have to establish Trump has conned me.
I redirect you to the question asked of you, Marshal for a last chance to answer the questions put to you...
IF IF IF
you learn (what the rest of us see as obvious)
that Trump is utterly corrupt, amoral and dishonest...
that indeed, he suffers from some set of mental conditions that have left him sickly narcissistic and sociopathic,
and that he was NEVER fit for office,
that he truly was one of the worst presidents in US history (as experts tell us)
because of his utter corruption and unfitness...
IF AND WHEN you realize all that
THEN will you be angry at yourself for being a useful dupe?
Will you be angry at him for fooling you, somehow?
Will you be angry at your fellow Trump supporting conservatives, who all encouraged one another to support this unfit man?
Or, will you just push off all personal responsibility and blame Clinton or liberals for your decision to support this deviant?
That is, IT IS A CONDITIONAL QUESTION? IF and WHEN you learn what is obvious to the majority of the world, that Trump is unfit for office, IF THAT HAPPENS, then will you be angry at yourself?
But perhaps you understood and answered...
Was he "fundamentally unfit"? That's freakin' why I didn't support him in the primaries!! That is to say, based on his GOP Primary performance and the extent of my knowledge of Trump the person, I regarded him as unfit.
You KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY voted for a man that you regarded as unfit?
That's what you said. Did you actually mean that?
Wow.
Clinton may not have been my favorite, but I didn't think she was unfit for office (because of course, she wasn't. NOT liking her policies is not the same as being "unfit for office..."). The same is true for the Bushes and Reagan. The same is true for B Clinton. I didn't think he wasn't fit for office, but STILL, I wouldn't vote for him because of the chance that he might have done what he was accused of. Why? Because I have integrity and I think history and wisdom has borne out the wisdom of my position.
But never would I ever consider voting for someone who was "unfit for office." Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE UNFIT FOR OFFICE!
You don't vote to elect someone you know to be unfit. That's just idiocy, at best and evil at worst.
I support adults with disabilities in getting jobs. And folks with disabilities OUGHT to be given the chance to get the best jobs possible, because they are capable of so much. BUT, you never put someone in a position that they are not fit for, that's just begging for trouble.
And the REASONS that Trump was/is unfit for office are myriad. From his sexual predatory nature, to his utter corruption and dishonesty, to his appeals to racists and racism, to his total ineptitude and intellectual incapacity to do the work (as history has borne out), to his emotional disorders... he was not only unfit for office, but dangerously unfit.
But you look at that train wreck of a human being, NOTE that he was unfit, and STILL you vote for him?
What's wrong with people like you?
Please answer.
I suspect when you say you think he was unfit, you mean just a little unfit because he was not the most moral of men, and WHOLLY miss the dozens of seriously troubling ways he was unfit. But you tell me.
When God looks at you and tells you, "Dope! Of COURSE, Trump was a sexual predatory who fanned flames of racism and was openly dishonest and corrupt... and STILL you voted for him! What's wrong with you?"
(If and) When that happens, will you be embarrassed? Ashamed? Angry?
Answer that question or move on.
You continue to insist I answer "that" question after asking multiple questions. I'll have to start with the original embolden bit I already answered quite clearly and in great detail.
IF IF IF
you learn (what the rest of us see as obvious)
that Trump is utterly corrupt, amoral and dishonest...
that indeed, he suffers from some set of mental conditions that have left him sickly narcissistic and sociopathic,
and that he was NEVER fit for office,
that he truly was one of the worst presidents in US history (as experts tell us)
because of his utter corruption and unfitness...
IF AND WHEN you realize all that
THEN will you be angry at yourself for being a useful dupe?
Will you be angry at him for fooling you, somehow?
Will you be angry at your fellow Trump supporting conservatives, who all encouraged one another to support this unfit man?
Or, will you just push off all personal responsibility and blame Clinton or liberals for your decision to support this deviant?
"IF IF IF" is no more than just your wish that all the things you want to believe of Trump is actually true and/or worse than the negative traits of those you support. But still, if all that came to pass, why would I be angry with myself rather than with the candidate who let me down? And by "let me down" I mean just with regards to that which you want to be true. The guy, so far, as still proven himself to be far better than dishonest fake Christians like yourself have the integrity to admit. This is not just a charge against you, because I had to admit it myself. He was a guy I didn't want to vote for because of several reasons I found disqualified him for consideration until he was the only rational choice available...and even then I didn't want to vote for him!
"IF AND WHEN you realize all that..."
"When"? This assumes you know what you want to believe is true. You don't. You simply are the most extreme case of what is common among voters: that your side is better than they are, while the other side is worse than they are. Look at your opinion of Hillary. You want to pretend she was/is fit for office, but her record of service says otherwise, as does her beliefs (or what she claims are her beliefs). She's a known liar, caught several times lying about a variety of things. She's an enabler of sexual immorality...like you are, so I guess you don't think that counts against her...and she's been accused by several as being and incredible asshole, particularly to people in uniform. But YOU think she's fit, while Trump is not. Amazing double standard, to say the least.
"THEN will you be angry at yourself for being a useful dupe?
Will you be angry at him for fooling you, somehow?"
No. Again, why would I be angry at myself? I make the best choice I can based on all the available info I can gather. For example, unlike Obama, I've never heard that Trump supports letting babies die if they survive an abortion. Yet you voted for Obama. That's sick, twisted and evil. And YOU'RE going to pretend ogling naked teenagers is worse.
"Will you be angry at your fellow Trump supporting conservatives, who all encouraged one another to support this unfit man?"
They make their decisions...I make mine. I'm far more angry at those who ignore(d) all the far worse negatives of the Dem/socialist candidates...and worse, angrier still with those who are well aware and treat them as positives...than those who support a right-wing candidate that turns out to have been a bad choice (Trump turned out to be a great choice) and/or candidates that seem to be in my opinion. For such, "frustrated" is a better term, not "angry". "Angry" fits my emotion better when considering those like you.
"Or, will you just push off all personal responsibility and blame Clinton or liberals for your decision to support this deviant?"
Unlike Clinton herself, and lefties in general, I take full responsibility for my own actions. Deflecting responsibility is a lefty trait. This decision turned out to be far better than I had expected it would, and far better than you have the integrity and honesty to admit. If Trump was "the worst president ever", you'd not be spending all your time boring us with his "deviancy"...as if he supported the LGBT agenda or something. You'd instead provide examples of his policies that have actually have caused harm.
"IF and WHEN you learn what is obvious to the majority of the world..."
You have no idea what the "majority of the world" believes about Trump, so stop pretending this is an intelligent question. All it does is makes the question more difficult to answer, because I don't know what the majority of the world believes, either. Honest answers to dishonest questions is next to impossible and you'll then waste time if the answers don't connect perfectly to the idiocy of such questions.
"You KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY voted for a man that you regarded as unfit?
That's what you said. Did you actually mean that?
Wow"
You say this as if there was a better choice in the general election. There was not. Trump was the lesser of the evils available and as such was the best choice available. His performance since that election has borne out my choice as being especially sound. You have yet to mount an logical and rational argument to the contrary.
"Clinton may not have been my favorite, but I didn't think she was unfit for office..."
That's because of what I said earlier in this comment...that she's like you in her enabling of sexually immoral behaviors. But yes, her politics does indeed make her unfit because those political beliefs are clearly detrimental to the nation and have been proven so over and over again. On character issues, she was every bit as bad as Trump at the very least, and in my opinion, worse. We dodged a bullet with the election of Trump and it's paid off beyond just avoiding the harm a Clinton presidency would surely have brought us.
"And the REASONS that Trump was/is unfit for office are myriad. From his sexual predatory nature, to his utter corruption and dishonesty, to his appeals to racists and racism, to his total ineptitude and intellectual incapacity to do the work (as history has borne out), to his emotional disorders... he was not only unfit for office, but dangerously unfit."
And yet, he's done us so much good and very, very little bad. But you state all this stuff continuously without proof or evidence that any of it is true or that any of it negatively impacted his decisions that have made us stronger and more prosperous and safer. You ignore that to focus on your whiny complaints that, at this point, you'd be better served to get over in favor of finding something more substantive about which to whine.
How has his "sexual predatory nature" come into play at any time since the election? Is there a stained dress of an intern anywhere?
What corruption has there been? There are reports that he's been declining in wealth since the election. There were never any such reports about Obama or Clinton, but rather just the opposite.
What dishonesty? I've continued to ask you to name just one "lie" he's told that has been worse than any of the lies that are part of the Dem Party platform...that Obama has told during his presidency...that Hillary tells all the time...that is the lie of socialism that Bernie Sanders tries to foist upon the nation. If Trump's all that dishonest, one would expect it should have been easy-peasy for you to come through with an answer to that question, rather than continually ignoring it.
What "appeals to racists and racism"?? If racists like what they hear from ANY president, why do you lie and act like that means there was a concerted effort to court such people? There's been far more racist rhetoric from the Obamas than there has ever been from Trump...and that's with the fact that Trump's rhetoric is only framed as being racist by people like you!\
"to his total ineptitude and intellectual incapacity to do the work..."
A totally inept and intellectually lacking position based on his great record of accomplishments, which I provided in a previous comment and that you won't read. It's a really stupid thing to say.
And what "emotional disorders"? You're no shrink and no shrink who's examined him has found him unfit. Narcissism? Which president doesn't think highly of himself, and how can one not have some degree of of that and even run for office?
The fact is that you are the one unwilling to look honestly at this man and his track record as president...not me. My eyes have always been wide open and you would delete so much of what I say if that wasn't true. You'd instead present rational arguments against my comments. You don't. You're not doing it here. Worse, you're neither embarrassed or ashamed of it.
Marshal... "angry with myself rather than with the candidate who let me down?"
IF you find out that it was blindingly obvious and all reasonable adults SHOULD have known it, you'll blame him, not yourself?
Marshal... "YOU think she's fit, while Trump is not. Amazing double standard, to say the least."
That YOU foster in your blinded soul the notion that this most intelligent and rational - by far - of most of our recent presidents is not fit does not mean she's not fit.
That's just another "nyuh uh" response. But really...talk about being conned! What has she ever accomplished that validates that opinion? BTW.. Hillary was never president. Just saying.
And again, what I knew about Trump at the time did nothing to make me support him at all, as I was greatly disappointed that Cruz did not prevail. But it was crystal clear to me Clinton, based on all that's known about personally and politically, was the greater of two evils by far. It was blindingly obvious to ALL reasonable adults at the time.
Answer the question, Marshal.
IF you find out that he was the corrupt predator racist con man that half the world sees him as,
AND
IF you find out that it was so obvious that ALL rational adults should have known,
WHO will you blame?
And I guess we can see at least one difference between me and you:
I would never vote for someone I thought was unfit for office, and if there were TWO people running for office who were unfit, then I wouldn't vote for either.
You would.
Marshal... . It was blindingly obvious to ALL reasonable adults at the time.
Another stupidly false claim of the sort that Trump and his irrational followers thrive on.
Trump lost the popular vote. it was NOT "blindingly obvious to all reasonable adults" that Clinton was unfit for office.
I still think part of your delusion is you confuse, "I don't agree with her policies" with "unfit for office."
We ALL have candidates whose policies we don't agree with. That doesn't make them unfit for office.
The GOP will have their asses kicked collectively this fall (God willing and as it appears right now) and HOPEFULLY, they'll use the beating to open their eyes to the racism and depths of perversion, corruption and childish irrationality that led them there.
But I doubt it. They can elect a Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump series of presidents which results - EVERY TIME - in greater national debt and greater immorality and great criminality and more appeals to racism and sexism, and still not get it what they're doing wrong. Somehow.
Jeez, you're pathetic. I answered already and in great detail. But I simply can never truly understand the depths of your comprehension-disorder.
"IF you find out that he was the corrupt predator racist con man that half the world sees him as,
AND
IF you find out that it was so obvious that ALL rational adults should have known,
WHO will you blame?"
No one. His performance as president outweighs the negatives of which I was well aware prior to voting for him. What's more, it's incredibly unlikely that he will ever prove your desperate perception of him is correct. You can't even point to any evidence of corruption in how he does his job as president. You can't even provide any evidence of racism on his part. And I defy you to identify any hint of predatory behavior since he was elected to the presidency. And as if that's not enough, you have no polling data that suggests how much of the world sees him as you do.
"And I guess we can see at least one difference between me and you"
My goodness...there's far more than one!!
"I would never vote for someone I thought was unfit for office, and if there were TWO people running for office who were unfit, then I wouldn't vote for either.
You would."
First, you've proven a distinct inability to tell who is unfit. You laughingly stated you think Hillary was fit!!
Next, you...like others...believe you have no duty to choose between two unfit candidates, as if they're identical in "unfitness". That's both a coward's way out and entirely immoral. Think of it this way:
Your daughter is going to be murdered. There's no way to stop it. There's only a choice given to you as to how it will be done. Quick and painless, or slow and torturous. Both choices mean death for your daughter and like a good father you regard her murder as murder regardless of how it happens. Do you step back and refuse to make that choice? That's what you're doing by pretending you're taking the moral high ground in refusing to choose between two "unfit" candidates. You're allowing that the greater of two evils wins, that the worse of two deaths be perpetrated. That the nation and your daughter suffer far more than they have to...just so you can posture as noble. It's disgusting.
I, on the other hand, would choose the quick and painless death for my daughter and the less destructive candidate. That was Trump before he had the chance to prove he would get so many great things done...before he would prove to be one of the best presidents ever at keeping his campaign promises.
If you want to say that Hillary is a better person than Trump, you're either a straight up liar, incredibly stupid or one who never takes the time to learn about who you plan to support for important governmental offices...which makes you stupid as well.
"Trump lost the popular vote. it was NOT "blindingly obvious to all reasonable adults" that Clinton was unfit for office."
Numbers, inflated by illegal votes but true even if there were none, does nothing to mitigate the truth of my statement. Reasonable people know that Clinton was unfit or she'd be in office today. Don't forget...there were many like me who voted more against her than for Trump. That wasn't just "reasonable". That was necessary and essential for the good of the nation. Good thing those illegals votes were mostly in one state! More to the point, it was "blindingly obvious"!!
"I still think part of your delusion is you confuse, "I don't agree with her policies" with "unfit for office.""
First, there's no delusion on MY part, and you've yet to do anything that hints it might be possible, much less true. Secondly, policies do indeed go to fitness for office. One's policies determine the future of the nation and whether that future will be good or bad. Her policies would certainly be bad because her presidency would have been pretty much Obama 2.0. Were you that keen on seeing Obama's food stamp numbers increase? The nation's economic growth continue to drag if it improved at all? Our enemies continue to take greater advantage of us? All these and more would have happened because of her policy proposals, all of which were the same old same old.
But her policies were just a part of her unfitness. Her character was no better than Trump's and I would argue worse, as I have many times already. She's a worse liar. Her personality is a horror as several books have reported. She defended and enabled a truly predatory husband...as in, not just an adulterer, and has long been suspected of being either bi-sexual or lesbian (I mean if you're going to pretend you know about Trump's sex life...).
"The GOP will have their asses kicked collectively this fall (God willing and as it appears right now) and HOPEFULLY, they'll use the beating to open their eyes to the racism and depths of perversion, corruption and childish irrationality that led them there."
Wishful thinking. You seem to ignore the many Dem controlled cities that have been the sites of the worst virus numbers, the worst violent crime numbers and the worst destruction by "peaceful" BLM protesters. You really think people won't know who did nothing to address those serious problems? Biden backs all of it.
"They can elect a Reagan/Bush/Bush/Trump series of presidents which results - EVERY TIME - in greater national debt and greater immorality and great criminality and more appeals to racism and sexism, and still not get it what they're doing wrong"
A total perversion of reality. Remember that Obama did a great job increasing the debt. All sexually immoral decay can be traced to leftist policies and behaviors, as can criminality. Racism is a leftist trait, and continues with their identity politics.
I'm willing to debate you on ANY of these topics. The delusion, again, is all yours.
You are insanely delusional. Your rabid partisanship has unhinged you. I mean this sincerely. Get help.
I don't know how to help you.
Craig thinks that if Biden picks Harris or Abrams or Rice or Demings it would be pandering to the black vote. Because naturally, they cannot be qualified.
Huh. I would have said a porn star loving, three-time married, bankruptcy exploiting New York Real Estate mobster picking a midwestern evangelical was pandering.
But then I see whiteness as a racialized identity subject to seduction.
Yeah, Craig criticized the Democrats (UN-ironically!) for choosing a white male candidate for president and he's criticizing them for potentially picking a black candidate for Vice President. It's almost like he doesn't really care about racial issues... only criticizing the Democrats.
Craig has doubled down on calling a Senator, a former National Security Advisor, and a Chief of a Police/Congress woman all unqualified because Biden may pick them and they are black women.
Craig to begin with: “ Obviously, black voters are smart enough to realize that Biden picking a black woman is simply cynical pandering.”
Craig, thinking he has an excuse while just making it worse: “I've never, and would never, criticize a presidential candidate for choosing a running mate of any ethnicity if that person was the best, most qualified, choice. What I will criticize is choosing a running mate solely based on the color of their skin or their gender.”
Pence was the best, most qualified? Craig wraps himself in lies. A porn star-loving, three-time married, bankruptcy exploiting New York Real Estate mobster picking a midwestern evangelical was pandering.
Every 24 hours we get lies from Trump that cost lives.
Trump yesterday: "masks are a matter of free choice"
Trump today: "wear a mask, it's patriotic: it saves lives"
Trump tonight: not wearing a mask at a fundraiser at his Washington hotel
___
Trump over the last four months: "this virus is ending really soon; we'll be open by Easter." "we've got past the virus; we must open the schools."
Trump today: "this will get worser before it gets better."
___
Trump is responsible for 50,000 deaths.
___
Trump to his friend Ghislaine Maxwell who set up under age girls for Jeffrey Epstein: " I wish her well."
He's a monster. And Marshal fell in love with him.
Marshal has posted several comments asking Why are you deleting me? and How am I delusional?
I'm deleting you because your views are so delusional (and, well, of course, you still need to apologize for your attacks on women and de facto defense of rapists/sexual predators (by refusing to acknowledge a sexual predator as a sexual predator), at least on my blog, where such attacks just won't stand.
You're delusional on nearly every claim you make.
"Racism is leftist trait."
Bonkers and just not a factually supportable claim. Like the Trump-cons, it's not sufficient to make a stupidly false claim and pretend like it's rational.
"Numbers, inflated by illegal votes but true even if there were none, does nothing to mitigate the truth of my statement.
Reasonable people know that Clinton was unfit or she'd be in office today."
Conspiracy-tinged and irrational, both claims.
And on it goes. I'll tell you what, though, I'll give you a chance to not sound insane IF you can rationally and consistently answer a question:
What in the name of all that is holy and rational makes you think that Clinton was not fit for office?
I think that you are deluded into thinking that if someone disagrees with conservative policies (at least some of them) that alone makes them not fit for office. That is a blindness brought on by irrational partisan allegiance.
I disagree with Bush's policies (both father and son), but I don't say they weren't fit for office. Not fit for office means that they are not emotionally, rationally, physically or intellectually up to the job, not FIT. Trump is just an idiot, he displays no sense of morality or allegiance to honesty or facts. He regularly makes false claims and stupidly false claims, or at least presents claims as if they MAY be true, when he has no reason to make such claims. This is problematic.
Yes, all politicians, and people, make false claims occasionally, Clinton included. But there's a difference between if, when one is called on the false claim, they can admit the error and if they just are indifferent to the truth or facts. Trump is the latter, Clinton and all other presidents are the former.
So, OTHER THAN advocating policies that you don't like (which is not unfitness), what makes your delusional mind think that Clinton is unfit?
Be careful, you're on a tight leash.
A new Trump campaign ad depicting a police officer being attacked by protesters is actually a 2014 photo of pro-democracy protests in Ukraine
Marshal has attempted (and failed badly) once already (I think) to enumerate why he had a hunch based on nothing that Clinton was "unfit for office." It began with this paragraph, wherein he vaguely argues against policies that he disagrees with...
One's policies determine the future of the nation and whether that future will be good or bad.
That may or may not be the case about her (or any candidate's) policies. But GUESSING that Clinton's policies MAY have resulted in a worse result does not make one unfit for office. It just doesn't. If you think it does, define Unfit.
It's a ridiculous claim.
Marshal continued...
Her policies would certainly be bad because
her presidency would have been pretty much Obama 2.0.
Obama inherited a nation in decline and he turned it around. US citizens are largely proud of Obama and his work. And again, that you might not LIKE Obama's policies is not an indication that either Obama or Clinton are unfit for office.
It just doesn't.
Hell, every Republican in my lifetime has inherited a lower debt and left office with a greater debt. So, as far as policies go, if having bad results (things getting worse economically) makes one unfit, then every GOP candidate in my life time has been unfit.
It's a ridiculous and irrational argument.
Marshal...
Were you that keen on seeing Obama's food stamp numbers increase?
The nation's economic growth continue to drag if it improved at all?
Our enemies continue to take greater advantage of us?
All these and more would have happened
because of her policy proposals, all of which were the same old same old.
First of all, this is all, of course, just an empty guess on your part, not supported by anything other than your claim. AND, even if having a certain set of randomly selected numbers get worse is factual, that doesn't make the president unfit, it would just mean that they didn't do a great job in those areas. But there are other areas/measures. Unemployment went down. Income and the Dow Jones went up.
Look at the data: Obama inherited a Great Recession and turned things around. He made the economy so well-grounded that it took the idiot, Trump, three whole years to destroy it. If performance indicates fitness for the job, then by YOUR measure, Trump is unfit.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/9-charts-comparing-trump-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9-1028833119#
Secondly, Americans in 2018 (two years post Obama) rate his performance at 63%. In these very divided times, that means a great portion of the US approve of Obama after the fact. Trump DREAMS of that sort of positive evaluation, and yet, he has hovered between 35% and 50% (BARELY) approval rating. Sort of the basement.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/226994/obama-first-retrospective-job-approval-rating.aspx
cont'd...
...Another poll ranks Obama as the best president in our lifetime.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-rank-barack-obama-best-president-lifetimes-poll/story?id=56545031
SO, that you have a rage against our first black president is less based on his actual performance and more on your ideological hatred, it would appear.
About Obama's record...
"Is the country better off than it was when President Barack Obama first took office nearly eight years ago?
Statistically, the answer is yes, and it’s the situation Donald Trump will inherit when he takes the oath of office next month. Still, there are some shortcomings in Obama’s record over the last eight years.
The good news: The nation’s unemployment rate declined more than three percentage points; the Dow Jones average has more than doubled; income is up (but only slightly); poverty is down (but barely); the number of Americans without health insurance was cut in half; the federal budget deficit is down; and the numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are a fraction of what they were in 2009..."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/then-vs-now-statistical-look-obama-s-presidency-n692181
So, you've selected one or two things that you think got worse during Obama's presidency (keeping in mind that he inherited the Great Recession) and want to say that he didn't do WELL ENOUGH in recovering from the GOP's recession, that he's unfit.
Bullshit. It's a stupid ass claim based on nothing but hatred and envy.
So, your argument based on "she disagreed with my preferred policies, therefore, she's unfit" is a ridiculous and unsupported claim.
Marshal THEN tries pathetically and impotently to attack Clinton's character. KEEPING IN MIND, this is a guy that finds Trump "fit for office," IN SPITE of the diarrhea dump of his character. Marshal frothed...
her policies were just a part of her unfitness. Her character was no better than Trump's and I would argue worse, as I have many times already.
It's an empty and unsupported claim that any rational moral person would laugh at. You don't have to like Clinton (I don't), but the notion that she's got a worse character than Trump is just delusional (and that's why I'm encouraging you to get help.) Do you think Al Mohler would call her character worse? George Will? Any of a number of rational conservatives?
Marshal continued...
She's a worse liar.
UTTERLY unsupported and irrational and not data-based. Anyone can see that Trump makes dozens of false claims publicly every week and these false claims are so stupidly false as to be insulting to rational adults. And it's not just a matter of him being a boastful narcissist (although, he is that) who overplays his nonsense ("all the best people agree..." "many people think it's the best ever..."). Those sorts of dangerously stupidly false "braggy" claims (what I believe you dismiss as being merely boastful) ARE part of his delusions and corruption and cons. Are you not aware of the psychology of con men?
Telling people "It's the best" "Everyone agrees" "All the experts say I'm right..." and other such flatly false claims... AND repeating those false claims endlessly... that how con men operate. Rational people write such drivel off as nonsense, but there's a portion of people who are impressed and fulled by that sort of boasting. It's dangerous and your belief in them - or dismissal of them - is evidence of how dangerous it is.
To suggest that Clinton's false claims (which she has made, as we all have) are somehow near comparable to Trump's is just 1. NOT supported by the data and 2. Irrational.
Strike one.
Marshal...
Her personality is a horror as several books have reported.
She has a bad PERSONALITY? THAT's what you're basing your nonsensical hunches upon?
How does having a bad personality make one unfit? AND, if having a bad personality unfit, then the troll, con, predator cheat slimeball Trump would CLEARLY be unfit, by that measure.
Strike two.
She defended and enabled a truly predatory husband...as in, not just an adulterer,
Defending one's husband makes one unfit for office?
And you accept that B Clinton is "predatory" but you dismiss the much greater evidence against Trump, including from his own vulgar filthy mouth?
Bullshit.
Strike three and four.
Cont'd...
...The VERY CLOSEST you come to finding ANYTHING that makes Clinton unfit for office is the suggestion that she "enabled" him to abuse women. IF you could prove that, you'd have something.
But as it is, it's just an empty claim.
BILL Clinton cheated (or worse?) on his wife. SHE was the victim. Now, IF you could prove that she was helping him abuse those roughly three women, you might have something. But as it is, it's just an empty claim.
Marshal...
and has long been suspected of being either bi-sexual or lesbian (I mean if you're going to pretend you know about Trump's sex life...).
And this sort of filthy, vulgar mind vomit is why you can't post in decent places, you rapist-defending lowlife scum. USING "ew. she might be a lesbian" as an insult is LAST century's insult. You pig. You LOSE any moral credibility with the suggestion that "ew. Lesbians are not fit for office, because... gay stuff..."
You are a pig and a filthy-minded sinner.
You want to post here again? You'll need to add apologizing to lesbians and bisexuals and Hillary Clinton for your vulgar nonsense.
Strikes 5, 6 and you're just out. You've got NOTHING to support the claim that Clinton was unfit for office except for caveman-like prejudices and hateful bigotry.
Shame on you. Get help. Your hatred for humanity has driven you to banal irrationality.
"Be careful, you're on a tight leash."
Dan-speak for, "I'll delete anything that's too hard to overcome"...meaning, pretty much everything.
"So, OTHER THAN advocating policies that you don't like (which is not unfitness), what makes your delusional mind think that Clinton is unfit?"
It is not MY mind that is delusional, Skippy. I actually pay attention to the candidates and what they've done, what they intend to do, etc. You simply vote for the "D" behind their names. But the following are the factual points that made Clinton unfit for office and continue to do so:
---Her health.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/16/hillary-clintons-health-problems/
Aside from what is described in the link above, she's also been suspected of having dysphasia, Parkinson's and hypthyroidism
---Low character
https://nypost.com/2016/09/30/sorry-hillary-clintons-the-one-whos-unfit-for-the-white-house/amp/#aoh=15953098043485&_ct=1595310343285&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
Notable from the above link:
"Hillary Clinton is a world-class grifter who sold access to the Lincoln Bedroom and her State Department office. Given her sticky fingers, she should be dubbed Hillary Velcro-hands. The Clintons literally stole antiques as they left the White House in 2001. Once caught, they had to reload the American people’s furniture and decorations and return them by truck from Chappaqua to Washington."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/hillary-clintons-long-list-of-lies/
https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/02/fbi-interview-catches-hillary-clinton-in-multiple-lies-private-server/
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/t-day-evergreen-7-wildest-lies-hillary-clinton/
It can't be stated enough that the lies Clinton has told, even the small ones, are of a far more egregious nature than the self-promoting bluster of Trump. But of course among the worst are those lies she told in connection to the Benghazi disaster (especially to the grieving parents) and those she told with regard to her email server.
---Incompetence
http://muskegontribune.com/is-hillary-morally-unfit-to-be-president/
The above speaks to the email thing again, but brings attention to the incompetence of the woman...or arrogance that the rules do not apply to her. This latter trait has come up before as well in various books about her.
---Disdainful of subordinates
Pretty much of anyone not on her level. A book by a secret service agent details just how nasty a person she is, and how she has utter contempt for those who are tasked with serving her in one capacity or another.
https://americantruthtoday.com/politics/2019/09/05/ex-secret-service-agent-people-need-to-know-the-real-hillary-clinton-and-how-dangerous-she-is/
I had a hard time choosing which links to provide in response to you question. You'd be hard pressed to refute or rebut any of that which I have, so I fully anticipate you'll simply delete everything. Notice that I haven't brought up her policies, most of which require believing that which isn't true and thus are more than likely to cause harm, which also means she's unfit for believing in her crappy policy positions. The list of lies this woman has told over the years is far more egregious than the hyperbolic, yet insignificant, self-promotions of Donald Trump. But, being a lefty, you continue to ignore the evils of your chosen candidates and inflate the minor transgressions of those you oppose. Said another way, in every category of character assassination you've leveled at Trump, Clinton is FAR more guilty with FAR more evidence to confirm it all. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would ignore all of this proven stuff about Hillary while being so eager to believe whatever fantasies about Trump is fashionable at any given moment. But that's how you lefties roll.
First of all, I systematically shut down each of your nonsensical arguments from a prior comment. You did not acknowledge that I was correct and that you were mistaken. Rational adults having a good faith conversation should acknowledge when the wrong. You are factually and rationally mistaken.
As to your latest comment, you're offering the opinions are some people who find Clinton dishonest or suggest that she has a troubling character. The opinion of a couple of people. Gossip and unsupported allegations and rumor-mongering.
In other words, just more nothing.
Another problem with your Whimsical and vague and haphazard suggestions about what makes Clinton unfit is that these sorts of opinions would make practically every president in history unfit, by your measure. Certainly Reagan and Bush and Bush and Nixon. Perhaps not Boy Scouts like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama or his wonderful wife and national leader Michelle Obama. But just about every president would have some detractors speaking to some level of dishonesty or other personal opinions against them.
But if that lightweight a level of criteria for deciding who is unfit is applied, then nearly everyone is unfit. It's a nonsensical and irrational and weaselly measurement.
Trump, on the other hand, is just factually historically an anomaly in the level of his dishonesty, his corruption, his public indecency, his public stupidity. We know this to be true because it is universally recognized by conservatives, moderates and progressives alike. It is no secret that Trump is dishonest at and historic rate unprecedented level. That some people I think the Clinton is sort of dishonest, which is true of Reagan and Bush and others, is nothing compared to Trump. You just got nothing there. We can point to the levels of dishonesty of trump, to his public corruption.
So, in the end, Clinton is unfit because you don't like her and not much else. But that's a Whimsical and childlike decision. We need adults make decisions about our nation, not childish rationality and emotional fragility.
Now, you will not comment here again until apologies to women in general are offered for your defense of rapist and attacks on women you don't know, and an apology to Clinton and every lgbtq person for suggesting the gay people are not fit for office by nature of their sexual orientation or gender. You are just a caveman in this regard. Such blatant homophobic and cowardly attacks against great Americans will not stand on this blog. White supremacist said the same thing about black people not being fit for office by Nature are the color of their skin. We acknowledge today how very evil and wrong those white nationalists were and how wrong today's homophobes like you are.
Go. Seek understanding. Repent.
Marshal, your gossiping and rumor monger and bigotry are loathsome.
Those who engage in idle gossip and slander are not part of the realm of God, according to St Paul and others. But for low-life bigots, gossip is sufficient to decide the victim's character.
Of course, hateful, godless, childish gossip reveals way more about the gossiper's character than the target of the gossip.
Any comment you make here must begin with, I apologize for my bigoted attacks on marginalized groups... not to stifle free speech, but because bigotry will not stand on my blog. Your freedom of speech does not mean you're free to force it upon others.
Marshal, to say all people with a sexual or gender orientation you don't approve of are unfit for office is the DEFINITION of bigotry.
Also, it's the definition of hypocrisy, since what you're saying is that all those who engage in sexual practices or beliefs you disagree with are unfit, and yet, the sexual predator, Trump, you support (and thus, don't think's unfit)!
Proving it's NOT just about sexual behavior you disapprove of, it's bigotry targeting an historically oppressed group of people.
Get help. You will NOT post here till you repent and apologize.
Marshal, who has continued to defend his attacks on LGBTQ people, calling them "not fit" for office (WHILE supporting THE SINGLE most perverse and corrupt tyrant to be in the White House in our lifetime!), also complained that I cited Paul in the Bible who says that people who gossip and slander aren't part of the realm of God.
Well, you may not like that I cited it, but it IS what Paul (and others) say. It's not unambiguous or unclear. IF it was Paul saying that gay guys who get married are not part of the realm of God, you KNOW Marshal would take it literally (and of course, the Bible doesn't say that. Anywhere.)
But here's a sampling of what we find in the Bible about making false claims, gossiping (as Marshal did about Clinton to try to justify the claim that she's not fit for office) and slander...
"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are
an abomination to GOD:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers."
~Proverbs 6
Note: Gay guys getting married is never called an abomination, but false claims, a lying tone and false witnesses (as Marshal has engaged in) ARE abominations to God.
"A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends."
~Proverbs 16
"Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler. "
Justification for not allowing Marshal to comment here. If ever there was a simple babbler...
"Whoever slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. "
Psalm 101
Dang. Careful, Marshal. You'll end up destroyed.
"Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house,
and not only idlers,
but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. "
~1 Tim 5
AND, in Romans 1, a passage some try to abuse to make a case that God opposes gay folks marrying, does NOT say anything about gay folks should not marry. But what it DOES condemn as utterly debased are those who gossip, in the manner that Marshal has gossiped...
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,
God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.
They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.
They are gossips,
slanderers,
haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."
~Romans 1
Dang. Careful, bubba.
European footballers were all wearing Black Lives Matter and kneeling at the start of games the first two weeks they returned from lockdown.
MLS players kneel before games in Orlando and hold fists in the air as they've returned to play.
Tonight, baseball players kneel in unison holding black ribbon that binds them as they wear Black Lives Matter on their uniforms.
Colin Kaepernick has won. He's got us and all of civilization focused on how the US and the world needs to defeat its fear of and brutality toward black people. And thereby bringing safety and respect for the human rights of all god's children.
The Holy Spirit is moving. God is alive. Not in a book. Jesus calls us to love each other.
Now Marshal has taken to trying to attack peaceful protesters like Colin Kaepernick. Marshal forgets that those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent resistance inevitable. You don't like the more wild and violent protests today but you all have attacked peaceful protesters for years. You can't have both, the freedom to attack and demonize peaceful protesters (and you would have attacked Martin Luther King in his day, no doubt), AND be free from violent protest. I'm not advocating violent protest, I'm just saying that it is in the inevitable result when you silence and block peaceful protests.
No justice, no peace. It's not a slogan, it's a reality.
Peaceful protest is right for American citizens. Marshal demonizes the exceptional privileges of American citizenship and lauds the brutality of American white systems.
Brazen white supremacists are openly admitting truth and making no apologies for the slaughter. They take pride in it. And they should hang for it.
“The Arkansas Republican senator Tom Cotton has called the enslavement of millions of African people “the necessary evil upon which the union was built”.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/26/tom-cotton-slavery-necessary-evil-1619-project-new-york-times?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
To be fair, the entire quote from Cotton is, "AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID, it (slavery) was the necessary evil upon which the union was built..."
It means the same thing, (ie, in saying, "AS THEY SAID, THIS THING IS TRUE..." means you agree, this thing is true), but just making sure the full quote is heard. That was his defense he made (I was only citing the founding fathers!!!) without acknowledging that he was acknowledging they were correct in their assessment of the necessary evil. IF he wants to clarify that yes, of course slavery was NOT necessary, just evil, he can do so, but he hasn't done that yet that I've seen.
Damn.
Cotton’s Saving American History Act of 2020 and “would prohibit the use of federal funds to teach the 1619 Project by K-12 schools or school districts.” Nikole Hannah-Jones, who was awarded this year’s Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her introductory essay to the 1619 Project, said on Friday that Cotton’s bill “speaks to the power of journalism more than anything I’ve ever done in my career”.
“If chattel slavery – heritable, generational, permanent, race-based slavery where it was legal to rape, torture, and sell human beings for profit – were a ‘necessary evil’ as Tom Cotton says, it’s hard to imagine what cannot be justified if it is a means to an end. Imagine thinking a non-divisive curriculum is one that tells black children the buying and selling of their ancestors, the rape, torture, and forced labor of their ancestors for PROFIT, was just a ‘necessary evil’ for the creation of the ‘noblest’ country the world has ever seen.
“So, was slavery foundational to the Union on which it was built, or nah? You heard it from Tom Cotton himself.”
Trump’s border wall has had a lot of problems. A section of the border wall fell over in California when it was hit by a strong breeze. Smugglers were able to saw through Trump’s border wall in minutes with tools that they bought at the hardware store. The lack of effectiveness of the wall was driven home when smugglers sawed through the wall in San Diego eighteen times in one month.
Trump illegally stole funds that were congressionally appropriated to the military to pay for the construction of the wall, and all that taxpayers have gotten for their money is another flimsy Trump con that just like the man himself is impractical, unnecessary, and ineffective.
A section of the border wall that Trump has spent nearly four years bragging about was knocked down by Hurricane Hanna.
Remember how Craig and Marshal thought the Wall was so needed? Idiots.
Stan asks, in all white male supremacist innocence:
“Why does the Left consider itself "the tolerant ones" and the Right intolerant while the Left is the "cancel culture"? Doesn't make sense.”
Well... I think the issue of racism answers Stan’s question. Misogyny, too. Bigotry. Anti-science. Caging children. Violence toward moms, vets, LBGTQ. Homelessness. Poverty. Unequal education. Unequal access to healthcare.
Canceling these things are on the Democratic platform at the very least. Not the GOP.
And they will tell themselves whatever they have to tell themselves to cancel Biden’s VP pick because she’s a woman. While ignoring the massively, unprecedentedly criminal, incompetent, and revolving door of every Trump cabinet pick and senior advisor.
Hardly a shock.
1. A masked man who was seen in a viral video smashing the windows of a south Minneapolis auto parts store during the George Floyd protests, earning him the moniker “Umbrella Man,” is suspected to be a member of the Hell’s Angels biker gang seeking to incite racial tension in a demonstration that until then had been peaceful, police said.
A Minneapolis police arson investigator said the man’s actions at the AutoZone on East Lake Street set off a chain reaction that led to days of looting and rioting. The building was later burned to the ground.
“This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city,” Erika Christensen wrote in a search warrant affidavit filed in court this week. “Until the actions of the person your affiant has been calling ‘Umbrella man,’ the protests had been relatively peaceful. The actions of this person created an atmosphere of hostility and tension. Your affiant believes that this individual’s sole aim was to incite violence.”
2. A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator. Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
More broadly, the database lists 21 victims killed in leftwing attacks since 2010 , and 117 victims of rightwing attacks in that same period – nearly six times as much. Attacks inspired by the Islamic State and similar jihadist groups, in contrast, killed 95 people since 2010, slightly fewer than rightwing extremists, according to the data set.
It seems that Craig has never read Galatians.
“Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Faithfulness, Self-Control.
The list above is what are commonly referred to as the fruits of the spirit, they are the things that outwardly demonstrate the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer.
Yet we so often see believers advocating things like...
Anger, Rage, Fury, Grievance, Struggle, Scream, Resist, Kick, Fight, Savagery, Barbarism, Rebellion, Harshness, or engaging in things that reek of... Hatred, Vitriol, Lying,
One wonders if they think that the author of Galations was wrong?
Or that those were for a different time?
Or that we've discovered some new ones?
Of if they just don't care?
Or if they see the original nine as being to passive or permissive?“
The writer of Galatians, Craig, was a member of an oppressed minority. Like John Lewis and Black Lives Matter. Just like Paul, especially in Galatians (he wishes they would castrate themselves!), they fight for a love Love that is nonviolent confrontation with hate.
In this story, You’re the Roman exacting peace by brutal force.
"The recent riots that took place in Richmond, Virginia were instigated by white supremacists who were posing as Black Lives Matter protesters, according to police.
Black Lives Matter protesters were thanked by Richmond mayor Levar Stoney for trying to de-escalate the confrontation after “24 consecutive days of peaceful protests.” Stoney admonished those who participated in “threatening” lives and destroying property.
Six people associated with right-wing hate groups were arrested. Two were charged with felony assault on a law enforcement officer and felony possession of a firearm while rioting. Four others were brought up on unlawful assembly.“There were white supremacists marching under the banner of Black Lives Matter, an attempt to undermine an otherwise overwhelmingly peaceful movement toward social justice,” Stoney said. “We’ve spoken on many occasions about those who’ve chosen a more violent route to express their discontent and what that does for the overall movement toward social justice.”
Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith identified the individuals as Boogaloo boys, a loose organization of anti-government extremists during the press conference Sunday. The majority of the protesters were white and came from outside of Richmond.
___
The Guardian reports from a fresh study by the neutral, long respected, 58 year-old, policy studies Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
"A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database."
Herman Cain went to Trump’s Tulsa rally without a mask.
Didn’t survive.
Stan, Marshal, and Craig are idiots: killing off the image of god within them that is the capacity to reason out a better, more moral community.
Post a Comment