This American Life asked Sara Bareilles to imagine what President Obama might be thinking about the 2016 election and Donald Trump, but can’t say publicly. Leslie Odom Jr. performs the song.
Quick question: Why would anybody think it worthwhile to ask anybody else to imagine what Obama might be thinking about the 2016 election and Donald Trump?
Follow up question: Why would anybody think it's in anyway not absolutely obvious?
It's a lovely and powerful song that speaks to the concerns that well over half the nation had at the time and still has about this deeply troubled president who was never fit for the job. Shame on you all for putting him into a position he has no ability to handle.
Trump will be forever remembered as a bumbling and grotesque oaf, but the people who put him there and continued to support him, even as it became ever clearer that he was so uniquely unfit for the office will be remembered as villains. Those ~35-40% who've supported Trump have written a sad and ugly biography of themselves, forever to be remembered as villains throughout history.
What game are you watching? The only villains are those like yourself who refuse to acknowledge the good work this president has done. I can totally understand the opinion at that time that Trump was unfit. He's proven that to be a false opinion, even after acknowledging his quirks and manner. He's got the track record to prove he's more than merely "fit" for the job. He's shown how "fit" presidents get things done.
The true villains will continue to ignore the facts that are easily seen simply to demonize this president after his predecessor failed the nation so badly, and after his predecessor's favored successor failed to win over enough to win the election. Like all other lefties, you hate this guy because he foiled your leftist plans and showed how your way is impotent and harmful. And he did it while being the flawed man he is. That really shows just how worthless your ideology is.
Those of us who voted for him in 2016 are likely increased in number by all those who have recognized reality. It's really his job to lose and while he is fully capable of doing that, it's really unlikely given how many have benefited from his great work who were ignored by his predecessor and the Democratic Party. One never knows how these things will turn out. Both Obama and Trump...as well as the many goofy lefties who vied for the presidency...have proven that. Who could have thought an empty suit like Obama could be even a state senator, much less a US senator and then even president? Who could have thought that anyone would really support either Trump or Hillary Clinton for president, enough that THEY were the two from which we had to choose? Who could have thought that an old, worthless socialist could be one of the last two standing only to be beaten out by a guy who's not garnered enough support in two previous attempts at the Dem nomination?
Life's funny. We'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised to see this president, who has done far, far more good things than any president in a long time, rejected in favor of a senile loser who's done nothing in the long, long time he's been in politics. You villains may succeed and then God have mercy on us all.
So I just listened to the song and I'm quite impressed at how perfectly it captured what surely are the thoughts of the incompetent Obama who saw himself as having actually done good for the nation, despite having no evidence in support of such unjustified arrogance. To pretend anything good came out of his eight years in office takes some real creative re-writing of history. Far worse, however, is that anyone believes the crap that is manifested in this song.
I do not believe reality supports your wild guesses about how future citizens will view Trump. Already 55-65% of the nation, and most all historians, believe Trump is an incompetent buffoon. What's going to change to improve that view?
Clearly the President and his staff engaged in an attempted cover up to try to hide his diagnosis from the nation while he continued to meet with people.
He was diagnosed on Wednesday and met with 50 people through the rest of the day, including appearing in person with Sean Hannity. On Thursday morning, he was administered emergency drugs legally reserved only for a window of extreme distress - and continued to meet with people.
All in an attempt to avoid having to tell the nation that he had it. Finally, after midnight early Friday morning, he fessed up.
He ignored his diagnosis and was willing to make other people, potentially die. We'll see if the President has willingly killed anyone - just like someone with AIDS/HIV not telling a sexual partner they have it.
"I do not believe reality supports your wild guesses about how future citizens will view Trump."
I accounted for your wild guess when I said "The true villains will continue to ignore the facts that are easily seen simply to demonize this president..." Those facts are crystal clear...he's been doing a great job.
"Already 55-65% of the nation, and most all historians, believe Trump is an incompetent buffoon. What's going to change to improve that view?"
Honesty among that 55-65%. There's no accounting for the stupid, the ignorant and the villainous who do not "believe" so much as choose to assert the worst about this president who continues to prove them wrong.
"Data, pal. Show me data."
Where's yours? Are you going to present another poll of only 2000 or so respondents heavily weighted toward the left? Yeah. That's convincing. "Most historians"?? What poll do you have for that, and how do you prove it accounts for the total population of historians? No historian worthy his salt would make an assessment based on the present, instead of allowing time to pass to get a true understanding of a president's impact. But just the same, no honest historian could possibly rank Trump lower than Obama or Carter and likely several other of our nation's presidents. They couldn't possibly given his great record of achievement and benefit to the nation. And that great record...easy to find and affirm as true...is my data. When will you acknowledge any of it? You have to acknowledge it to even pretend that it isn't true, which would require you to prove with data that it hasn't been good for America. You don't because you can't. You simply prefer to make biased, emotional assertions that he's "unfit" or "an incompetent buffoon". Where's your data for these claims? When will we see them?
Where's my data? You would know it if you didn't choose to blind yourself or surround yourself only with others who agree with your limited opinions.
Historians rate Trump poorly - as amongst the worst of presidents ever. This is true for conservative and liberal and moderate historians. You've seen that information amongst the historians who regularly rate presidents. Presumably, you haven't objected to their expertise back when they've rated Reagan pretty highly. There's no evidence that you have whatsoever to suggest that they just hate Trump for no reason or are all liberal plants or something like that.
Do you have ANY data that suggests anything to the contrary? That, aside from the historians cited, that most historians secretly LIKE Trump and think he's been great? No, you just don't. Have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Historians on Trump...
"Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post"
In an unprecedented move in all of at least recent history, you've had hundreds of military and state department types of experts - generals, commanders, etc - condemn Trump as unfit and awful.
"He disdains expertise."
"Trump preferred to be briefed by Fox News..." (instead of military experts)
"He trusts only his own instincts..."
"Decisiveness is good, the generals agreed. But making decisions without considering facts is not."
"He resists coherent strategy."
I could go on, but read it yourself. HUNDREDS of military experts have condemned Trump as dangerously inept.
Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that this has not happened at least in our lifetimes? Do you suspect all these military experts are part of a plot? Or giving their own honest evaluations?
I'll start with just those two bits of information and informed opinion and these questions to you:
1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?
2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?
3. Do you acknowledge that hundreds of military leaders and state department leaders have spoken out and raised grave concerns about the ineptitude and unfitness of this buffoon you elected?
4. Do you acknowledge that there is not a similar group of hundreds of OTHER military leaders who have joined to speak in favor of Trump?
5. Do you acknowledge that this level of military and state department warnings about a sitting president are unprecedented, at least in our lifetime?
IF you want to comment here, it must be from a place of informed reason. You'll have to answer those questions if you want to comment on this post, Marshal.
God has supervened in nature to make sure Trump got Coronavirus and three members of the Judiciary Committee got it so that the SC nominee cannot be the subject of hearings or a vote.
“A non-military attending physician at Walter Reed National Medical Center harshly criticized President Trump’s motorcade photo op as something which could endanger lives of Secret Service agents who accompanied him in his SUV.
“Every single person in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential 'drive-by' just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die. For political theater. Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity,” Dr. James Phillips tweeted.”
High gun ownership/high gun regulation/high quality of life/huge social care network. Huh.
GENEVA IS INTRODUCING A MINIMUM WAGE OF $25 AN HOUR, THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD
"Voters in the Swiss canton of Geneva have voted to introduce a minimum wage of 23 Swiss francs ($25) an hour — making it the highest in the world.
Just over 58% of voters in the canton — an administrative region that includes the city of Geneva — voted for that minimum wage, according to government data published September 28.
They were asked to answer yes or no to the question: "Do you accept the popular initiative '23 francs is a minimum'?"
Paying workers the new wage, based on Switzerland's average 41-hour working week, would give workers a minimum monthly salary of 3,772 Swiss francs ($4,115) and minimum annual salary of 45,264 Swiss francs ($49,386), according to Business Insider's calculations."
In your overlong battle with Craig on the supernatural, he now says this:
"To me it seems obvious that any of those requires a supernatural interaction between a God who is Spirit and humans who are flesh."
O, Craig, use your bible for something other than a doorstop:
"then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ)"
Hint: not flesh
"The human spirit (נִשְׁמַ֣ת) is the lamp of the Lord, searching every inmost part."
Stan asks why all the upheaval in the country? My response:
“What is it that has caused this decay in truth, this devolution of civil discourse, this alienation of a nation but what kind of sin?” “What is it that is pushing us away from hope and toward terror?”
The sin of denying that millions live in low level daily terror by living in social systems that is vastly more willing to benefit people like and mr even into death.
And have over the various course of 400 years.
Black, brown, women, gay and lesbian and transgender.
That is the sin. Your fear producing hate and your religion needing to repress the awareness of your fear produced hate.
Your fear that Christ isn’t up to modernity because your faith is tenuously held inside a book, not a god.
And all that has torn apart the economy of the American Dream for white people.
The antibody cocktail that President Trump received for his COVID-19 infection and touted on Wednesday evening as a "cure" for the deadly virus was developed using cells derived from aborted fetal tissue, a practice the White House and anti-abortion rights groups oppose.
You can live in the 18th century or the 21st. You can't pick and choose.
Trump supporters, encouraged by Trump's words, were caught red-handed trying to violently overthrow the Michigan government and were willing to kill officers to get that Christian work done.
Trump Suggests Gold Star Families May Be to Blame for His Infection
The president, who is counting on support from military members and their families, suggested for the second time in a week that they might have spread the coronavirus at the White House.
Dan, Craig goes on and on and on and on about god's justice and god's supranatural being.
While being unable to address the most significant crimes against justice and morality that we currently face as a nation. Many of them are itemized in my many comments above.
But Craig is silent, while he goes on and on and on and on and on... about god.
Marshal and his extreme right wing lying brothers.
Earlier tonight [yesterday] a Trump supporting fascist confronted a security guard for the local NBC News affiliate in Denver and was shot and killed. Trump supporters started lying and saying their guy was shot by a Black Lives Matter protestor. Then an Antifa member. ALL LIES. Here is the story of the #denvershooting in 4 images. Fascist confronts local NBC News security guard. Fascist then slaps and assaults the security guard. Fascist then sprays bear mace at guard. Guard then shoots fascist. Fascist dies from gunshot from security guard.
Marshal: “When the left says, "whatever it takes", they're totally serious.”
Amy Ford, a West Virginia nurse who spoke at this year’s Republican National Convention, was arrested on Saturday after shooting a woman in the stomach in her hometown.
Ford, 39, who was identified as Amy Thorn in the court filing, was charged with malicious or unlawful assault after shooting a woman in her abdomen in Williamson, West Virginia. The victim has been identified by WSAZ -TV as Jonda Whitt.
One last time, Marshal. Answer the questions or move on. Your posts that refuse to answer the questions FIRST will be deleted. I'm not looking for you to offer a bunch of ultraright wing zealots to defend why YOU don't have to answer the questions. You just need to answer the questions.
1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?
2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?
and let me clarify that 2nd question: I'm NOT looking for isolated extreme right zealots who might be historians who individually disagree with the mainstream historians assessment of Trump as amongst the worst. (And seriously, Gingrich? The man who believes that lies and dirty tricks and stupid attacks are all okay in the politics game because it's all a game to him? HE is a large part of the reason that a corrupt con man like Trump is in power in the first place!).
I'm looking for you to show me a SURVEY of HISTORIANS, plural, where there is a significant cross section of historians (conservative and liberal and moderate) who assess Trump as NOT amongst the worst of presidents, or even (and truly, this does not exist outside of ultra right circles) think he's a half way decent president. SHOW me that survey OR admit that it does not exist.
Any nonsense like you just tried will be deleted. IF you answer the questions, I will allow some nonsensical tripe like you tried to post as support. But first, answer the questions.
My place, my rules.
The facts are: Historians from across the political spectrum DO assess Trump as a disaster and that there ARE NO surveys finding historians from across the political spectrum rating Trump as even a middling president.
Show me I'm wrong or admit that I'm right. That's what you need to do if you want to comment here.
AAANNND we see once again your incredibly unChristian lack of integrity. Look at question 2 from your original comment:
"2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?"
I put the salient words in bold to point out there were three options from which to choose to respond. This is evidenced by "or" separating each instead of "and". I certainly provided data to rebuke what you presented, and my small list stands as a poll. It was certainly not a standard poll where the four I listed responded to the exact same question from a sole source, but as I gathered them under the premise of those who rank him highly, it satisfies. YOUR complaint is that they counter your weak sources.
I debunked the claim of bi-partisanship of the first link by my offerings describing just how biased to the left the APSA is. A conservative NeverTrumper isn't unbiased and does not constitute bi-partisanship. I saw nothing in the survey listing the participants and showing their political leanings, though I simply may have missed it. I was going mostly on what the article tried to present and that alone does little to provoked any sense the survey is worth a damn. What makes it worse is to pretend any ranking of Trump putting him behind a guy who died on his 32nd day in office is legitimate. The article clearly states participants doing just that.
You're such a cowardly pussy. No honor and certainly no sign of Christianity.
My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I've explained what I'm looking for, and it's not 3 or 4 isolated right wing extremists disagreeing with mainstream historians.
Try again. Answer the questions as asked and clarified.
When your theology, Stan - "Who we are at home affects who we are in business (for instance) and so on. I'm not sure how to differentiate. And I'm not sure that the consequences occur in the specific area of life that the sin is in” -
Cannot direct your decision making - "7 Reasons Why It Is Possible for Christians to Vote for Trump in 2020 Without Getting a Defiled Conscience and/or Losing Their Soul” -
Craig: "You're like the folx who respond to the question, "What is a woman?" with "A woman is anyone who says they're a woman."
It would be enlightening to have Craig define what is a woman and then find out that any one category always has tens of thousands to a million exceptions.
[Chris] Wallace wanted to clarify that Buttigieg would be okay with late-term abortion and pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.
"That's right," responded Buttiegieg, "representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Trump is making Americans pay for his mistakes and still buy the election.
"For the American farmers President Trump counts on for support, the government money is flowing faster than ever.
Federal payments to farmers are projected to hit a record $46 billion this year as the White House funnels money to Mr. Trump’s rural base in the South and Midwest ahead of Election Day.
The gush of funds has accelerated in recent weeks as the president looks to help his core supporters who have been hit hard by the double whammy of his combative trade practices and the coronavirus pandemic. According to the American Farm Bureau, debt in the farm sector is projected to increase by 4 percent to a record $434 billion this year and farm bankruptcies have continued to rise across the country."
Marshal: “When the left says, "whatever it takes", they're totally serious.” California’s attorney general and secretary of state told Republicans on Monday to knock it off after election officials reported that the state party had been breaking the law by placing makeshift, unauthorized ballot dropoff boxes around the state and falsely labeling them “official.”
Following reports of the mysterious ballot collection boxes on Sunday, the chief of California’s elections division released a statement saying “the use of unauthorized, non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes does not comply with state law governing ballot collection activities.”
After the state GOP defended its use of makeshift ballot drop boxes falsely labeled "official," authorities issued a cease-and-desist order.
Craig: "Virtually every big corruption story has ended with either nothing or with some lower level people convicted of process crimes. I think part of the problem is that too many on the left get caught up in the jumping to conclusions part of the accusations, and ignore the actual results."
If Obama had paid off a porn star, or said he grabbed women by the pussy, he wouldn't have been nominated. He wouldn't have been a Senator. He wouldn't have been a State Senator. Take all the days of Trump after and pile them on that.
You all would have vilified him. Except we wouldn't even have known his name.
"'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cummin and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law-justice, mercy, good faith! These you should have practised, those not neglected. You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels! Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of cup and dish and leave the inside full of extortion and intemperance. Blind Pharisee! Clean the inside of cup and dish first so that it and the outside are both clean. Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of corruption."
They would have vilified him. We know this because the Right vilified/vilifies him, anyway. Even though he is a boy scout, by all modern standards.
Hypocrisy has a special place in hell. Over-the-board hypocrisy probably won't even make it as far "up" as hell. There's probably a place below the ruined and overflowing outhouse of hell for modern Trump/McConnell/Graham style hypocrites.
BTW...I've been going over this "conversation" between us, and I've been remiss in one way, having to do with your questions...as leading as they are. So I will now answer at least those referring to the that part of your "evidence" I addressed so far:
"1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?"
This is easy. My answer is "yes, I acknowledge that the historians you've selected have been very harshly critical of Trump". But given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little. The few historians I've provided, none of whom are "extremists" simply because they disagree with your biased people, by the way, clearly deal with Trump's policies and actions. Yours don't. Nothing in the survey of the first link provides ANY such review, and your other two links deal with the irrelevant. That is to say, if you're concerned with style points, grammar and the willingness to take shit from the lesser individuals among his political opponents...well, yeah...he ranks low in terms of being "presidential". But anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person. You're not honest enough to see anything other than these un-serious "historians" ranked him last.
Well, that's a half-hearted answer, but let's look at it.
Marshal... "he few historians I've provided, none of whom are "extremists" simply because they disagree with your biased people, by the way, clearly deal with Trump's policies and actions. Yours don't. "
1. The Sienna poll rates the presidents based upon...
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
These are the measures they've used for rating presidents since 1982. These are the measures that had them rate Reagan highly.
1a. Do you acknowledge that they're not basing it on nothing, but on these consistent assessments that they've used each year?
1b. Do you think they were right when they assessed Reagan highly?
1c. Do you think they were not "un-serious" when they rated highly but now they ARE "un-serious?" What do you base that upon?
1d. Do you acknowledge you have no reason to suggest any bias or being "un-serious" with these historians? You don't know them or a single thing about them other than you (a non-historian) rank Trump low and that makes you sad?
Here's a second survey (a different one than the Sienna survey) and they rank him low/near bottom as well. Including the conservative respondents.
"Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics."
Marshal... My answer is "yes, I acknowledge that the historians you've selected have been very harshly critical of Trump".
A. Do you acknowledge that these are not "historians I've selected," they are the mixed group of historians (from conservative to liberal) who've assessed presidents since 1982?
Marshal... given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little.
I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president.
B. Now, YOU SAY that this is insufficient data to assess him on, but says who? Which group of authorities says you have to wait four years to reasonably assess a president, especially one who has so many tragic flaws?
C. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group survey or poll of political scientists or historians where the collective consensus is that Trump has been a fair or even a good president?
Marshal... But anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person.
There are multiple surveys/polls of multiple groups/experts. I'm not talking about "after 32 days," but after a year in office. After two years in office.
D. Do you see that distinction and acknowledge that the "32 day" concern is not valid?
Marshal... anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person.
Says the guy who is not a professional political scientist, or historian or an expert in any way in political matters. But the point here is that MANY experts across multiple fields of expertise (political scientists, state department experts, generals and military experts, historians, scientists, etc) have gathered together to say that Trump is unfit, that he's a bad president, that he's not up to the job.
And again, there is no similar survey of GROUPS of historians, political scientists, state department experts, generals and military leaders, scientists, and other experts who are collectively assessing Trump as a net-positive president.
NOT ONE.
E. On what basis should anyone heed your opinion over and against all these collected groups of experts?
F. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group of experts from across the political spectrum who are assessing Trump as a net-positive president?
Please answer.
Note: Your inability or refusal to answer these questions will, itself, be an answer.
No. There ARE no groups of experts in any given field from across the political spectrum who have assessed Trump's presidency as positive or even middling.
No. You didn't complain when this collective group of historians rated Reagan highly (relatively).
Yes. These assessments have come after months and years of watching Trump's job performance and it's based on his actual performance and actual serious deficits, NOT for reasons of "bias."
No. You have NO proof or evidence that these experts are criticizing Trump because of "bias." It is a made up and unsupported claim that you CAN'T support because it's made up.
No. There is no huge reason to accept the actually biased opinion of non-experts (such as yourself) over and against the opinion of experts as being more valid or informed than the experts' collective opinions.
So, if you want to cede these realities, just remain silent. It's obvious, anyway.
Trump is the Commander in Conspiracy: creating national security risks for the nation.
But Marshal, Craig, and Stan, et al, are on a Salem witch hunt targeting the marginalized: the only thing that undergirds their relic of a faith.
"Former spooks told Business Insider that Rudy Giuliani's role in a widely discredited New York Post story and President Donald Trump's willingness to seize on it highlights how vulnerable they are to being duped by Russian intelligence.
Giuliani's access to Trump, the two men's personality traits, their eagerness to obtain dirt on the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, and unwillingness to acknowledge Russian interference makes them a goldmine for foreign intelligence services, former spies said.
They are "grotesquely vulnerable, exploitable targets" and "any foreign intelligence service would be derelict if they did not try to exploit this," said a former CIA covert operative.
Steve Hall, the CIA's former chief of Russia operations, also said Trump and Giuliani's tendency to traffic in conspiracies and the rise of misinformation in right-wing media mean "we're doing a lot of [Russia's] work for them."
Some responses to Marshal I offered at Craig's place and who knows if he'll post them...
Marshal... His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms...
"For the sixth time since its inception in 1982, the Siena College Research Institute’s (SCRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents finds that experts rank Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as the United States’ top five chief executives...
“The serving president has entered the survey between 15th , Obama, and 23rd , G.W. Bush, as scholars begin to observe their accomplishments, assess their abilities and study their attributes.
This year, Donald Trump enters the survey at 42nd,
and he is only ranked outside of the bottom five in two of the twenty categories that scholars use to assess the presidents, ‘luck’ and ‘willingness to take risks,’” said Levy."
1. They're not "my" historians. These are historians (in one survey) connected to the Sienna College Survey Institute. They've been doing this since 1982. They are comprised of historians with conservative, moderate and liberal backgrounds. In the past they have ranked Reagan relatively high.
I don't recall you complaining when they did that. Is that correct?
Do you acknowledge that these are respected historians from a respected institution with a long history of doing these surveys?
Do you acknowledge that you have no data about these historians on which you could legitimately make a charge of bias against them?
Note the date: Feb 2019. Trump began showing his "prowess" as president as he ran starting in 2015 and he served for two years (2017, 2018) when this survey was completed. Thus, it's not based on "barely a year in office," but two years, and also they could observe his run for office to help inform them of Trump's ineptitude and corruption.
Do you acknowledge that this survey was done with two full years of data on Trump's presidency and not "barely one..."?
And they rate the candidates based on twenty categories of assessment...
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
Marshal... Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's
Well, that is one NON-EXPERT's opinion. And it's not worth much. Trump's tax and regulatory policies have been a disaster. Do you KNOW how much we're in debt right now due in part to those policies? Do you KNOW what economic experts have to say about Trump's policies?
Trump inherited a recovering economy from Obama (after the economy had been wrecked under the previous GOP administration) with unemployment trending downwards and has devastated it. Yes, for the first three years, Trump didn't train wreck the economic recovery begun under Obama, but it was predictable.
Hint: You CAN'T cut taxes way back (and especially for the rich) AND continue to increase spending without having a deficit. Economics 101. SOME times, during hard economic times (the Great Depression, Bush's Great Recession, for example), it is justifiable to do deficit spending to help the economy recover. But Trump increased deficit spending during relatively good economic times. The man is a moron who knows how to increase wealth for the wealthy (which he WAS good at), but not so much for the rest of us.
Your claim is a non-expert, unsupported and partisan claim and has no bearing on the quality of the assessment of professional historians.
From economic experts in 2018 (speaking about the great growth in the economy during Trump's first two years...)
"His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don’t believe it will last.
They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020."
It couldn't last and economic experts and historians and policy experts all could see that in 2018. He gets SOME credit for not immediately destroying the recovering economy he inherited from Obama, but ultimately, not so much.
It's like this: IF I go into great debt and have fun buying boats and cars and NOT investing in things like my house and education, etc, things may FEEL great for a few months or even a few years. But ultimately, reality will catch up to me.
Reagan had his voodoo economics. Trump has his magical thinking economics.
You can't "speak the economy" into good times, any more than you can "speak a coronavirus" into submission by promising "it won't last" and "it will be gone with the warm weather" and "we're going to have a cure any day now..."
He's an irrational magic thinker con man and people who understand math recognize the con.
Marshal, do you buy lottery tickets as your plan for retirement?
There's so much to unpack here and I don't have the time at present. I may go point by point as time allows, or I may simply wait until the end of the week when I have more time to spend. We'll see how my week goes (once again, I work 12 hr days, so time is precious). For now I want to point out one thing that marks your lack of integrity. You responded to a comment of mine that was based on the links you had provided at the time I posted it with a reference to a link you added since. That's called, "moving the goal posts", and in this case to entirely different playing field. Here's what I mean:
I said...
"...given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little."
You responded...
"I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president."
But you didn't provide criteria initially. Indeed, I was unable to find criteria for any of your initial three links regarding "historian" ranking of Trump. Your criteria now refers to a new link of a different survey, which I'll critique later (Sienna). I was referring to the American Political Science Association poll which provided nothing regarding how they arrived at their ranking. With regard to that poll, you make another error in responding:
"There are multiple surveys/polls of multiple groups/experts. I'm not talking about "after 32 days," but after a year in office. After two years in office."
First of all, both of your polls mentioned above were done in 2018...neither were "after" 2018, unless I'm misreading something somewhere. Thus, the body of work being assessed in compared to full terms in most of the other 43 cases. More concerning here, though, is the "after 32 days" corruption. My reference to Harrison's unfortunate situation of dying in office after 32 days necessarily demands he be either omitted from consideration, or placed last in every poll due to lack of record to assess. Said again as before, how could an honest historian rank Trump below a guy who for all intents and purposes, didn't even serve? It can only be the result of left-wing bias and I provided a link describing theirs (APSA).
That's all the time I have right now. Please have some honor (you know...embrace grace) and don't delete any of my comments. My full responses that you deleted are at my blog if you have the courage to face them. Choosing only those comments you think you can rebut while avoiding those you can't is not an example of integrity.
Marshal... "But you didn't provide criteria initially. Indeed, I was unable to find criteria for any of your initial three links regarding "historian" ranking of Trump. Your criteria now refers to a new link of a different survey, which I'll critique later (Sienna)."
I've been referring to multiple experts across several fields, all who have been consistently as groups criticizing Trump. I have not given an exhaustive list of all the sources, partially because I sort of assumed that informed adults in the United States are aware of all the expert opinion opposed to Trump and the lack of expert opinion in support of him.
The point being, citizens should be aware that historians have collectively been surveyed and found Trump wanting. Mental health experts, political science experts, military Generals and experts, medical experts, science experts, etc etc etc... all have been raising red flags all over the place saying this man is unfit for office. This man is amongst the worst presidents in our history. This man is exhibiting signs of significant mental illness. This man is actively hostile towards expert and scientific opinion. This man is not Adept at listening to his advisers or understanding what they're saying. In area after area, field after field, Trump has been significantly inept as to raise concerns among groups of experts in those fields. And this is unique. You can't point two groups of historians, groups of mental health experts, groups of medical experts, groups of generals, groups of political scientist, Etc who raised red flags about Obama or Bush or Clinton.
Do you acknowledge the reality of that claim?
So go ahead and read about the Sienna historians, if you want. The point will remain the same. In field after field, groups of experts find this president inept and troubling.
Don't TELL me you're going to answer the questions and then spend a lot of words not answering the questions. Just answer the questions when you can. For go away.
Any comments that are not answers to questions will be deleted. I'm just asking you the very reasonable thing to respect the conversation and answer the questions that are put to you.
Telling me that you have been answering them is not answering the question. Telling me that you will answer them is not answering the question. Answering the questions is answering the questions.
One other thing occurred to me which I forgot to mention:
"I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president."
Neither of the surveys to which you linked assess more than one year of Trump's presidency. I believe it was at Craig's where you refer to the date the Sienna piece was published as if it proves it reviews two years of Trump's presidency. This might have been convincing were it not for the fact the article itself says each of the surveys Sienna conducted since its first comes at the end of the current president's first year in office. This bolsters my objection against making too much of any historian's assessment of a current president, regardless of the historian's personal opinion of the guy. Frankly, I don't know that any historian with integrity would think it appropriate to judge Obama at that point given his term just ended. Of course he never did much if any significance, and his one defining piece of legislation was already doing the opposite of what it was promised to do. So there's that.
As if Marshal or Stan or Craig know how to think about history. This from Stan's post today:
"Why are we bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer the major influence that it was when the nation began? Why are we surprised that faith is moved out of politics, out of the public square?"
Actually, those of us who live in the Spirit always celebrate that we have moved out of the christian faith that build a nation of aliens out of genocide and slavery.
And we celebrate - in the public square - that victorious work of the Holy Spirit in history. That's why you have to shun history: they shun the Spirit who is not in a book, and so cannot see god moving in history. They make it up according to the tastes of their puritanical brutality.
Further to the point of fundamentalists being unable to understand the project and work of history, Craig's response to Stan consists of this:
"I'd argue that the lack of decline on Christian influence is related to the increased coarsening of society in general. I wouldn't say that I "bemoan" the change, just that in some areas of society there have been declines that seem to parallel the decline of Christianity as an influence."
To which Stan gives us the awkward, "I guess that might be a suitable answer to the question. "I'm bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer a major influence because Christianity is a positive influence on a society and we're removing that influence." But it's not, "We ought to have that kind of influence.”
To which historically informed Christians like yourself and me, respond, christians DO have influence: check out President Obama singing Amazing Grace. It’s just your brutalizing radical puritanism that doesn’t: at least not good influence.
And if this were 1820, I'd have challenged both of you to a duel for your infamy and lies about sooooooo many actually good people.
Why is it - not just some here and there - but like 40 million white people can say that American society is coarser than 250 years ago?
Only white people, and brutalizing men like Craig, Stan, and Marshal with CHRISTIAN fervor, erase slavery and systemic misogyny and all the decades of violence upon violence through Jim Crow and lynchings.
Why? Because the originating platform of protestantism is to deny the history of the life of the Holy Spirit in the church from after the last apostle's death to 1536.
They believe a god rejecting lie and so... they lie.
Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers. It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them. Deleting my answers is NOT respecting the conversation. It's just the opposite. It's cowardly, dishonest and so typical of a date Christian. In other words, it's you.
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
Before you attempt to make other comments here you must answer this question.
2. The reality is, this comment, just like the ones before it, does not answer any of the questions put to you. You are making commentary about whether you will or won't answer questions. That is not answering questions. I'm expecting you to answer the questions that have been asked of you.
I will delete your comments above soon, because it does not answer any questions. But I'll leave it up long enough for you to see that it does not answer any questions and admit that.
Marshal: “Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers. It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them.”
Ditto, hypocrite Christian.. My comments are rational, intelligent, and thoroughly impossible for to disprove within reason. ___
Craig: "Virtually every big corruption story has ended with either nothing or with some lower level people convicted of process crimes. I think part of the problem is that too many on the left get caught up in the jumping to conclusions part of the accusations, and ignore the actual results."
If Obama had paid off a porn star, or said he grabbed women by the pussy, he wouldn't have been nominated. He wouldn't have been a Senator. He wouldn't have been a State Senator. Take all the days of Trump after and pile them on that.
You all would have vilified him. Except we wouldn't even have known his name.
"But let me get this straight: am I now supposed to respond to the question "Do you understand that reality?" This is a perfect example of the problem.
You insist you've presented a reality... which is not just your subjectivd opinion, but an outright lie... and then you expect acceptance of your "reality", which in fact is a lie. Because it's a lie, my answer can only be "no"."
I'm speaking of YOUR comment above, the last one. It does NOT answer ANY questions I've asked here. What it does is complain that I deleted your previous comments. It literally does not answer a single question that I've asked you.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
If you think your previous comment that remains answers a question I've asked, then all you have to do is post that question and show me how the last comment answers it.
This is the problem I'm having dealing with your type of conservative. You don't appear to be operating from a place of reality, a recognition of reality in the real world.
Last chance: Admit that your comment does NOT answer any questions I've asked or show how it does, citing the question that is being answered.
Is it the case you're just not understanding the question? That you don't know how to answer the question? You keep commenting with comments that aren't answers to the questions being asked.
You want to try it one more time, do it this way:
1. Type in my question that you're answering,
2. then say, "Here is my answer to that question..."
Just to use your last (now deleted) comment to show how you're literally NOT answering the questions asked... Here's what you said in your LAST comment that I did not delete (calling it EXHIBIT A, for clarity)...
EXHIBIT A: Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers.
It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them.
Deleting my answers is NOT respecting the conversation.
It's just the opposite.
It's cowardly, dishonest and so typical of a date Christian.
In other words, it's you.
And here was my simple and plain request to you...
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
In other words, you put down a bunch of words that were attacking me, that were complaining about my deleting your words, but literally DID NOT ANSWER ANY questions.
I then asked if you understood THAT.
Are you not understanding? WHAT are you not understanding?
I'm asking YOU if YOU understand the reality that your comment above does NOT answer any questions (and it literally doesn't).
Here was your latest response to that simple request.
I'll play. I understand that some of my responses don't answer some of your questions to your satisfaction...
No, that was NOT my question. I did not ask you if "some of your responses" didn't answer some of my questions to my satisfaction. I asked if you recognized that your EXHIBIT A response did not answer ANY questions AT ALL?
The answer to that is either yes or no. IF you think that EXHIBIT A answers some questions that I've asked, THEN the rational response is something like:
"No, and I'll tell you why. YOU asked... "..."
and there you would copy and paste my question...
"And I responded to THAT question by saying... "..."
and there you would copy and paste the answer to that question.
Do you understand NOW what you're doing wrong?
Continuing with your last non-answer response...
a standard which you've made impossible to comprehend.
Okay, NOW I have made it possible for you to comprehend. IF YOU STILL don't comprehend, just say, "I'm sorry Dan, I don't comprehend... what do you need from me?" or words to that effect.
Continuing your last non-answer response...
But the questions you claim haven't been answered by the comments you've deleted sought clarification as well as pointed out how your claims of consensus among the many groups of "experts" are false.
? I'm asking YOU if you understand that EXHIBIT A does not answer any questions. This is not an answer to that question. It literally isn't.
Continuing...
My comments you deleted were specific to one example of "data" you provided, leaving other areas to be addressed later. I very likely could have covered those areas had you not spent so much time engaging in your usual deceitful antics.
Again, this simply isn't a answer to the question:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?
I don't know how else to help you. IF you admit that EXHIBIT A does not answer any questions, you say, "YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT." That's all.
IF you think that EXHIBIT A DOES answer one of my questions, THEN copy/paste and quote my question THEN copy/paste and quote your response (from EXHIBIT A) that answers that question.
You're wasting time with crap, Dan. Just as you always do. If you don't like my answers, restate the question that is of most importance to you. Good gosh, you're pathetic!! You, of all people, have the gall to question how others respond to questions! The arrogance!! The hubris!! The deceitfulness!! If you'd stop deleting my comments in the first place, and stop wasting time on crap, we'd be much further along...except that you can't muddy the waters that have washed your idiotic positions away. Go ahead and delete this, you fake Christian. My week's coming to an end and I can then respond more fully to whatever the hell you want. You are so pathetic!
...and there it is. You either simply CAN'T or WON'T actually answer the questions that are being asked of you. I'll leave this as your final comment, a testament to your befuddled mind and confused and complete impotency in the face of being audaciously asked to actually answer questions that either make your uncomfortable or just expose your hypocrisy or... who knows why you are entirely brought to your knees in a puddle of tears and anger in the face of rational questions.
Go away. Get help.
I truly don't want to expose you to the embarrassment of your own words, but if you can't engage in respectful conversation and adult, rational answers to reasonable questions, you aren't prepared to interact with adult citizens.
Some questions that castrated Marshal's ability to answer...
1. [Marshal refered to "your historians...," as if I had hand-selected some friends to say what I want...]
They're not "my" historians. These are historians (in one survey) connected to the Sienna College Survey Institute. They've been doing this since 1982. They are comprised of historians with conservative, moderate and liberal backgrounds. In the past they have ranked Reagan relatively high.
1A. I don't recall you complaining when they did that. Is that correct?
1B. Do you acknowledge that these are respected historians from a respected institution with a long history of doing these surveys?
1C. Do you acknowledge that you have no data about these historians on which you could legitimately make a charge of bias against them?
2. Note the date: Feb 2019. Trump began showing his "prowess" as president as he ran starting in 2015 and he served for two years (2017, 2018) when this survey was completed. Thus, it's not based on "barely a year in office," but two years, and also they could observe his run for office to help inform them of Trump's ineptitude and corruption.
2A. Do you acknowledge that this survey was done with two full years of data on Trump's presidency and not "barely one..."?
NOTE: Marshal at some point has tried to address this ONE question by saying that, although the poll results were released in Feb 2019, that he thinks (based on what?) that it only covered Trump's first year "barely," as I recall. Given that response, two new questions...
2B. I don't know that this matters. After one year of his presidency, we could already see the corruption, the daily endless lies, false claims, unsupported claims, the unrelenting and childish attacks on the press, liberals, Democrats and conservatives who dared disagree with him, etc. Trump's level of knowledge (or lack thereof) and adult reasoning is abundantly evident even after one year and that is sufficient reason for educated scholars and average folks alike to recognize his basic unfitness for office.
What is magical about waiting four years to insist upon a fair evaluation of a madman/buffoon/corrupt/amoral and deviant person?
2C. I don't see anything in the poll data that suggests to me that the survey was completed in 2017 (Trump's first year). Do you have any reason to support that "barely one year" claim?
3. Marshal announced, with zero support, that Trump's tax and regulatory policies have "clearly and with no room for debate" done better at helping the economy than eight years of Obama policies.
3a. Do you acknowledge that you just made that claim without any economic expert support to back up your claim?
3B. Trump's tax and regulatory policies have been a disaster. Do you KNOW how much we're in debt right now due in part to those policies?
3C. Do you KNOW what economic experts have to say about Trump's policies?
4. I cited multiple experts (history, political scientists, scientists, medical and mental health experts, generals and military experts, state department experts, etc) who have joined together as groups to say that Trump is unfit (saying this in various ways). Marshal said, "nu uh! They're wrong, I'm right" (not his actual words, but that's the gist.)
4A. On what basis should anyone heed your opinion over and against all these collected groups of experts?
4B. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group of experts from across the political spectrum who are assessing Trump as a net-positive president?
For starters, these are some of the questions that have gone unanswered (although you made a couple of failed attempts that only raised more questions).
But understand, Marshal: I'm NOT inviting you to answer these questions. Not now.
IF you want to comment, you have to answer the last question put to you, to establish some grounding in reality. The question about your EXHIBIT A comment talked about in my October 21, 2020 at 5:38 AM comment.
But I really just want you to go away. I just don't think you're up to adult conversation. More's the pity.
Yet another conservative Republican coming out against Trump and pro-Biden, NOT because he's a liberal or a Democrat, but because Trump is an "outlaw president."
Former RNC Chair Michael Steele "...joins a growing list of Republicans to formally endorse Biden for president."
Steele said a crisis looms, with an “outlaw president (Trump), clinging to power and defying the will of the people.”
Though a lifelong Republican who asserts “and I’m still a Republican”, Steele urged voters to elect Democrats Joe Biden, a “good man” and “trailblazer” Kamala Harris, adding they would ensure an “orderly transfer of power”.
A vote for Trump would “plunge our country into chaos,” the former lieutenant governor of Maryland said.
“America or Trump? I choose America,” Steele added.
There are sooo many of them, it is historic. The GOP was broken when Bush lied to the country. Setting it up for being taken over by an irrational rage machine voting against their own interests. The "pro life" charade is the only platform keeping it together besides the thrill to the white brutality of misogyny, racism, and bigotry.
Another way of thinking about this unprecedented opposition to Trump from across the political spectrum including large groups of people, experts and authorities from across the political spectrum, is to think about what if this had happened with Obama?
What if Obama had been opposed by Bill Clinton?! Can you imagine?
What if the chiefs of staff who formally served with Obama and with Clinton all spoke out against Obama and encouraged Democrats to vote for the OTHER party instead of Obama?! Can you see how shocking that would be? How unbelievable?
What if science organizations came out and encouraged people in an unprecedented manner to vote against Obama? What if hundreds ! of generals and admirals and military leaders and experts all signed a letter speaking out against Obama?
What if a recent leader of the DNC encouraged people to vote for the Republican instead of Obama, saying that Obama was unfit and an outlaw president?!
What if historians had ranked Obama as one of the five worst presidents in US history?!
And what if this ALL had happened, not just one of these options, but all of them had happened with Obama? It is unprecedented. And truly, it can only mean one thing. We need to understand that. It could only mean one thing.
For ALL these groups and individuals and organizations and authorities from across the political spectrum to come out and encourage people to vote against Obama could only mean that Obama was truly wildly unfit for office.
It wouldn't - couldn't! - mean that all these people had become conservative. It wouldn't mean that there's some vast right-wing conspiracy.
It would have meant that Obama was unfit. Period.
That's the only rational conclusion one could reach.
If Donald Trump seems more desperate than most incumbents about the coming election, he may have good reason: Presidents do not typically have to worry about going to prison if they lose.
But Trump’s activities in recent years ― from paying hush money to a porn star to his claiming of a massive tax refund to obstructing an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia ― combined with a ticking statute of limitations clock potentially make Election Day far more consequential for him than it had been for his predecessors.
If Trump wins a second term, the time limit for starting a prosecution would run out in the next four years for a number of those activities, given Justice Department guidelines not to prosecute a sitting president. If Trump loses, indictments could quickly follow.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
I also understand that you asking is just another distraction and waste of time. It means nothing...has no significance...except to provide you with some empty victory. Well, congratulations. Can we move on now? You've just provided me with a host of rehashed questions you haven't let be answer.
Marshal, I have serious doubts as to your ability to understand reality. When you keep making comments that don't seem to be connected with reality, when you ignore questions and answer other questions so, when you say you've answered questions and attack me for deleting your comments when your comments were not answering the questions, that makes me question your grounding in reality.
The comments that I deleted, at least the last several, those comments were you complaining about me deleting comments. They were NOT an answer to any questions. You've admitted it now. An adult would have the decency to apologize for going on and on about how you where maligned when all I did was delete comments that were not answers.
Marshal... "I also understand that you asking is just another distraction and waste of time. It means nothing..."
1. It's a distraction and a waste of time because YOU made four or five comments and spent time writing hundreds of words when all you had to do was answer the question and say, Yes.
YOU are the one who made it a waste of time. Do you understand that? That YOU were the one who wasted time by not just admitting reality?
All my references to being deleted were to the original responses you deleted which are now posted in their entirety at my blog. More recent deletions are inconsequential because what you deleted were responses mocking you for your petulant whining, which results in the whole process being convoluted and difficult to follow, as you continue to do so now with your twisted demand I should abide your self-serving corruption of "reality". THAT is what wastes everyone's time...you droning on about "reality". I'm far more aware of reality than you, and when I return to address all of your other dustortions, it'll be easy to prove it for you. THEN we'll see who accepts "reality".
So go ahead and delete this comment. It doesn't matter to me.
Marshal... " THAT is what wastes everyone's time...you droning on about "reality"."
So, I respectfully ask you to answer some specific questions and even give you a format for doing so. YOU then go on the attack, time after time, saying you WERE answering questions and, then, once you were called on it, you had to back down and admit that you WEREN'T answering the question that was asked of you, and now, you have the nerve to say I'M wasting time?
Again, a rational adult who has been caught in a mistake will own up to it, admit it, apologize for it and move on. The thing is, Marshal, you are being schooled in how to have a respectful adult, Christian conversation and you reject it at every turn.
If you can't discourse responsibly and respectfully and rationally, just go away.
Now, at this point, you can choose to apologize for the attacks and the blaming for what turned out to be YOUR mistakes, not mine and we can move on. Or you can go all Trump on us and act like a whining child trying to be a bully but lacking the intellectual wherewithal to do so.
I will be most eager to get back to it, but your claim to be the respectful half of this back and forth is ludicrous and a decided rejection of reality. There's nothing at all respectful in deleting comments which, unlike many of yours in recent months, are neither filled with the most vilgar profanity or willful...and in some cases, constant...distortions. But it's the deleting which is most concerning. You have much to which I'm most eager to respond. I don't wish to take the time only to see you once again delete my words when they don't fulfill your despotic and ever-changing criteria. That's not respectful, mature and by no means Christian no matter how you corrupt the term. Thus, I'd like some assurance my comments will stand.
BTW, if you do not give me that assurance, it means you know you are wrong and it is YOU who is unwilling to own up to your mistake (could take a lifetime, I know, but I'm just referring to this thread). I don't run from challenges in discourse. You do all the time. Now you can reverse that somewhat by giving me that assurance.
Of course, the reality is, there's nothing disrespectful when I have requested specifically that you specifically answer the specific questions I've asked you and you've chosen to disrespect the process and the conversation by not answering those questions.
As we see you have already admitted at least in one case, after much struggle, that you were not answering a question.
So again, the ball is in your park. Apologize for the false claims and the attacks and just move on and we can move on. But you have to show me you're engaging in a respectful conversation.
Marshal's preferred politics - and that of Craig and Stan and Glenn - is led by a guy who has to be muted so a debate can happen.
Their preferred politics is led by a guy whose campaign consulted Dr Fauci about the removal of partitions for the debate... three days after calling Dr. Fauci a "disaster" and how "people are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong."
Why wonder why their idea of Christian life in the 21st century is failing badly and rapidly?
In the meantime, you've been whining about questions not being answered and pretending you're the forthcoming one. Yet, you can't even answer whether or not you'll grant assurances my comments won't be deleted after taking the time to once again give you what you demand. But then, you always did dig irony.
Do what's it gonna be? Many insist dealing with you is a waste of time. I'm still willing if you guarantee I won't be deleted.
YOU claimed repeatedly that I was deleting comments that WERE answering questions.
I said you weren't.
I THEN pointed to EXHIBIT A, your comment that I left and said, "See? There are NO answers to any of these questions I've asked you."
You responded with spitting vitriol and complaining that I WAS deleting your comments with answers.
I responded saying, "LOOK at the post that's still there. There are LITERALLY NO answers to questions in it."
You kept responding to that, saying you were answering. I kept deleting.
You then said...
"But let me get this straight: am I now supposed to respond to the question "Do you understand that reality?" This is a perfect example of the problem.
You insist you've presented a reality... which is not just your subjectivd opinion, but an outright lie... and then you expect acceptance of your "reality", which in fact is a lie. Because it's a lie, my answer can only be "no"."
What I had said was IN EXHIBIT A, there were literally no answers.
YOU responded by saying it was an "outright lie."
MY comment was NOT a lie. It was a lie to call my comment (that there were NO answers in your EXHIBIT A), because there WERE no answers in that comment.
Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment. YOU were mistaken, then, to say it was a false claim.
But instead of owning it, even after you agreed that my comment was factually correct, you then say you've made no false claims.
One time, you responded by saying "No," to my question:
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?""
And then, why I explained and explained and explained it to you, you APPEAR to have said, YES to that question. But now you're back to saying you've made no false claims.
What is a reasonable person to do with such double-mindedness and nonsensical irrationality?
What I had said was IN EXHIBIT A, there were literally no answers.
YOU responded by saying it was an "outright lie."
++++++
I think what's happening here is that you were NOT responding to my actual comment that I was asking you to address. You were responding to some comments that no longer exist (I deleted them because they did not answer any questions).
But I left the ONE comment, EXHIBIT A, to get you to admit the reality that THAT COMMENT was answering no questions. You continued insisting that you had answered. I was asking SPECIFICALLY about the one comment that still existed, and maybe you had in your head that you were speaking to OTHER comments that didn't answer any questions that were deleted. But I wasn't speaking about what was gone. I was asking about the one that remained.
Now, if you were responding to something OTHER than the one I was asking about, then you misunderstood and answered wrongly.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were answering the specific question I asked. Maybe you weren't. Who knows, at this point?
I suspect you just drowned yourself in a puddle of your words and got confused, but all I know for certain is that I asked a very specific question and you responded and your response was literally a false claim.
Now, if you recognize where you messed up, just say so. Quit dragging this out.
Marshal is asking me to reassure him that I won't delete his answers if he posts them. This, in a post where I endlessly have asked him for answers to the questions being asked and have allowed some to remain when they ARE at least attempting to answer, and even some to remain when they don't answer the questions... ALL in an attempt to get him to answer questions.
Read slowly and comprehend:
IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS, those answers won't be deleted. THE ANSWERS are what I'm seeking, why would I delete them?
BUT, if they do not answer questions, then they will be deleted. THAT's the point. I WANT you to answer questions.
And now we've gone on for, what? Fifty comments on me TRYING to get you to answer questions directly and you dodging and fussing that I've deleted comments that weren't answers?
Just answer the questions and the LAST questions I asked and the ones I want you to answer first are:
1. DO you recognize that your EXHIBIT A comment did NOT answer any questions that were asked?
2. DO you recognize, then, that when you said I was lying when I said that it didn't answer any questions, that THAT claim was, itself, a lie/a false claim?
"1. DO you recognize that your EXHIBIT A comment did NOT answer any questions that were asked?"
I totally answered this question. You even acknowledge I answered it in your comment from October 22, 2020 at 6:13 PM. It's pretty bad when you don't even read your own comments, much less those of your opponents.
"2. DO you recognize, then, that when you said I was lying when I said that it didn't answer any questions, that THAT claim was, itself, a lie/a false claim?"
I don't know that my saying you lied referred to this particular question. With your deleting my responses, it's hard to say exactly what's what anymore. You once again done a great job muddying the waters. Hence my request for assurances.
So I'm just going to go ahead and respond in full at my blog, since you lack the courage and integrity, to say nothing of lacking maturity and any hint of Christianity, to treat me fairly (a hilarious notion given your history, especially in recent years). You're more than welcome to visit there to defend yourself if you think you can. But since you can't, I don't expect you will.
The problem is, Marshal, that ONE time you answered NO and said it was a lie (that you didn't answer my question) and the second time you said YES, Exhibit A answered NO questions. THEN, following that, you repeated that you hadn't lied/made a false claim.
It can't be ALL those things at once. I'm just trying to establish you in reality.
EVEN HERE, when you "answer" question 1. above, you don't "affirm, YES, I recognize that Exhibit A didn't answer any questions." You cite an earlier comment of mine that is seeking to get clarification of your contradictory answers.
JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION directly and without equivocating.
I did answer it as you acknowledge in your October 22, 2020 at 6:13 PM and did so in a truly direct and unequivocal manner. To wit:
"Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment."
And there you have it. Question asked and answered. Just copy/paste that to every additional attempt of your to ask the damned question yet again and we'll be good...supposedly.
Yet, you won't answer my one question regarding giving me assurances I won't be deleted if I attempt to post.
YES, EXHIBIT A answers NO questions - and when you said it did answer questions, you were mistaken.
Or NO, EXIBIT A DOES answer questions and you made no false claims.
WHICH is it?
IF the answer is YES, then when you claimed that the answer was no and that I was lying about it not answering questions, you were mistaken and making a false claim.
"Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment."
And there you have it. Question asked and answered. Just copy/paste that to every additional attempt of your to ask the damned question yet again and we'll be good...supposedly.
A far-right extremist has been charged for alleged violent participation during a Minneapolis protest just days after George Floyd’s death in police custody.
Ivan Hunter of Boerne, Tex., is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in inflaming mayhem during the late May demonstrations, reported the Star Tribune on Friday.
The self-proclaimed South Texas leader of the anti-government militia group Boogaloo Bois, allegedly began firing an AK-47-type gun at the Minneapolis Police Third Precinct building while shouting, “Justice for Floyd!” as he was fleeing, according to a publicized federal complaint.
And fuck their nihilistic disregard for human life.
The US reported more than 80,000 new coronavirus infections Friday -- the highest daily case number since the pandemic began.
That comes amid other bleak patterns including rising hospitalizations and daily death tolls across the country, with experts warning that the worst is yet to come.
Craig is a racist liar. He thinks two handfuls of black conservatives are magical enough to delegitimize the voices of millions black voters. And then tries to lie about how many right wing white men were fomenting riots to defame constitutionally protected right to protest:
"Given that the news kept telling us that there were thousands of “right wing agitators “, the fact that they’ve only charge the one seems anticlimactic and ignores the fake narrative. One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
Craig is a hardcore fucking asshole liar:
Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right "boogaloo" movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.
According to the charging document, which was reviewed by Business Insider, the three defendants previously served in the US Navy, US Army, and US Air Force.
The filing also noted that the men "self-identified as part of the 'Boogaloo' movement," which prosecutors described as "a term used by extremists to signify a coming civil war and/or fall of civilization." According to the Associated Press, all three men are white.
According to the Clark Country Detention Center records, Stephen Parshall, 35, Andrew Lynam Jr., 23, and William Loomis, 40, are each being held on $1 million bond. A preliminary hearing will be held on June 17.
Lying Craig "One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.
Protesters tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters, where they set a city dump truck on fire.
Police declared the event an “unlawful assembly” and ordered people to leave, later deploying tear gas.
Six people were arrested. The mayor of Richmond thanked the Black Lives Matter protesters he said tried to stop the white supremacists from spearheading the violence.
32-year-old Mitchell Carlson is not charged with a crime in connection with the George Floyd protests but has a documented history of violence. A man seen breaking windows in a viral video of Minneapolis protests is suspected to be a known member of a white supremacist group, cops have alleged in a search warrant affidavit. The man in question, Mitchell Carlson, has not been charged with a crime.
Now, in a search warrant affidavit first reported by The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, police say they have received a tip that the man is Mitchell Carlson, “a full‐fledged member of the Hell’s Angels” and “a known associate of the Aryan Cowboys. The Aryan Cowboys are a known prison gang out of Minnesota and Kentucky.”
Accelerationism is the idea that white supremacists should try to increase civil disorder — accelerate it — in order to foster polarization that will tear apart the current political order. The System (usually capitalized), they believe, has only a finite number of collaborators and lackeys to prop it up. Accelerationists hope to set off a series of chain reactions, with violence fomenting violence, and in the ensuing cycle more and more people join the fray. When confronted with extremes, so the theory goes, those in the middle will be forced off the fence and go to the side of the white supremacists. If violence can be increased sufficiently, the System will run out of lackeys and collapse, and the race war will commence.
Neo-Nazi ideologue James Mason, one of the concept’s chief promoters, argued in the past that the goal is not just to kill minorities but, rather, “to FAN THE FLAMES!” Brenton Tarrant, who slaughtered 51 worshippers at mosques in New Zealand in 2019, took Mason’s words to heart and enthusiastically promoted the concept in his manifesto. John Earnest, who killed a worshipper at the Poway synagogue in 2019 and wounded three others, wrote, “I used a gun for the same reason that Brenton Tarrant used a gun. The goal is for the US government to start confiscating guns. People will defend their right to own a firearm—civil war has just started.”
White supremacists are gleeful as police violence and the resulting rioting tear apart cities. Even if the unrest ends in the weeks to come, they may look back at the violence as a win for their side. Some delight in the killing of George Floyd and in police violence against African Americans—“a knee is the new noose!!” exulted one sign held up by white supremacists during protests.
President Donald Trump, who declared “I don’t make money from China” in Thursday night’s presidential debate, has in fact collected millions of dollars from government-owned entities in China since he took office. Forbes estimates that at least $5.4 million has flowed into the president’s business from a lease agreement involving a state-owned bank in Trump Tower.
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China signed a lease for space in 2008, years before the president took office, paying about $1.9 million in annual rent. Trump is well-aware of the deal. “I’ll show you the Industrial Bank of China,” he told three Forbes journalists touring Trump Tower in 2015. “I have the best tenants in the world in this building.”
Trump moved from the skyscraper to the White House in 2017, but he held onto ownership of the retail and office space in the building, through his 100% interest in an entity called Trump Tower Commercial LLC. That put him in an unusual position, given that government-owned entities in China hold at least 70% of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Suddenly, a routine real estate deal became a conduit for a foreign superpower to pay the president of the United States.
Craig is again steeped in hypocritical lies: "For all of the progressive Christians who were adamant that Clinton’s character didn’t matter because his failings were in his personal life, I’m glad you’ve decided that character matters again after all these years."
YOU said character was decisive about both Clintons. WE pointed out your hypocrisy re Trump. YOU doubled down on your lying hypocrisy for hearing us say we objected to Trump's personal character. ALL THAT? Just trying to get you to stop your hypocritical lying.
WE don't give a fuck about Trump's legal immorality. Just his illegal acts.
"The poor, the sick and the suffering are no mere objects of Christian charity or even Christian justice. They are "Christ's living and transparent image. The poor, the sick, and the suffering are not only the evangelized, they are our evangelizers: the ones with and through whom Jesus Christ is saving the world.... Gustavo Guiterrez has suggested that the two overarching themes in scripture are 1) the universality and gratuity of god's love, namely that god loves everyone equally and freely through no merit of our own, and 2) god's preferential love for the poor; not exclusive, but preferential. At first blush, these appear to be mutually contradictory assertions: how can god love everyone equally AND the poor preferentially? .... I want to insist that god's preferential love for the poor is the guarantee or safeguard of god's transcendence, sovereignty, and mystery. If god is truly other, and thus irreducible to any merely human construct or construction, then logically god will take the side of the poor, the marginalized, the victims.... The poor are those person who cannot take life for granted. The persons who are in the best position to perceive the division in our world and society are those who suffer its consequences. They are the ones whose very existence reminds us of the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that we live in an unjust world....
It's the hungry person who is in the best position to determine if hunger exists in our society. It is the person who cannot take life for granted who is in the best position to be honest about reality...."
National Hispanic Heritage Month Lecture at St Thomas More Chapel at Yale by Roberto S. Goizueta Cuban American Christian theologian currently holding the Margaret O'Brien Flatley Chair in Catholic Theology at Boston College
Marshal ignoring answers at his own blog. I saved one of my comments there that destroyed his non-arguments. Here it is...
Marshal... He said he didn't select them. That's a strange thing to say, as if the historians forced their way onto his blog without his consent but happened to agree with his dislike for Trump. This is Dan's logic.
Just to follow up, in case you lose the first comment I made...
1. I didn't "select them." I looked for "historians rank presidents" and THESE are the historians who turn up. Are there individual (partisan as hell) historians who disagree with this large group of historians who I cited who were polled and were from across the political spectrum? Yes. What DOESN'T exist is a progressive historian who rates Trump highly, or a poll of a collected group of historians who rate Trump even middling. It just doesn't exist.
Thus, I'm not selecting them. I'm looking into what historians, as a group, are saying about Trump's presidency and THIS is the result. And yes, that IS my logic: Look at what experts are saying and take their (especially collected) opinions as the expert opinions that they are.
Marshal... Of course he selected this (and other) surveys and examples just as I select various sources to support my position.
2. Again, what I'm doing is reporting what polled historians are saying. This is in contrast to what you're doing: Finding partisan, biased historians who will support what your hunch is and posting that which tickles your ears and confirms your biases.
Do you understand the difference between A. Looking at expert opinion and reporting what they're saying, regardless of their conclusions VS B. Finding biased historians who will say what you want them to say and then citing them?
Marshal offered a bunch of childish idiocy without supporting his claims. So I deleted it.
To address some of what you did say (and to show you why your comments are worthless, irrational, emotion-based and not reason-based)...
Marshal... You want to pretend your historians are just angelic, non-partisan, non-biased pillars of objectivity.
STOP. Stop right there. PROVE this dumb-as-vomit piece of slander or admit that you have ZERO data on these professional experts to malign their opinions.
You have nothing, is that right?
You are falling prone to the same attempt to con people with stupidly false and unsupported claims as your hero, Trump. You can't just make shit up, man. You've GOT to reason as a responsible adult, not a perverted con man with no great brains.
So, IF you can't support this stupid claim (and you can't), THEN admit that you were wrong to make it, you have no data on which to base that suggestion that these professionals are somehow making up their opinions for partisan reasons.
You go on to cite, "the well known and documented left-leaning partisanship of academia..." But you are offering ZERO data to support the claim about THESE people. Again, the documentation that I've seen has said that EVEN THE CONSERVATIVE historians rate Trump in the bottom five or so. So, it's not a matter that they are ONLY picking liberal historians. Nor is it a matter that you can prove that moderate or liberal historians are somehow part of a conspiracy to make Trump look bad.
IF you want to comment, comment like a reasonable adult. Support your claims or retract them.
Don't say a single thing else here until you do that.
To TRY (and fail) to defend his slanderous attacks against professionals and the educated, Marshal cited, ""the well known and documented left-leaning partisanship of academia..."
As if that were a sound point. But I wonder when people do this (discrediting the educated because they are "left-leaning" and claiming without support that they are "partisan"), do they ever think about WHY it is that more educated people tend to be more liberal/progressive/left-leaning?
One explanation (the one irrational conservatives often assume without support) is that these are people who hate God and morality and, the more they got educated, it just didn't change or help that hatred, and they held on to those biases.
Again, they think this without support.
But what if the more obvious reason is true? What if the data and sound, well-considered and educated reasons support more progressive ideas and ideals?
What if, when one looks at the data and sees just how expensive it is to do punitive criminal punishment (without supporting rehabilitative elements like drug rehab and educational opportunities), and how it's 1. More cost effective to educate/rehabilitate while in prison (due to lower recidivism, etc), 2. More beneficial to society to have ex-cons actually go straight and get jobs and become taxpaying citizens, 3. More beneficial to society from a racial justice angle to do so, etc
...if the more educated and reasonable people look at the data and decide for these and other reasons that the more progressive ideas of ending the drug war, changing criminal policies, addressing systemic racism, changing our prison policies, etc are just the more reasonable ones?
In other words, isn't it more likely that the more educated you are, you SEE the benefits of more progressive ideas and thus, you tend to support them, NOT because of prior biases, but because they are the more sound, more rational, more practical, more responsible ideas?
Why is THAT not the more likely explanation, I always wonder?
And can conservatives who slander and attack experts, scholars and the educated can find ANY data-driven support for their biases against the educated and learned (which of course doesn't always require schooling)?
I suspect they can't. And they just don't care that they can't. It's easier to slander and attack without support than actually make one's case.
It’s not law and order when Glenn cannot abide law and order officiated by duly elected and appointed officials with membership in the Democratic Party.
It’s unconstitutional will to tear the country apart.
The above is from 2007, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that there's been some great change in what it says. It might actually be worse today. But you won't read it anyway, because it flies in the face of what you want to believe about the objectivity of the historians you've chosen to cite. Only my historians are "wildly extremist". Nonetheless, it absolutely is the "data-driven" evidence of the biases of those upon whom you rely. And here's more from 2016:
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
So you can stop pretending that your sources are impeccable and beyond the influence of their own prejudices in ranking Trump so poorly. It's without a doubt that everyone has their biases. The real focus of attention should be on just how a historian comes to the conclusions they do. At my blog, I went through your list of twenty laughable criteria (for which I have yet to find how any of them are actually supported) to easily describe how subjective the vast majority of them are. My "extremist" historians speak to actual accomplishments and policy decisions for their assessments.
As to explanations for why academics might be lefties, here's a great one:
YOUR suggestions to explain that sad reality is just more subjectivity. It presumes what they do is more reasoned and intelligent simply because they promote them. And even in cases where an idea might have some true merit, there's still issues regarding application, such as with your insistence that coughing up even more money without reimbursement to educate those lawbreakers who've wasted the education so many others have not is the way to go.
I'm sorry, your response to support your claim that these current historians in these surveys are unreliable and biased is to cite some generic study from 13 years ago that says that college professors are more liberal?
Do you understand that this does NOT SUPPORT YOUR SLANDER?
What data do you have ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR experts and scholars (who self-report being from across the political spectrum AND who have rated Reagan highly) to support your false charge that they are biased to the point of being unreliable?
Your non-answer (which I'll let stand for now, to show not only how devoid of reason or support your false slander is, but that shows how desperately you are grasping for straws) does NOT prove your false claim.
That THIS is your best attempt to support the idiot false charge you make just exposes how entirely empty your charges are.
YOU are making the claim that these professionals/experts/scholars are not reliable because they are biased AND YET you have nothing to support that. This non-answer exposes you as a liar and a Trump-league pathetic wannabe con man. Only idiots would fall for such nonsense.
So, then the question becomes: Do you recognize the reality that this does NOT support your false claim AND that your claim is false/not one you can support?
Hint: There is only one right answer to this question (Yes, I recognize this does not deal with the actual people I'm charging with being unreliable and thus, I can not support my claim with data... just empty suspicions based on my OWN biases and hatred of expert opinion).
Failing a correct answer grounded in reality, you're done here, Marshal.
Are you kidding me? There is ZERO data here about the participants in these regular studies, these hard-working professional experts in history, educated in their fields. ZERO. There is nothing here about historians in general. There is nothing here about university professionals. There appears to be one category, Teachers, that lean liberal.
Okay, so what? Does "leaning Democratic" mean their expertise is invalid? That their opinions are biased? What about the conservative teachers, is their expertise invalid?
This means NOTHING, Marshal. It does NOTHING to support your stupidly inanely false claims. NOTHING.
ALL it does is show that you can't support your claims.
And what does that say about conservatives that there are more liberals in education and higher education? That they don't care about education? That they're not as smart as liberals? That they aren't able to compete against liberals to get these jobs?
Not much good, it seems.
IF conservatives want to be better represented at the college and professional educator level, perhaps they should quit complaining about perceived biases and just go out there and get the education and be better professors than liberals.
Your data just makes you look worse and worse, man.
"Yes, professors lean left (although with some caveats). But much of the research says conservative students and faculty members are not only surviving but thriving in academe -- free of indoctrination if not the periodic frustrations. Further, the research casts doubt on the idea that the ideological tilt of faculty members is because of discrimination. Notably, some of this research has been produced by conservative scholars."
Just by way of reminder, here is what Marshal needs to defend before commenting further...
Marshal... "You want to pretend your historians are just angelic, non-partisan, non-biased pillars of objectivity."
1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one.
2. What I have said is that these experts in the poll I cite are experts, scholars, educated historians across the political spectrum. If I have a conservative Doctor who's an expert in medicine and I want her to treat me, I don't check to see if she's entirely unbiased. I just want to know if she can do the job and she has the expertise.
3. Marshall is casting aspersions on these people, these experts from across the political spectrum, that he does not know. I'm pointing out the reality that Marshal knows nothing about these experts... these historians. He has no basis to say that just because they are college historians, their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan. He has no data to make that claim and he has never even tried. Because he can't. Because it's a stupidly false claim.
I'm just wondering if he recognizes the slanderous false nature of his claim and can be adult enough to admit it
"1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now.
"2. What I have said is that these experts in the poll I cite are experts, scholars, educated historians across the political spectrum. If I have a conservative Doctor who's an expert in medicine and I want her to treat me, I don't check to see if she's entirely unbiased. I just want to know if she can do the job and she has the expertise."
The historians I offered are also experts, scholars and educated historians, and your hatred of them is irrelevant to that fact.
As to your doctor, you once again display your mentally challenged failure at crafting legitimate analogies. The issue here isn't bias, except that you've insisted my historians are and yours, by implication at the very least, are not. The real issue is when a historian, or in your "analogy" a doctor, makes an assessment. Your doctor doesn't make an assessment of your health based on incomplete information about your symptoms. He does a thorough exam. Historians...honorable historians of integrity...do not assess politicians based on one year in office before any impact of his service has even taken place.
"3. Marshall is casting aspersions on these people, these experts from across the political spectrum, that he does not know. I'm pointing out the reality that Marshal knows nothing about these experts... these historians. He has no basis to say that just because they are college historians, their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan. He has no data to make that claim and he has never even tried. Because he can't. Because it's a stupidly false claim."
This is a false characterization of my position, you lying sack. It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left. It's a mere statement of fact. And I only stated this fact after you castigated the historians I presented as "extreme right zealots"...an aspersion if ever there was one. And I'm still building my argument for why "their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan" at my blog, where I can do so without some extreme leftist zealot will delete it simply because it's overwhelmingly factual and true and makes you attempt to support your Trump hatred the crap sandwich it is. Join me there for real debate, free from petulant whining and demands.
"I'm just wondering if he recognizes the slanderous false nature of his claim and can be adult enough to admit it"
The only slandering going on is that which spews from your virtual mouth toward me and the historians I presented to counter yours. You're neither adult nor Christian, so no admission from you will be forthcoming.
So again, borrow a pair of testicles and visit my blog if you think you can support your wildly inaccurate opinions there. You'll be treated with far more consideration than is possible for any center-right visitor here, you fake Christian.
Marshal... "1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now."
No, Marshal. It's not the "clear implication."
Stop reading things into my words that I did not say.
1. Repeat after me: DAN HAS NEVER SAID THAT ANY HUMANS ARE UNBIASED, not in general and not about these historians.
Say it and show me that you understand that.
Marshal... This is a false characterization of my position, you lying sack. It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left.
2. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE HISTORIANS that I've cited are not reliable? YES OR NO?
3. IF you are saying the are unreliable, THEN CAN YOU SUPPORT THAT stupidly false claim?
YES OR NO?
Of course, we all know that you can't support that claim if you're making it. Again, this is just a reality check.
Quit dodging and answer the questions that are being asked of you. Directly, without lying and without obfuscation and without dodging.
It's really simple.
Three tasks for you to do/questions to answer. Show me you understand reality. And two more...
It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left.
That is not what you said. You didn't say, "I'm guessing that these historians in these polls mostly or all lean left." What you DID say is that they are not to be trusted.
4. Are you changing that to say that they CAN be trusted?
5. Are you able to support your claim about THESE specific historians that they "lean left?"
Of course, you can't, but you tell me if you recognize reality.
And to be clear, before you repeat another stupidly false claim, I have not condemned all conservative historians as unreliable.
You cited some specific people, Newt Gingrich included, I believe. Newt Gingrich is a scoundrel who's willing to play games to gain power. By his own admission. Thus, such a person can't be trusted.
In other words, I've criticized specific historians for being unreliable, but I've made no across the board attack against all historians, or all moderate historians or all conservative historians. Because of course I haven't. I don't do that.
That's the sort of s*** that Trump, con men, and Marshal do. Demonize the other without any data. But that just does not hold ground with rational adults. You have to have some data. Empty claims are just that, empty.
Marshal, you have questions and requests in bold above that you have to respond to if you want to comment here.
As to your empty suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, can you support that? If you have data to support the suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, provided it. If not, admit you have no data on which to make that claim or suggestion.
I'll gladly clarify that the article says Republican historians, but I have no reason to suspect that they are somehow secretly Liberal Republicans. Nor do you. Facts matter. Empty claims are just more trumpian bullshit.
Now if you want to comment here, go back and answer the questions in bold.
God sent Trump as a warning to us that we need to get right with love. Just like God sent Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V to punish greedy, authoritarian Trump-like Israel.
Maybe God will send our Cyrus and relieve and bring prosperity to the poor and working classes if we mend our ways and love our brothers and sister.
If we do not, Sargon II and Sennacherib could be the Trumpers to come: more whips to beat corrupt Christian America.
"As to your empty suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, can you support that?"
I didn't suggest that. YOU keep referring to Republican historians as conservative historians, when clearly one being Republican does not guarantee one is conservative. That's just a fact and what's more, your source didn't use the term to describe the historians. So try a little honesty for a change.
"1. Repeat after me: DAN HAS NEVER SAID THAT ANY HUMANS ARE UNBIASED, not in general and not about these historians."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now." It's absolutely implied whether you meant to imply it or not. If you dismiss the historians I use as extreme right zealots, you're implying yours are not biased in the other direction or biased at all. This is more true when considering you do nothing BUT attack them as opposed to lifting a finger to debunk or refute their opinions of Trump, opinions based on his actual work and deeds as president than on the ambiguous twenty criteria yours used to "rank" Trump so poorly.
So as usual, I'm not "reading things" into your words. Your words can't help but provoke the conclusions to which honest readers come. Deal with it. Try thinking before you type and these things won't happen so often...like, always.
"2. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE HISTORIANS that I've cited are not reliable? YES OR NO?"
No. If I was, you have been able to copy/paste me having said "these historians are not reliable". Like you, I know nothing about them personally, and as yet, I haven't been able to even see the names of any of them. I'll try again later.
"Quit dodging and answer the questions that are being asked of you. Directly, without lying and without obfuscation and without dodging."
I always get a chuckle when you make demands like this...as if you ever abide your own demands.
"It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left."
"That is not what you said."
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.
"What you DID say is that they are not to be trusted."
You're going to have to provide the date and time of the comment I made that shows this to be true. I don't remember saying anything like that.
"4. Are you changing that to say that they CAN be trusted?"
I don't know why you're asking me this. I don't know the people who were surveyed. It seems to me you demand I trust them simply because they're historians, as if being historians means they're completely honest or totally good at what they do. But again, I don't even know who they are.
What I do know is that you think very highly of anyone who disparages Trump, and that these people rank him so poorly means they're god-like to you.
"5. Are you able to support your claim about THESE specific historians that they "lean left?""
Again, you'll have to provide the date and time of the comment I made where I actually made this claim. I don't believe I ever did. Maybe you should actually read my comments as if you're truly interested in understanding what I think.
"And to be clear, before you repeat another stupidly false claim, I have not condemned all conservative historians as unreliable."
I don't make "stupidly false" claims. I make honest claims based on the facts as I understand them, or I render opinions or conclusions about you and your positions based on YOUR words as you present them. The fact that you're inarticulate is on you.
Furthermore, I didn't even so much as hint that you've condemned all conservative historians. At the same time, I could easily imagine that you would were the situation such that it provided you with that opening. Just sayin'.
"You cited some specific people, Newt Gingrich included, I believe. Newt Gingrich is a scoundrel who's willing to play games to gain power. By his own admission. Thus, such a person can't be trusted."
Aside from the fact that you've provided a really good description of the asshole for whom you cast your vote for president, that's just your opinion. I'm not surprised that you'd demonize him for acting like a Democrat to fight against Democrats, but that's how you lefties roll. Nonetheless, no one is asking you to lend him a ten in hopes of being repaid. The question is whether or not his work as a historian is quality work. I've no doubt you've never read any of his stuff, so your hatred of him together with your ignorance of his historical work is childish in the context of this discussion.
At the same time, because of your hatred of Gingrich, you write off all who I listed with him with the same crayon. As such, I'm not convinced you wouldn't condemn all conservative historians were it not for the fact that you thought to head off any such accusation. The suspicion lingers nonetheless. Cuz that's how you roll.
"That's the sort of s*** that Trump, con men, and Marshal do."
What? You censored your use of the word "shit"???? You don't seem to have any problem saying things like "fuck" and worse at Craig's blog! Who're you kidding?
"Demonize the other without any data."
But that's what YOU do...CONSTANTLY!! Your surveys aren't "data". They're opinions. Opinions are only data if the goal is to prove that some people think one way or another. But your opinion that Trump sucks isn't proven true simply because other people...historians, political science geeks, whoever...think he sucks, too.
But it is data to back up my position that you will approve of anything that says the same thing you do, simply because it says the same thing you do. "SEE? SEE? Trump sucks because (insert name here) says he sucks! That's proof positive!! I win!!!" That's pretty pathetic.
At some point, I'd love to move on to your other "experts". But I'll likely have to do it at my blog. Again, you're welcome to respond there where you won't be deleted simply because you're just so clever...as if that's a real thing.
126 comments:
Quick question: Why would anybody think it worthwhile to ask anybody else to imagine what Obama might be thinking about the 2016 election and Donald Trump?
Follow up question: Why would anybody think it's in anyway not absolutely obvious?
I'd love to hear your answers.
It's a lovely and powerful song that speaks to the concerns that well over half the nation had at the time and still has about this deeply troubled president who was never fit for the job. Shame on you all for putting him into a position he has no ability to handle.
Trump will be forever remembered as a bumbling and grotesque oaf, but the people who put him there and continued to support him, even as it became ever clearer that he was so uniquely unfit for the office will be remembered as villains. Those ~35-40% who've supported Trump have written a sad and ugly biography of themselves, forever to be remembered as villains throughout history.
What game are you watching? The only villains are those like yourself who refuse to acknowledge the good work this president has done. I can totally understand the opinion at that time that Trump was unfit. He's proven that to be a false opinion, even after acknowledging his quirks and manner. He's got the track record to prove he's more than merely "fit" for the job. He's shown how "fit" presidents get things done.
The true villains will continue to ignore the facts that are easily seen simply to demonize this president after his predecessor failed the nation so badly, and after his predecessor's favored successor failed to win over enough to win the election. Like all other lefties, you hate this guy because he foiled your leftist plans and showed how your way is impotent and harmful. And he did it while being the flawed man he is. That really shows just how worthless your ideology is.
Those of us who voted for him in 2016 are likely increased in number by all those who have recognized reality. It's really his job to lose and while he is fully capable of doing that, it's really unlikely given how many have benefited from his great work who were ignored by his predecessor and the Democratic Party. One never knows how these things will turn out. Both Obama and Trump...as well as the many goofy lefties who vied for the presidency...have proven that. Who could have thought an empty suit like Obama could be even a state senator, much less a US senator and then even president? Who could have thought that anyone would really support either Trump or Hillary Clinton for president, enough that THEY were the two from which we had to choose? Who could have thought that an old, worthless socialist could be one of the last two standing only to be beaten out by a guy who's not garnered enough support in two previous attempts at the Dem nomination?
Life's funny. We'll just have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised to see this president, who has done far, far more good things than any president in a long time, rejected in favor of a senile loser who's done nothing in the long, long time he's been in politics. You villains may succeed and then God have mercy on us all.
So I just listened to the song and I'm quite impressed at how perfectly it captured what surely are the thoughts of the incompetent Obama who saw himself as having actually done good for the nation, despite having no evidence in support of such unjustified arrogance. To pretend anything good came out of his eight years in office takes some real creative re-writing of history. Far worse, however, is that anyone believes the crap that is manifested in this song.
BTW, nice tune. It's just the lyrics that are stupid.
I do not believe reality supports your wild guesses about how future citizens will view Trump. Already 55-65% of the nation, and most all historians, believe Trump is an incompetent buffoon. What's going to change to improve that view?
Data, pal. Show me data.
Vote your conscience if you have one.
Clearly the President and his staff engaged in an attempted cover up to try to hide his diagnosis from the nation while he continued to meet with people.
He was diagnosed on Wednesday and met with 50 people through the rest of the day, including appearing in person with Sean Hannity. On Thursday morning, he was administered emergency drugs legally reserved only for a window of extreme distress - and continued to meet with people.
All in an attempt to avoid having to tell the nation that he had it. Finally, after midnight early Friday morning, he fessed up.
He ignored his diagnosis and was willing to make other people, potentially die. We'll see if the President has willingly killed anyone - just like someone with AIDS/HIV not telling a sexual partner they have it.
"I do not believe reality supports your wild guesses about how future citizens will view Trump."
I accounted for your wild guess when I said "The true villains will continue to ignore the facts that are easily seen simply to demonize this president..." Those facts are crystal clear...he's been doing a great job.
"Already 55-65% of the nation, and most all historians, believe Trump is an incompetent buffoon. What's going to change to improve that view?"
Honesty among that 55-65%. There's no accounting for the stupid, the ignorant and the villainous who do not "believe" so much as choose to assert the worst about this president who continues to prove them wrong.
"Data, pal. Show me data."
Where's yours? Are you going to present another poll of only 2000 or so respondents heavily weighted toward the left? Yeah. That's convincing. "Most historians"?? What poll do you have for that, and how do you prove it accounts for the total population of historians? No historian worthy his salt would make an assessment based on the present, instead of allowing time to pass to get a true understanding of a president's impact. But just the same, no honest historian could possibly rank Trump lower than Obama or Carter and likely several other of our nation's presidents. They couldn't possibly given his great record of achievement and benefit to the nation. And that great record...easy to find and affirm as true...is my data. When will you acknowledge any of it? You have to acknowledge it to even pretend that it isn't true, which would require you to prove with data that it hasn't been good for America. You don't because you can't. You simply prefer to make biased, emotional assertions that he's "unfit" or "an incompetent buffoon". Where's your data for these claims? When will we see them?
Where's my data? You would know it if you didn't choose to blind yourself or surround yourself only with others who agree with your limited opinions.
Historians rate Trump poorly - as amongst the worst of presidents ever. This is true for conservative and liberal and moderate historians. You've seen that information amongst the historians who regularly rate presidents. Presumably, you haven't objected to their expertise back when they've rated Reagan pretty highly. There's no evidence that you have whatsoever to suggest that they just hate Trump for no reason or are all liberal plants or something like that.
Do you have ANY data that suggests anything to the contrary? That, aside from the historians cited, that most historians secretly LIKE Trump and think he's been great? No, you just don't. Have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Historians on Trump...
"Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/opinions/history-verdict-on-trump-devastating-dantonio/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/opinions/trump-impeachment-unprecedented-cobbs-longley-osgood-suri/index.html
+++++++++
In an unprecedented move in all of at least recent history, you've had hundreds of military and state department types of experts - generals, commanders, etc - condemn Trump as unfit and awful.
"He disdains expertise."
"Trump preferred to be briefed by Fox News..." (instead of military experts)
"He trusts only his own instincts..."
"Decisiveness is good, the generals agreed. But making decisions without considering facts is not."
"He resists coherent strategy."
I could go on, but read it yourself. HUNDREDS of military experts have condemned Trump as dangerously inept.
Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that this has not happened at least in our lifetimes? Do you suspect all these military experts are part of a plot? Or giving their own honest evaluations?
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61341/61341-h/61341-h.htm
+++++
I'll start with just those two bits of information and informed opinion and these questions to you:
1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?
2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?
3. Do you acknowledge that hundreds of military leaders and state department leaders have spoken out and raised grave concerns about the ineptitude and unfitness of this buffoon you elected?
4. Do you acknowledge that there is not a similar group of hundreds of OTHER military leaders who have joined to speak in favor of Trump?
5. Do you acknowledge that this level of military and state department warnings about a sitting president are unprecedented, at least in our lifetime?
IF you want to comment here, it must be from a place of informed reason. You'll have to answer those questions if you want to comment on this post, Marshal.
God has supervened in nature to make sure Trump got Coronavirus and three members of the Judiciary Committee got it so that the SC nominee cannot be the subject of hearings or a vote.
Answered prayers! Faith in god almighty!!
“A non-military attending physician at Walter Reed National Medical Center harshly criticized President Trump’s motorcade photo op as something which could endanger lives of Secret Service agents who accompanied him in his SUV.
“Every single person in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential 'drive-by' just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die. For political theater. Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity,” Dr. James Phillips tweeted.”
The President of the United States is corrupt.
Shithole country, am I right? Oh. Wait.
High gun ownership/high gun regulation/high quality of life/huge social care network. Huh.
GENEVA IS INTRODUCING A MINIMUM WAGE OF $25 AN HOUR, THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD
"Voters in the Swiss canton of Geneva have voted to introduce a minimum wage of 23 Swiss francs ($25) an hour — making it the highest in the world.
Just over 58% of voters in the canton — an administrative region that includes the city of Geneva — voted for that minimum wage, according to government data published September 28.
They were asked to answer yes or no to the question: "Do you accept the popular initiative '23 francs is a minimum'?"
Paying workers the new wage, based on Switzerland's average 41-hour working week, would give workers a minimum monthly salary of 3,772 Swiss francs ($4,115) and minimum annual salary of 45,264 Swiss francs ($49,386), according to Business Insider's calculations."
In your overlong battle with Craig on the supernatural, he now says this:
"To me it seems obvious that any of those requires a supernatural interaction between a God who is Spirit and humans who are flesh."
O, Craig, use your bible for something other than a doorstop:
"then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ)"
Hint: not flesh
"The human spirit (נִשְׁמַ֣ת) is the lamp of the Lord,
searching every inmost part."
Hint: not flesh
"The Lord be with your spirit (πνεύματός)."
Hint: not flesh
God raised up Black Lives Matter and gave us contraception and education to eradicate abortions. All fir a more just world.
These guys block god’s will. But we shall overcome.
Stan asks why all the upheaval in the country? My response:
“What is it that has caused this decay in truth, this devolution of civil discourse, this alienation of a nation but what kind of sin?”
“What is it that is pushing us away from hope and toward terror?”
The sin of denying that millions live in low level daily terror by living in social systems that is vastly more willing to benefit people like and mr even into death.
And have over the various course of 400 years.
Black, brown, women, gay and lesbian and transgender.
That is the sin. Your fear producing hate and your religion needing to repress the awareness of your fear produced hate.
Your fear that Christ isn’t up to modernity because your faith is tenuously held inside a book, not a god.
And all that has torn apart the economy of the American Dream for white people.
The antibody cocktail that President Trump received for his COVID-19 infection and touted on Wednesday evening as a "cure" for the deadly virus was developed using cells derived from aborted fetal tissue, a practice the White House and anti-abortion rights groups oppose.
You can live in the 18th century or the 21st. You can't pick and choose.
Trump supporters, encouraged by Trump's words, were caught red-handed trying to violently overthrow the Michigan government and were willing to kill officers to get that Christian work done.
Trump Suggests Gold Star Families May Be to Blame for His Infection
The president, who is counting on support from military members and their families, suggested for the second time in a week that they might have spread the coronavirus at the White House.
Dan, Craig goes on and on and on and on about god's justice and god's supranatural being.
While being unable to address the most significant crimes against justice and morality that we currently face as a nation. Many of them are itemized in my many comments above.
But Craig is silent, while he goes on and on and on and on and on... about god.
You're not wrong.
Marshal and his extreme right wing lying brothers.
Earlier tonight [yesterday] a Trump supporting fascist confronted a security guard for the local NBC News affiliate in Denver and was shot and killed.
Trump supporters started lying and saying their guy was shot by a Black Lives Matter protestor. Then an Antifa member.
ALL LIES.
Here is the story of the #denvershooting in 4 images.
Fascist confronts local NBC News security guard. Fascist then slaps and assaults the security guard. Fascist then sprays bear mace at guard. Guard then shoots fascist. Fascist dies from gunshot from security guard.
Marshal: “When the left says, "whatever it takes", they're totally serious.”
Amy Ford, a West Virginia nurse who spoke at this year’s Republican National Convention, was arrested on Saturday after shooting a woman in the stomach in her hometown.
Ford, 39, who was identified as Amy Thorn in the court filing, was charged with malicious or unlawful assault after shooting a woman in her abdomen in Williamson, West Virginia. The victim has been identified by WSAZ -TV as Jonda Whitt.
One last time, Marshal. Answer the questions or move on. Your posts that refuse to answer the questions FIRST will be deleted. I'm not looking for you to offer a bunch of ultraright wing zealots to defend why YOU don't have to answer the questions. You just need to answer the questions.
1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?
2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?
and let me clarify that 2nd question: I'm NOT looking for isolated extreme right zealots who might be historians who individually disagree with the mainstream historians assessment of Trump as amongst the worst. (And seriously, Gingrich? The man who believes that lies and dirty tricks and stupid attacks are all okay in the politics game because it's all a game to him? HE is a large part of the reason that a corrupt con man like Trump is in power in the first place!).
I'm looking for you to show me a SURVEY of HISTORIANS, plural, where there is a significant cross section of historians (conservative and liberal and moderate) who assess Trump as NOT amongst the worst of presidents, or even (and truly, this does not exist outside of ultra right circles) think he's a half way decent president. SHOW me that survey OR admit that it does not exist.
Any nonsense like you just tried will be deleted. IF you answer the questions, I will allow some nonsensical tripe like you tried to post as support. But first, answer the questions.
My place, my rules.
The facts are: Historians from across the political spectrum DO assess Trump as a disaster and that there ARE NO surveys finding historians from across the political spectrum rating Trump as even a middling president.
Show me I'm wrong or admit that I'm right. That's what you need to do if you want to comment here.
AAANNND we see once again your incredibly unChristian lack of integrity. Look at question 2 from your original comment:
"2. Do you acknowledge that you have no data or polls or surveys of OTHER historians who rebuke this assessment?"
I put the salient words in bold to point out there were three options from which to choose to respond. This is evidenced by "or" separating each instead of "and". I certainly provided data to rebuke what you presented, and my small list stands as a poll. It was certainly not a standard poll where the four I listed responded to the exact same question from a sole source, but as I gathered them under the premise of those who rank him highly, it satisfies. YOUR complaint is that they counter your weak sources.
I debunked the claim of bi-partisanship of the first link by my offerings describing just how biased to the left the APSA is. A conservative NeverTrumper isn't unbiased and does not constitute bi-partisanship. I saw nothing in the survey listing the participants and showing their political leanings, though I simply may have missed it. I was going mostly on what the article tried to present and that alone does little to provoked any sense the survey is worth a damn. What makes it worse is to pretend any ranking of Trump putting him behind a guy who died on his 32nd day in office is legitimate. The article clearly states participants doing just that.
You're such a cowardly pussy. No honor and certainly no sign of Christianity.
My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I've explained what I'm looking for, and it's not 3 or 4 isolated right wing extremists disagreeing with mainstream historians.
Try again. Answer the questions as asked and clarified.
You're still welcome to comment. IF you answer the questions.
Nonsense claims from liberal hating extremists like Gingrich are not reasonable sources.
Read about Gingrich's barbarian approach to politics...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/
In case you're not aware.
People who believe in might makes right and winning at all costs are not to be trusted. Of course.
Stan's latest waffling.
When your theology, Stan - "Who we are at home affects who we are in business (for instance) and so on. I'm not sure how to differentiate. And I'm not sure that the consequences occur in the specific area of life that the sin is in” -
Cannot direct your decision making - "7 Reasons Why It Is Possible for Christians to Vote for Trump in 2020 Without Getting a Defiled Conscience and/or Losing Their Soul” -
... then your theology is corrupt.
Craig: "You're like the folx who respond to the question, "What is a woman?" with "A woman is anyone who says they're a woman."
It would be enlightening to have Craig define what is a woman and then find out that any one category always has tens of thousands to a million exceptions.
Ability to get pregnant? Nope.
Uterus? Nope.
No Y chromosome? Nope.
[Chris] Wallace wanted to clarify that Buttigieg would be okay with late-term abortion and pointed out that there are more than 6000 women who get third trimester abortions each year.
"That's right," responded Buttiegieg, "representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
That’s right, Marshal, Biden told Richard Spencer and the Communist Party to “stand by.”
Oh, wait, no he didn’t you corrupt liar.
Trump is making Americans pay for his mistakes and still buy the election.
"For the American farmers President Trump counts on for support, the government money is flowing faster than ever.
Federal payments to farmers are projected to hit a record $46 billion this year as the White House funnels money to Mr. Trump’s rural base in the South and Midwest ahead of Election Day.
The gush of funds has accelerated in recent weeks as the president looks to help his core supporters who have been hit hard by the double whammy of his combative trade practices and the coronavirus pandemic. According to the American Farm Bureau, debt in the farm sector is projected to increase by 4 percent to a record $434 billion this year and farm bankruptcies have continued to rise across the country."
Marshal: “When the left says, "whatever it takes", they're totally serious.”
California’s attorney general and secretary of state told Republicans on Monday to knock it off after election officials reported that the state party had been breaking the law by placing makeshift, unauthorized ballot dropoff boxes around the state and falsely labeling them “official.”
Following reports of the mysterious ballot collection boxes on Sunday, the chief of California’s elections division released a statement saying “the use of unauthorized, non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes does not comply with state law governing ballot collection activities.”
After the state GOP defended its use of makeshift ballot drop boxes falsely labeled "official," authorities issued a cease-and-desist order.
Craig: "Virtually every big corruption story has ended with either nothing or with some lower level people convicted of process crimes. I think part of the problem is that too many on the left get caught up in the jumping to conclusions part of the accusations, and ignore the actual results."
If Obama had paid off a porn star, or said he grabbed women by the pussy, he wouldn't have been nominated. He wouldn't have been a Senator. He wouldn't have been a State Senator. Take all the days of Trump after and pile them on that.
You all would have vilified him. Except we wouldn't even have known his name.
"'Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay your tithe of mint and dill and cummin and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law-justice, mercy, good faith! These you should have practised, those not neglected. You blind guides, straining out gnats and swallowing camels! Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of cup and dish and leave the inside full of extortion and intemperance. Blind Pharisee! Clean the inside of cup and dish first so that it and the outside are both clean. Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of the bones of the dead and every kind of corruption."
They would have vilified him. We know this because the Right vilified/vilifies him, anyway. Even though he is a boy scout, by all modern standards.
Hypocrisy has a special place in hell. Over-the-board hypocrisy probably won't even make it as far "up" as hell. There's probably a place below the ruined and overflowing outhouse of hell for modern Trump/McConnell/Graham style hypocrites.
Re Marshal’s latest post at his site:
Arguing with a guy you won’t let appear is cowardice.
Being unable to name him directly is fear.
Both define you.
BTW...I've been going over this "conversation" between us, and I've been remiss in one way, having to do with your questions...as leading as they are. So I will now answer at least those referring to the that part of your "evidence" I addressed so far:
"1. Do you acknowledge that the historians who have weighed in have been very harshly critical of Trump, including the bipartisan large group of historians who have regularly rated presidents (and usually favored GOP presidents), have rated him amongst the worst?"
This is easy. My answer is "yes, I acknowledge that the historians you've selected have been very harshly critical of Trump". But given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little. The few historians I've provided, none of whom are "extremists" simply because they disagree with your biased people, by the way, clearly deal with Trump's policies and actions. Yours don't. Nothing in the survey of the first link provides ANY such review, and your other two links deal with the irrelevant. That is to say, if you're concerned with style points, grammar and the willingness to take shit from the lesser individuals among his political opponents...well, yeah...he ranks low in terms of being "presidential". But anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person. You're not honest enough to see anything other than these un-serious "historians" ranked him last.
Now go ahead and delete, coward.
Well, that's a half-hearted answer, but let's look at it.
Marshal... "he few historians I've provided, none of whom are "extremists" simply because they disagree with your biased people, by the way, clearly deal with Trump's policies and actions. Yours don't. "
1. The Sienna poll rates the presidents based upon...
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
https://scri.siena.edu/2019/02/13/sienas-6th-presidential-expert-poll-1982-2018/
These are the measures they've used for rating presidents since 1982. These are the measures that had them rate Reagan highly.
1a. Do you acknowledge that they're not basing it on nothing, but on these consistent assessments that they've used each year?
1b. Do you think they were right when they assessed Reagan highly?
1c. Do you think they were not "un-serious" when they rated highly but now they ARE "un-serious?" What do you base that upon?
1d. Do you acknowledge you have no reason to suggest any bias or being "un-serious" with these historians? You don't know them or a single thing about them other than you (a non-historian) rank Trump low and that makes you sad?
Here's a second survey (a different one than the Sienna survey) and they rank him low/near bottom as well. Including the conservative respondents.
"Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics."
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307025307/https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf
Please answer these questions, if you want to comment here.
Marshal... My answer is "yes, I acknowledge that the historians you've selected have been very harshly critical of Trump".
A. Do you acknowledge that these are not "historians I've selected," they are the mixed group of historians (from conservative to liberal) who've assessed presidents since 1982?
Marshal... given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little.
I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president.
B. Now, YOU SAY that this is insufficient data to assess him on, but says who? Which group of authorities says you have to wait four years to reasonably assess a president, especially one who has so many tragic flaws?
C. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group survey or poll of political scientists or historians where the collective consensus is that Trump has been a fair or even a good president?
Marshal... But anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person.
There are multiple surveys/polls of multiple groups/experts. I'm not talking about "after 32 days," but after a year in office. After two years in office.
D. Do you see that distinction and acknowledge that the "32 day" concern is not valid?
Marshal... anyone who puts him below Obama, Carter and a guy who died after 32 days in office is not a serious person.
Says the guy who is not a professional political scientist, or historian or an expert in any way in political matters. But the point here is that MANY experts across multiple fields of expertise (political scientists, state department experts, generals and military experts, historians, scientists, etc) have gathered together to say that Trump is unfit, that he's a bad president, that he's not up to the job.
And again, there is no similar survey of GROUPS of historians, political scientists, state department experts, generals and military leaders, scientists, and other experts who are collectively assessing Trump as a net-positive president.
NOT ONE.
E. On what basis should anyone heed your opinion over and against all these collected groups of experts?
F. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group of experts from across the political spectrum who are assessing Trump as a net-positive president?
Please answer.
Note: Your inability or refusal to answer these questions will, itself, be an answer.
No. There ARE no groups of experts in any given field from across the political spectrum who have assessed Trump's presidency as positive or even middling.
No. You didn't complain when this collective group of historians rated Reagan highly (relatively).
Yes. These assessments have come after months and years of watching Trump's job performance and it's based on his actual performance and actual serious deficits, NOT for reasons of "bias."
No. You have NO proof or evidence that these experts are criticizing Trump because of "bias." It is a made up and unsupported claim that you CAN'T support because it's made up.
No. There is no huge reason to accept the actually biased opinion of non-experts (such as yourself) over and against the opinion of experts as being more valid or informed than the experts' collective opinions.
So, if you want to cede these realities, just remain silent. It's obvious, anyway.
Trump is the Commander in Conspiracy: creating national security risks for the nation.
But Marshal, Craig, and Stan, et al, are on a Salem witch hunt targeting the marginalized: the only thing that undergirds their relic of a faith.
"Former spooks told Business Insider that Rudy Giuliani's role in a widely discredited New York Post story and President Donald Trump's willingness to seize on it highlights how vulnerable they are to being duped by Russian intelligence.
Giuliani's access to Trump, the two men's personality traits, their eagerness to obtain dirt on the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, and unwillingness to acknowledge Russian interference makes them a goldmine for foreign intelligence services, former spies said.
They are "grotesquely vulnerable, exploitable targets" and "any foreign intelligence service would be derelict if they did not try to exploit this," said a former CIA covert operative.
Steve Hall, the CIA's former chief of Russia operations, also said Trump and Giuliani's tendency to traffic in conspiracies and the rise of misinformation in right-wing media mean "we're doing a lot of [Russia's] work for them."
Some responses to Marshal I offered at Craig's place and who knows if he'll post them...
Marshal... His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms...
"For the sixth time since its inception in 1982, the Siena College Research Institute’s (SCRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents finds that experts rank Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as the United States’ top five chief executives...
“The serving president has entered the survey between 15th , Obama, and 23rd , G.W. Bush, as scholars begin to observe their accomplishments, assess their abilities and study their attributes.
This year, Donald Trump enters the survey at 42nd,
and he is only ranked outside of the bottom five in two of the twenty categories that scholars use to assess the presidents, ‘luck’ and ‘willingness to take risks,’” said Levy."
https://scri.siena.edu/2019/02/13/sienas-6th-presidential-expert-poll-1982-2018/
1. They're not "my" historians. These are historians (in one survey) connected to the Sienna College Survey Institute. They've been doing this since 1982. They are comprised of historians with conservative, moderate and liberal backgrounds. In the past they have ranked Reagan relatively high.
I don't recall you complaining when they did that. Is that correct?
Do you acknowledge that these are respected historians from a respected institution with a long history of doing these surveys?
Do you acknowledge that you have no data about these historians on which you could legitimately make a charge of bias against them?
Note the date: Feb 2019. Trump began showing his "prowess" as president as he ran starting in 2015 and he served for two years (2017, 2018) when this survey was completed. Thus, it's not based on "barely a year in office," but two years, and also they could observe his run for office to help inform them of Trump's ineptitude and corruption.
Do you acknowledge that this survey was done with two full years of data on Trump's presidency and not "barely one..."?
cont'd...
And they rate the candidates based on twenty categories of assessment...
"Scholars rate presidents on each of twenty categories that include attributes – background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks, abilities – compromising, executive ability, leadership, communication, and overall ability and accomplishments – party leadership, relationship with Congress, court appointments, handling the economy, executive appointments, domestic accomplishments, foreign policy accomplishments and avoiding mistakes."
Marshal... Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's
Well, that is one NON-EXPERT's opinion. And it's not worth much. Trump's tax and regulatory policies have been a disaster. Do you KNOW how much we're in debt right now due in part to those policies? Do you KNOW what economic experts have to say about Trump's policies?
Trump inherited a recovering economy from Obama (after the economy had been wrecked under the previous GOP administration) with unemployment trending downwards and has devastated it. Yes, for the first three years, Trump didn't train wreck the economic recovery begun under Obama, but it was predictable.
Hint: You CAN'T cut taxes way back (and especially for the rich) AND continue to increase spending without having a deficit. Economics 101. SOME times, during hard economic times (the Great Depression, Bush's Great Recession, for example), it is justifiable to do deficit spending to help the economy recover. But Trump increased deficit spending during relatively good economic times. The man is a moron who knows how to increase wealth for the wealthy (which he WAS good at), but not so much for the rest of us.
Your claim is a non-expert, unsupported and partisan claim and has no bearing on the quality of the assessment of professional historians.
From economic experts in 2018 (speaking about the great growth in the economy during Trump's first two years...)
"His critics, a group that includes
a legion of Wall Street economists,
most Democrats and
even some in his own Republican Party,
don’t believe it will last.
They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020."
It couldn't last and economic experts and historians and policy experts all could see that in 2018. He gets SOME credit for not immediately destroying the recovering economy he inherited from Obama, but ultimately, not so much.
It's like this: IF I go into great debt and have fun buying boats and cars and NOT investing in things like my house and education, etc, things may FEEL great for a few months or even a few years. But ultimately, reality will catch up to me.
Reagan had his voodoo economics. Trump has his magical thinking economics.
You can't "speak the economy" into good times, any more than you can "speak a coronavirus" into submission by promising "it won't last" and "it will be gone with the warm weather" and "we're going to have a cure any day now..."
He's an irrational magic thinker con man and people who understand math recognize the con.
Marshal, do you buy lottery tickets as your plan for retirement?
There's so much to unpack here and I don't have the time at present. I may go point by point as time allows, or I may simply wait until the end of the week when I have more time to spend. We'll see how my week goes (once again, I work 12 hr days, so time is precious). For now I want to point out one thing that marks your lack of integrity. You responded to a comment of mine that was based on the links you had provided at the time I posted it with a reference to a link you added since. That's called, "moving the goal posts", and in this case to entirely different playing field. Here's what I mean:
I said...
"...given the limited body of work of Trump, and the fact that none of them have actually critiqued him based upon what he's actually accomplished, it means very little."
You responded...
"I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president."
But you didn't provide criteria initially. Indeed, I was unable to find criteria for any of your initial three links regarding "historian" ranking of Trump. Your criteria now refers to a new link of a different survey, which I'll critique later (Sienna). I was referring to the American Political Science Association poll which provided nothing regarding how they arrived at their ranking. With regard to that poll, you make another error in responding:
"There are multiple surveys/polls of multiple groups/experts. I'm not talking about "after 32 days," but after a year in office. After two years in office."
First of all, both of your polls mentioned above were done in 2018...neither were "after" 2018, unless I'm misreading something somewhere. Thus, the body of work being assessed in compared to full terms in most of the other 43 cases. More concerning here, though, is the "after 32 days" corruption. My reference to Harrison's unfortunate situation of dying in office after 32 days necessarily demands he be either omitted from consideration, or placed last in every poll due to lack of record to assess. Said again as before, how could an honest historian rank Trump below a guy who for all intents and purposes, didn't even serve? It can only be the result of left-wing bias and I provided a link describing theirs (APSA).
That's all the time I have right now. Please have some honor (you know...embrace grace) and don't delete any of my comments. My full responses that you deleted are at my blog if you have the courage to face them. Choosing only those comments you think you can rebut while avoiding those you can't is not an example of integrity.
Marshal... "But you didn't provide criteria initially. Indeed, I was unable to find criteria for any of your initial three links regarding "historian" ranking of Trump. Your criteria now refers to a new link of a different survey, which I'll critique later (Sienna)."
I've been referring to multiple experts across several fields, all who have been consistently as groups criticizing Trump. I have not given an exhaustive list of all the sources, partially because I sort of assumed that informed adults in the United States are aware of all the expert opinion opposed to Trump and the lack of expert opinion in support of him.
The point being, citizens should be aware that historians have collectively been surveyed and found Trump wanting. Mental health experts, political science experts, military Generals and experts, medical experts, science experts, etc etc etc... all have been raising red flags all over the place saying this man is unfit for office. This man is amongst the worst presidents in our history. This man is exhibiting signs of significant mental illness. This man is actively hostile towards expert and scientific opinion. This man is not Adept at listening to his advisers or understanding what they're saying. In area after area, field after field, Trump has been significantly inept as to raise concerns among groups of experts in those fields. And this is unique. You can't point two groups of historians, groups of mental health experts, groups of medical experts, groups of generals, groups of political scientist, Etc who raised red flags about Obama or Bush or Clinton.
Do you acknowledge the reality of that claim?
So go ahead and read about the Sienna historians, if you want. The point will remain the same. In field after field, groups of experts find this president inept and troubling.
Answer questions or go away.
Don't TELL me you're going to answer the questions and then spend a lot of words not answering the questions. Just answer the questions when you can. For go away.
Any comments that are not answers to questions will be deleted. I'm just asking you the very reasonable thing to respect the conversation and answer the questions that are put to you.
Telling me that you have been answering them is not answering the question. Telling me that you will answer them is not answering the question. Answering the questions is answering the questions.
One other thing occurred to me which I forgot to mention:
"I've provided the criteria which they use to consistently assess the presidents. This was after 2018, so with two years of data and experience with Trump, they assessed him as a failing president."
Neither of the surveys to which you linked assess more than one year of Trump's presidency. I believe it was at Craig's where you refer to the date the Sienna piece was published as if it proves it reviews two years of Trump's presidency. This might have been convincing were it not for the fact the article itself says each of the surveys Sienna conducted since its first comes at the end of the current president's first year in office. This bolsters my objection against making too much of any historian's assessment of a current president, regardless of the historian's personal opinion of the guy. Frankly, I don't know that any historian with integrity would think it appropriate to judge Obama at that point given his term just ended. Of course he never did much if any significance, and his one defining piece of legislation was already doing the opposite of what it was promised to do. So there's that.
As if Marshal or Stan or Craig know how to think about history. This from Stan's post today:
"Why are we bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer the major influence that it was when the nation began? Why are we surprised that faith is moved out of politics, out of the public square?"
Actually, those of us who live in the Spirit always celebrate that we have moved out of the christian faith that build a nation of aliens out of genocide and slavery.
And we celebrate - in the public square - that victorious work of the Holy Spirit in history. That's why you have to shun history: they shun the Spirit who is not in a book, and so cannot see god moving in history. They make it up according to the tastes of their puritanical brutality.
Further to the point of fundamentalists being unable to understand the project and work of history, Craig's response to Stan consists of this:
"I'd argue that the lack of decline on Christian influence is related to the increased coarsening of society in general. I wouldn't say that I "bemoan" the change, just that in some areas of society there have been declines that seem to parallel the decline of Christianity as an influence."
To which Stan gives us the awkward, "I guess that might be a suitable answer to the question. "I'm bemoaning the fact that Christianity is no longer a major influence because Christianity is a positive influence on a society and we're removing that influence." But it's not, "We ought to have that kind of influence.”
To which historically informed Christians like yourself and me, respond, christians DO have influence: check out President Obama singing Amazing Grace. It’s just your brutalizing radical puritanism that doesn’t: at least not good influence.
And if this were 1820, I'd have challenged both of you to a duel for your infamy and lies about sooooooo many actually good people.
But we're not as coarse as they were.
Why is it - not just some here and there - but like 40 million white people can say that American society is coarser than 250 years ago?
Only white people, and brutalizing men like Craig, Stan, and Marshal with CHRISTIAN fervor, erase slavery and systemic misogyny and all the decades of violence upon violence through Jim Crow and lynchings.
Why? Because the originating platform of protestantism is to deny the history of the life of the Holy Spirit in the church from after the last apostle's death to 1536.
They believe a god rejecting lie and so... they lie.
Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers. It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them. Deleting my answers is NOT respecting the conversation. It's just the opposite. It's cowardly, dishonest and so typical of a date Christian. In other words, it's you.
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
Before you attempt to make other comments here you must answer this question.
2. The reality is, this comment, just like the ones before it, does not answer any of the questions put to you. You are making commentary about whether you will or won't answer questions. That is not answering questions. I'm expecting you to answer the questions that have been asked of you.
I will delete your comments above soon, because it does not answer any questions. But I'll leave it up long enough for you to see that it does not answer any questions and admit that.
Marshal: “Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers. It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them.”
Ditto, hypocrite Christian.. My comments are rational, intelligent, and thoroughly impossible for to disprove within reason.
___
Craig: "Virtually every big corruption story has ended with either nothing or with some lower level people convicted of process crimes. I think part of the problem is that too many on the left get caught up in the jumping to conclusions part of the accusations, and ignore the actual results."
If Obama had paid off a porn star, or said he grabbed women by the pussy, he wouldn't have been nominated. He wouldn't have been a Senator. He wouldn't have been a State Senator. Take all the days of Trump after and pile them on that.
You all would have vilified him. Except we wouldn't even have known his name.
“You can pretend I don't answer if you delete because then no one sees my answers. But that just affirms what a liar you are.”
Ditto, hypocrite Christian. Except that my comments are rational, intelligent, and thoroughly impossible for you to disprove within reason.
I said...
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
Before you attempt to make other comments here you must answer this question.
And Marshal responded with a comment that was NOT answering this question.
So it was deleted.
Marshal, I saved your response because it appears you may have tried to answer another question, but perhaps you didn't understand.
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
Before you attempt to make other comments here you must answer this question.
BEFORE you attempt to make other comments, you MUST answer this question.
Your (now deleted) response...
"But let me get this straight: am I now supposed to respond to the question "Do you understand that reality?" This is a perfect example of the problem.
You insist you've presented a reality...
which is not just your subjectivd opinion, but an outright lie...
and then you expect acceptance of your "reality", which in fact is a lie. Because it's a lie, my answer can only be "no"."
I'm speaking of YOUR comment above, the last one. It does NOT answer ANY questions I've asked here. What it does is complain that I deleted your previous comments. It literally does not answer a single question that I've asked you.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
If you think your previous comment that remains answers a question I've asked, then all you have to do is post that question and show me how the last comment answers it.
This is the problem I'm having dealing with your type of conservative. You don't appear to be operating from a place of reality, a recognition of reality in the real world.
Last chance: Admit that your comment does NOT answer any questions I've asked or show how it does, citing the question that is being answered.
Is it the case you're just not understanding the question? That you don't know how to answer the question? You keep commenting with comments that aren't answers to the questions being asked.
You want to try it one more time, do it this way:
1. Type in my question that you're answering,
2. then say, "Here is my answer to that question..."
3. Then answer the question. Directly.
Do you understand?
Just to use your last (now deleted) comment to show how you're literally NOT answering the questions asked... Here's what you said in your LAST comment that I did not delete (calling it EXHIBIT A, for clarity)...
EXHIBIT A:
Deleting my answers and then saying I'm not answering is not failing to get answers.
It's just you not liking my answers and being unable to overcome the truth in them.
Deleting my answers is NOT respecting the conversation.
It's just the opposite.
It's cowardly, dishonest and so typical of a date Christian.
In other words, it's you.
And here was my simple and plain request to you...
1. This comment does not answer any questions that I've asked you above. That is just a simple fact.
Do you understand that reality?
In other words, you put down a bunch of words that were attacking me, that were complaining about my deleting your words, but literally DID NOT ANSWER ANY questions.
I then asked if you understood THAT.
Are you not understanding? WHAT are you not understanding?
I'm asking YOU if YOU understand the reality that your comment above does NOT answer any questions (and it literally doesn't).
Here was your latest response to that simple request.
I'll play.
I understand that some of my responses don't answer some of your questions to your satisfaction...
No, that was NOT my question. I did not ask you if "some of your responses" didn't answer some of my questions to my satisfaction. I asked if you recognized that your EXHIBIT A response did not answer ANY questions AT ALL?
The answer to that is either yes or no. IF you think that EXHIBIT A answers some questions that I've asked, THEN the rational response is something like:
"No, and I'll tell you why. YOU asked... "..."
and there you would copy and paste my question...
"And I responded to THAT question by saying... "..."
and there you would copy and paste the answer to that question.
Do you understand NOW what you're doing wrong?
Continuing with your last non-answer response...
a standard which you've made impossible to comprehend.
Okay, NOW I have made it possible for you to comprehend. IF YOU STILL don't comprehend, just say, "I'm sorry Dan, I don't comprehend... what do you need from me?" or words to that effect.
Continuing your last non-answer response...
But the questions you claim haven't been answered by the comments you've deleted sought clarification as well as pointed out how your claims of consensus among the many groups of "experts" are false.
? I'm asking YOU if you understand that EXHIBIT A does not answer any questions. This is not an answer to that question. It literally isn't.
Continuing...
My comments you deleted were specific to one example of "data" you provided, leaving other areas to be addressed later. I very likely could have covered those areas had you not spent so much time engaging in your usual deceitful antics.
Again, this simply isn't a answer to the question:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?
I don't know how else to help you. IF you admit that EXHIBIT A does not answer any questions, you say, "YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT." That's all.
IF you think that EXHIBIT A DOES answer one of my questions,
THEN copy/paste and quote my question
THEN copy/paste and quote your response (from EXHIBIT A) that answers that question.
Do that, or go away.
You're wasting time with crap, Dan. Just as you always do. If you don't like my answers, restate the question that is of most importance to you. Good gosh, you're pathetic!! You, of all people, have the gall to question how others respond to questions! The arrogance!! The hubris!! The deceitfulness!! If you'd stop deleting my comments in the first place, and stop wasting time on crap, we'd be much further along...except that you can't muddy the waters that have washed your idiotic positions away. Go ahead and delete this, you fake Christian. My week's coming to an end and I can then respond more fully to whatever the hell you want. You are so pathetic!
...and there it is. You either simply CAN'T or WON'T actually answer the questions that are being asked of you. I'll leave this as your final comment, a testament to your befuddled mind and confused and complete impotency in the face of being audaciously asked to actually answer questions that either make your uncomfortable or just expose your hypocrisy or... who knows why you are entirely brought to your knees in a puddle of tears and anger in the face of rational questions.
Go away. Get help.
I truly don't want to expose you to the embarrassment of your own words, but if you can't engage in respectful conversation and adult, rational answers to reasonable questions, you aren't prepared to interact with adult citizens.
Some questions that castrated Marshal's ability to answer...
1. [Marshal refered to "your historians...," as if I had hand-selected some friends to say what I want...]
They're not "my" historians. These are historians (in one survey) connected to the Sienna College Survey Institute. They've been doing this since 1982. They are comprised of historians with conservative, moderate and liberal backgrounds. In the past they have ranked Reagan relatively high.
1A. I don't recall you complaining when they did that. Is that correct?
1B. Do you acknowledge that these are respected historians from a respected institution with a long history of doing these surveys?
1C. Do you acknowledge that you have no data about these historians on which you could legitimately make a charge of bias against them?
2. Note the date: Feb 2019. Trump began showing his "prowess" as president as he ran starting in 2015 and he served for two years (2017, 2018) when this survey was completed. Thus, it's not based on "barely a year in office," but two years, and also they could observe his run for office to help inform them of Trump's ineptitude and corruption.
2A. Do you acknowledge that this survey was done with two full years of data on Trump's presidency and not "barely one..."?
NOTE: Marshal at some point has tried to address this ONE question by saying that, although the poll results were released in Feb 2019, that he thinks (based on what?) that it only covered Trump's first year "barely," as I recall. Given that response, two new questions...
2B. I don't know that this matters. After one year of his presidency, we could already see the corruption, the daily endless lies, false claims, unsupported claims, the unrelenting and childish attacks on the press, liberals, Democrats and conservatives who dared disagree with him, etc. Trump's level of knowledge (or lack thereof) and adult reasoning is abundantly evident even after one year and that is sufficient reason for educated scholars and average folks alike to recognize his basic unfitness for office.
What is magical about waiting four years to insist upon a fair evaluation of a madman/buffoon/corrupt/amoral and deviant person?
2C. I don't see anything in the poll data that suggests to me that the survey was completed in 2017 (Trump's first year). Do you have any reason to support that "barely one year" claim?
Cont'd...
3. Marshal announced, with zero support, that Trump's tax and regulatory policies have "clearly and with no room for debate" done better at helping the economy than eight years of Obama policies.
3a. Do you acknowledge that you just made that claim without any economic expert support to back up your claim?
3B. Trump's tax and regulatory policies have been a disaster. Do you KNOW how much we're in debt right now due in part to those policies?
3C. Do you KNOW what economic experts have to say about Trump's policies?
4. I cited multiple experts (history, political scientists, scientists, medical and mental health experts, generals and military experts, state department experts, etc) who have joined together as groups to say that Trump is unfit (saying this in various ways). Marshal said, "nu uh! They're wrong, I'm right" (not his actual words, but that's the gist.)
4A. On what basis should anyone heed your opinion over and against all these collected groups of experts?
4B. Do you acknowledge that there is no similar group of experts from across the political spectrum who are assessing Trump as a net-positive president?
For starters, these are some of the questions that have gone unanswered (although you made a couple of failed attempts that only raised more questions).
But understand, Marshal: I'm NOT inviting you to answer these questions. Not now.
IF you want to comment, you have to answer the last question put to you, to establish some grounding in reality. The question about your EXHIBIT A comment talked about in my October 21, 2020 at 5:38 AM comment.
But I really just want you to go away. I just don't think you're up to adult conversation. More's the pity.
Yet another conservative Republican coming out against Trump and pro-Biden, NOT because he's a liberal or a Democrat, but because Trump is an "outlaw president."
Former RNC Chair Michael Steele "...joins a growing list of Republicans to formally endorse Biden for president."
Steele said a crisis looms, with an “outlaw president (Trump), clinging to power and defying the will of the people.”
Though a lifelong Republican who asserts “and I’m still a Republican”, Steele urged voters to elect Democrats Joe Biden, a “good man” and “trailblazer” Kamala Harris, adding they would ensure an “orderly transfer of power”.
A vote for Trump would “plunge our country into chaos,” the former lieutenant governor of Maryland said.
“America or Trump? I choose America,” Steele added.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/10/20/former-republican-national-committee-chair-endorses-joe-biden-for-president/#741f86184a6f
There are sooo many of them, it is historic. The GOP was broken when Bush lied to the country. Setting it up for being taken over by an irrational rage machine voting against their own interests. The "pro life" charade is the only platform keeping it together besides the thrill to the white brutality of misogyny, racism, and bigotry.
Sooo many. Unprecedented.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/27/all-the-republicans-who-have-endorsed-joe-biden-for-president/?fbclid=IwAR1WPfqUiIK-Mzhv9F2ONXv__UpC8zWpXb1y53puqI4ubAiyfNpE4JP-TEc#416215697340
Hello. Biden even has Sam Elliott speaking for him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR097Bd-gDkD_JRMHKSP46lo8Avyzuh6tfYR96MQ__pk1w-eCgPQ807VNuk&feature=youtu.be&v=n2Xufahbaq4
Another way of thinking about this unprecedented opposition to Trump from across the political spectrum including large groups of people, experts and authorities from across the political spectrum, is to think about what if this had happened with Obama?
What if Obama had been opposed by Bill Clinton?! Can you imagine?
What if the chiefs of staff who formally served with Obama and with Clinton all spoke out against Obama and encouraged Democrats to vote for the OTHER party instead of Obama?! Can you see how shocking that would be? How unbelievable?
What if science organizations came out and encouraged people in an unprecedented manner to vote against Obama? What if hundreds ! of generals and admirals and military leaders and experts all signed a letter speaking out against Obama?
What if a recent leader of the DNC encouraged people to vote for the Republican instead of Obama, saying that Obama was unfit and an outlaw president?!
What if historians had ranked Obama as one of the five worst presidents in US history?!
And what if this ALL had happened, not just one of these options, but all of them had happened with Obama? It is unprecedented. And truly, it can only mean one thing. We need to understand that. It could only mean one thing.
For ALL these groups and individuals and organizations and authorities from across the political spectrum to come out and encourage people to vote against Obama could only mean that Obama was truly wildly unfit for office.
It wouldn't - couldn't! - mean that all these people had become conservative. It wouldn't mean that there's some vast right-wing conspiracy.
It would have meant that Obama was unfit. Period.
That's the only rational conclusion one could reach.
Well, here we are.
Vote your conscience if you have one.
If Donald Trump seems more desperate than most incumbents about the coming election, he may have good reason: Presidents do not typically have to worry about going to prison if they lose.
But Trump’s activities in recent years ― from paying hush money to a porn star to his claiming of a massive tax refund to obstructing an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia ― combined with a ticking statute of limitations clock potentially make Election Day far more consequential for him than it had been for his predecessors.
If Trump wins a second term, the time limit for starting a prosecution would run out in the next four years for a number of those activities, given Justice Department guidelines not to prosecute a sitting president. If Trump loses, indictments could quickly follow.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
I also understand that you asking is just another distraction and waste of time. It means nothing...has no significance...except to provide you with some empty victory. Well, congratulations. Can we move on now? You've just provided me with a host of rehashed questions you haven't let be answer.
Marshal, I have serious doubts as to your ability to understand reality. When you keep making comments that don't seem to be connected with reality, when you ignore questions and answer other questions so, when you say you've answered questions and attack me for deleting your comments when your comments were not answering the questions, that makes me question your grounding in reality.
The comments that I deleted, at least the last several, those comments were you complaining about me deleting comments. They were NOT an answer to any questions. You've admitted it now. An adult would have the decency to apologize for going on and on about how you where maligned when all I did was delete comments that were not answers.
Marshal... "I also understand that you asking is just another distraction and waste of time. It means nothing..."
1. It's a distraction and a waste of time because YOU made four or five comments and spent time writing hundreds of words when all you had to do was answer the question and say, Yes.
YOU are the one who made it a waste of time. Do you understand that? That YOU were the one who wasted time by not just admitting reality?
All my references to being deleted were to the original responses you deleted which are now posted in their entirety at my blog. More recent deletions are inconsequential because what you deleted were responses mocking you for your petulant whining, which results in the whole process being convoluted and difficult to follow, as you continue to do so now with your twisted demand I should abide your self-serving corruption of "reality". THAT is what wastes everyone's time...you droning on about "reality". I'm far more aware of reality than you, and when I return to address all of your other dustortions, it'll be easy to prove it for you. THEN we'll see who accepts "reality".
So go ahead and delete this comment. It doesn't matter to me.
Marshal... " THAT is what wastes everyone's time...you droning on about "reality"."
So, I respectfully ask you to answer some specific questions and even give you a format for doing so. YOU then go on the attack, time after time, saying you WERE answering questions and, then, once you were called on it, you had to back down and admit that you WEREN'T answering the question that was asked of you, and now, you have the nerve to say I'M wasting time?
Again, a rational adult who has been caught in a mistake will own up to it, admit it, apologize for it and move on. The thing is, Marshal, you are being schooled in how to have a respectful adult, Christian conversation and you reject it at every turn.
If you can't discourse responsibly and respectfully and rationally, just go away.
Now, at this point, you can choose to apologize for the attacks and the blaming for what turned out to be YOUR mistakes, not mine and we can move on. Or you can go all Trump on us and act like a whining child trying to be a bully but lacking the intellectual wherewithal to do so.
Your call.
"you droning on about reality..."
Yeah, I do tend to place a great deal of stock in Reality. I guess you don't. Perhaps that's why you're fine with Trump.
I will be most eager to get back to it, but your claim to be the respectful half of this back and forth is ludicrous and a decided rejection of reality. There's nothing at all respectful in deleting comments which, unlike many of yours in recent months, are neither filled with the most vilgar profanity or willful...and in some cases, constant...distortions. But it's the deleting which is most concerning. You have much to which I'm most eager to respond. I don't wish to take the time only to see you once again delete my words when they don't fulfill your despotic and ever-changing criteria. That's not respectful, mature and by no means Christian no matter how you corrupt the term. Thus, I'd like some assurance my comments will stand.
BTW, if you do not give me that assurance, it means you know you are wrong and it is YOU who is unwilling to own up to your mistake (could take a lifetime, I know, but I'm just referring to this thread). I don't run from challenges in discourse. You do all the time. Now you can reverse that somewhat by giving me that assurance.
Of course, the reality is, there's nothing disrespectful when I have requested specifically that you specifically answer the specific questions I've asked you and you've chosen to disrespect the process and the conversation by not answering those questions.
As we see you have already admitted at least in one case, after much struggle, that you were not answering a question.
So again, the ball is in your park. Apologize for the false claims and the attacks and just move on and we can move on. But you have to show me you're engaging in a respectful conversation.
Marshal: "I don't run from challenges in discourse."
I beg to differ.
What a sanctimonious hypocrite.
I haven't made any false claims. I have nothing for which I need to apologize. Do you want me to respond to your questions or don't you?
Good Lord.
Marshal's preferred politics - and that of Craig and Stan and Glenn - is led by a guy who has to be muted so a debate can happen.
Their preferred politics is led by a guy whose campaign consulted Dr Fauci about the removal of partitions for the debate... three days after calling Dr. Fauci a "disaster" and how "people are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong."
Why wonder why their idea of Christian life in the 21st century is failing badly and rapidly?
Yes, Dan. The Lord IS good.
In the meantime, you've been whining about questions not being answered and pretending you're the forthcoming one. Yet, you can't even answer whether or not you'll grant assurances my comments won't be deleted after taking the time to once again give you what you demand. But then, you always did dig irony.
Do what's it gonna be? Many insist dealing with you is a waste of time. I'm still willing if you guarantee I won't be deleted.
A reminder:
YOU claimed repeatedly that I was deleting comments that WERE answering questions.
I said you weren't.
I THEN pointed to EXHIBIT A, your comment that I left and said, "See? There are NO answers to any of these questions I've asked you."
You responded with spitting vitriol and complaining that I WAS deleting your comments with answers.
I responded saying, "LOOK at the post that's still there. There are LITERALLY NO answers to questions in it."
You kept responding to that, saying you were answering. I kept deleting.
You then said...
"But let me get this straight: am I now supposed to respond to the question
"Do you understand that reality?"
This is a perfect example of the problem.
You insist you've presented a reality...
which is not just your subjectivd opinion, but an outright lie...
and then you expect acceptance of your "reality", which in fact is a lie.
Because it's a lie, my answer can only be "no"."
What I had said was IN EXHIBIT A, there were literally no answers.
YOU responded by saying it was an "outright lie."
MY comment was NOT a lie. It was a lie to call my comment (that there were NO answers in your EXHIBIT A), because there WERE no answers in that comment.
Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment. YOU were mistaken, then, to say it was a false claim.
But instead of owning it, even after you agreed that my comment was factually correct, you then say you've made no false claims.
One time, you responded by saying "No," to my question:
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?""
And then, why I explained and explained and explained it to you, you APPEAR to have said, YES to that question. But now you're back to saying you've made no false claims.
What is a reasonable person to do with such double-mindedness and nonsensical irrationality?
Excerpted from above:
What I had said was IN EXHIBIT A, there were literally no answers.
YOU responded by saying it was an "outright lie."
++++++
I think what's happening here is that you were NOT responding to my actual comment that I was asking you to address. You were responding to some comments that no longer exist (I deleted them because they did not answer any questions).
But I left the ONE comment, EXHIBIT A, to get you to admit the reality that THAT COMMENT was answering no questions. You continued insisting that you had answered. I was asking SPECIFICALLY about the one comment that still existed, and maybe you had in your head that you were speaking to OTHER comments that didn't answer any questions that were deleted. But I wasn't speaking about what was gone. I was asking about the one that remained.
Now, if you were responding to something OTHER than the one I was asking about, then you misunderstood and answered wrongly.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were answering the specific question I asked. Maybe you weren't. Who knows, at this point?
I suspect you just drowned yourself in a puddle of your words and got confused, but all I know for certain is that I asked a very specific question and you responded and your response was literally a false claim.
Now, if you recognize where you messed up, just say so. Quit dragging this out.
Admit to reality.
Marshal is asking me to reassure him that I won't delete his answers if he posts them. This, in a post where I endlessly have asked him for answers to the questions being asked and have allowed some to remain when they ARE at least attempting to answer, and even some to remain when they don't answer the questions... ALL in an attempt to get him to answer questions.
Read slowly and comprehend:
IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS, those answers won't be deleted. THE ANSWERS are what I'm seeking, why would I delete them?
BUT, if they do not answer questions, then they will be deleted. THAT's the point. I WANT you to answer questions.
And now we've gone on for, what? Fifty comments on me TRYING to get you to answer questions directly and you dodging and fussing that I've deleted comments that weren't answers?
Just answer the questions and the LAST questions I asked and the ones I want you to answer first are:
1. DO you recognize that your EXHIBIT A comment did NOT answer any questions that were asked?
2. DO you recognize, then, that when you said I was lying when I said that it didn't answer any questions, that THAT claim was, itself, a lie/a false claim?
"1. DO you recognize that your EXHIBIT A comment did NOT answer any questions that were asked?"
I totally answered this question. You even acknowledge I answered it in your comment from October 22, 2020 at 6:13 PM. It's pretty bad when you don't even read your own comments, much less those of your opponents.
"2. DO you recognize, then, that when you said I was lying when I said that it didn't answer any questions, that THAT claim was, itself, a lie/a false claim?"
I don't know that my saying you lied referred to this particular question. With your deleting my responses, it's hard to say exactly what's what anymore. You once again done a great job muddying the waters. Hence my request for assurances.
So I'm just going to go ahead and respond in full at my blog, since you lack the courage and integrity, to say nothing of lacking maturity and any hint of Christianity, to treat me fairly (a hilarious notion given your history, especially in recent years). You're more than welcome to visit there to defend yourself if you think you can. But since you can't, I don't expect you will.
The problem is, Marshal, that ONE time you answered NO and said it was a lie (that you didn't answer my question) and the second time you said YES, Exhibit A answered NO questions. THEN, following that, you repeated that you hadn't lied/made a false claim.
It can't be ALL those things at once. I'm just trying to establish you in reality.
EVEN HERE, when you "answer" question 1. above, you don't "affirm, YES, I recognize that Exhibit A didn't answer any questions." You cite an earlier comment of mine that is seeking to get clarification of your contradictory answers.
JUST ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION directly and without equivocating.
I did answer it as you acknowledge in your October 22, 2020 at 6:13 PM and did so in a truly direct and unequivocal manner. To wit:
"Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment."
And there you have it. Question asked and answered. Just copy/paste that to every additional attempt of your to ask the damned question yet again and we'll be good...supposedly.
Yet, you won't answer my one question regarding giving me assurances I won't be deleted if I attempt to post.
???? !!! What the hell?
You have said YES and you have said NO.
YES, EXHIBIT A answers NO questions - and when you said it did answer questions, you were mistaken.
Or NO, EXIBIT A DOES answer questions and you made no false claims.
WHICH is it?
IF the answer is YES, then when you claimed that the answer was no and that I was lying about it not answering questions, you were mistaken and making a false claim.
What are you not understanding?
"Instead of admitting it and backing off your attacks and false claims, you FINALLY said...
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND that EXHIBIT A comment is not an answer to any questions that I have asked?"
Yes.
Yes. That's all you had to admit. YES, I was factually correct to say that there were NO ANSWERS in your EXHIBIT A comment."
And there you have it. Question asked and answered. Just copy/paste that to every additional attempt of your to ask the damned question yet again and we'll be good...supposedly.
Fuck Marshal and Craig AND their will to lie.
A far-right extremist has been charged for alleged violent participation during a Minneapolis protest just days after George Floyd’s death in police custody.
Ivan Hunter of Boerne, Tex., is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in inflaming mayhem during the late May demonstrations, reported the Star Tribune on Friday.
The self-proclaimed South Texas leader of the anti-government militia group Boogaloo Bois, allegedly began firing an AK-47-type gun at the Minneapolis Police Third Precinct building while shouting, “Justice for Floyd!” as he was fleeing, according to a publicized federal complaint.
And fuck their nihilistic disregard for human life.
The US reported more than 80,000 new coronavirus infections Friday -- the highest daily case number since the pandemic began.
That comes amid other bleak patterns including rising hospitalizations and daily death tolls across the country, with experts warning that the worst is yet to come.
Craig is a racist liar. He thinks two handfuls of black conservatives are magical enough to delegitimize the voices of millions black voters. And then tries to lie about how many right wing white men were fomenting riots to defame constitutionally protected right to protest:
"Given that the news kept telling us that there were thousands of “right wing agitators “, the fact that they’ve only charge the one seems anticlimactic and ignores the fake narrative. One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
Craig is a hardcore fucking asshole liar:
Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right "boogaloo" movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.
According to the charging document, which was reviewed by Business Insider, the three defendants previously served in the US Navy, US Army, and US Air Force.
The filing also noted that the men "self-identified as part of the 'Boogaloo' movement," which prosecutors described as "a term used by extremists to signify a coming civil war and/or fall of civilization." According to the Associated Press, all three men are white.
According to the Clark Country Detention Center records, Stephen Parshall, 35, Andrew Lynam Jr., 23, and William Loomis, 40, are each being held on $1 million bond. A preliminary hearing will be held on June 17.
Lying Craig "One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
Riots in downtown Richmond over the weekend were instigated by white supremacists under the guise of Black Lives Matter, according to law enforcement officials.
Protesters tore down police tape and pushed forward toward Richmond police headquarters, where they set a city dump truck on fire.
Police declared the event an “unlawful assembly” and ordered people to leave, later deploying tear gas.
Six people were arrested. The mayor of Richmond thanked the Black Lives Matter protesters he said tried to stop the white supremacists from spearheading the violence.
Lying Craig
32-year-old Mitchell Carlson is not charged with a crime in connection with the George Floyd protests but has a documented history of violence. A man seen breaking windows in a viral video of Minneapolis protests is suspected to be a known member of a white supremacist group, cops have alleged in a search warrant affidavit. The man in question, Mitchell Carlson, has not been charged with a crime.
Now, in a search warrant affidavit first reported by The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, police say they have received a tip that the man is Mitchell Carlson, “a full‐fledged member of the Hell’s Angels” and “a known associate of the Aryan Cowboys. The Aryan Cowboys are a known prison gang out of Minnesota and Kentucky.”
Lying racist Craig.
Fucking asshole liar.
Accelerationism is the idea that white supremacists should try to increase civil disorder — accelerate it — in order to foster polarization that will tear apart the current political order. The System (usually capitalized), they believe, has only a finite number of collaborators and lackeys to prop it up. Accelerationists hope to set off a series of chain reactions, with violence fomenting violence, and in the ensuing cycle more and more people join the fray. When confronted with extremes, so the theory goes, those in the middle will be forced off the fence and go to the side of the white supremacists. If violence can be increased sufficiently, the System will run out of lackeys and collapse, and the race war will commence.
Neo-Nazi ideologue James Mason, one of the concept’s chief promoters, argued in the past that the goal is not just to kill minorities but, rather, “to FAN THE FLAMES!” Brenton Tarrant, who slaughtered 51 worshippers at mosques in New Zealand in 2019, took Mason’s words to heart and enthusiastically promoted the concept in his manifesto. John Earnest, who killed a worshipper at the Poway synagogue in 2019 and wounded three others, wrote, “I used a gun for the same reason that Brenton Tarrant used a gun. The goal is for the US government to start confiscating guns. People will defend their right to own a firearm—civil war has just started.”
White supremacists are gleeful as police violence and the resulting rioting tear apart cities. Even if the unrest ends in the weeks to come, they may look back at the violence as a win for their side. Some delight in the killing of George Floyd and in police violence against African Americans—“a knee is the new noose!!” exulted one sign held up by white supremacists during protests.
Lying racist Craig: "One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States, according to a draft report from the Department of Homeland Security.
Lying racist Craig: "One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot."
How quickly has his white mind forgotten Kyle Rittenhouse?
Asshole fucking liar.
Vote a christian conscience.
President Donald Trump, who declared “I don’t make money from China” in Thursday night’s presidential debate, has in fact collected millions of dollars from government-owned entities in China since he took office. Forbes estimates that at least $5.4 million has flowed into the president’s business from a lease agreement involving a state-owned bank in Trump Tower.
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China signed a lease for space in 2008, years before the president took office, paying about $1.9 million in annual rent. Trump is well-aware of the deal. “I’ll show you the Industrial Bank of China,” he told three Forbes journalists touring Trump Tower in 2015. “I have the best tenants in the world in this building.”
Trump moved from the skyscraper to the White House in 2017, but he held onto ownership of the retail and office space in the building, through his 100% interest in an entity called Trump Tower Commercial LLC. That put him in an unusual position, given that government-owned entities in China hold at least 70% of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Suddenly, a routine real estate deal became a conduit for a foreign superpower to pay the president of the United States.
Craig is again steeped in hypocritical lies: "For all of the progressive Christians who were adamant that Clinton’s character didn’t matter because his failings were in his personal life, I’m glad you’ve decided that character matters again after all these years."
YOU said character was decisive about both Clintons. WE pointed out your hypocrisy re Trump. YOU doubled down on your lying hypocrisy for hearing us say we objected to Trump's personal character. ALL THAT? Just trying to get you to stop your hypocritical lying.
WE don't give a fuck about Trump's legal immorality. Just his illegal acts.
Craig is a fucking asshole liar.
My responses can be found at my blog, where they won't be deleted simply because you can't debunk them.
Same to you, Marshal, except mine are factual.
"The poor, the sick and the suffering are no mere objects of Christian charity or even Christian justice. They are "Christ's living and transparent image. The poor, the sick, and the suffering are not only the evangelized, they are our evangelizers: the ones with and through whom Jesus Christ is saving the world.... Gustavo Guiterrez has suggested that the two overarching themes in scripture are 1) the universality and gratuity of god's love, namely that god loves everyone equally and freely through no merit of our own, and 2) god's preferential love for the poor; not exclusive, but preferential. At first blush, these appear to be mutually contradictory assertions: how can god love everyone equally AND the poor preferentially? .... I want to insist that god's preferential love for the poor is the guarantee or safeguard of god's transcendence, sovereignty, and mystery. If god is truly other, and thus irreducible to any merely human construct or construction, then logically god will take the side of the poor, the marginalized, the victims.... The poor are those person who cannot take life for granted. The persons who are in the best position to perceive the division in our world and society are those who suffer its consequences. They are the ones whose very existence reminds us of the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that we live in an unjust world....
It's the hungry person who is in the best position to determine if hunger exists in our society. It is the person who cannot take life for granted who is in the best position to be honest about reality...."
National Hispanic Heritage Month Lecture at St Thomas More Chapel at Yale by Roberto S. Goizueta
Cuban American Christian theologian currently holding the Margaret O'Brien Flatley Chair in Catholic Theology at Boston College
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDR2kMAUBHs
Marshal ignoring answers at his own blog. I saved one of my comments there that destroyed his non-arguments. Here it is...
Marshal... He said he didn't select them. That's a strange thing to say, as if the historians forced their way onto his blog without his consent but happened to agree with his dislike for Trump. This is Dan's logic.
Just to follow up, in case you lose the first comment I made...
1. I didn't "select them." I looked for "historians rank presidents" and THESE are the historians who turn up. Are there individual (partisan as hell) historians who disagree with this large group of historians who I cited who were polled and were from across the political spectrum? Yes. What DOESN'T exist is a progressive historian who rates Trump highly, or a poll of a collected group of historians who rate Trump even middling. It just doesn't exist.
Thus, I'm not selecting them. I'm looking into what historians, as a group, are saying about Trump's presidency and THIS is the result. And yes, that IS my logic: Look at what experts are saying and take their (especially collected) opinions as the expert opinions that they are.
Marshal... Of course he selected this (and other) surveys and examples just as I select various sources to support my position.
2. Again, what I'm doing is reporting what polled historians are saying. This is in contrast to what you're doing: Finding partisan, biased historians who will support what your hunch is and posting that which tickles your ears and confirms your biases.
Do you understand the difference between
A. Looking at expert opinion and reporting what they're saying, regardless of their conclusions VS
B. Finding biased historians who will say what you want them to say and then citing them?
Marshal offered a bunch of childish idiocy without supporting his claims. So I deleted it.
To address some of what you did say (and to show you why your comments are worthless, irrational, emotion-based and not reason-based)...
Marshal... You want to pretend your historians are just angelic, non-partisan, non-biased pillars of objectivity.
STOP. Stop right there. PROVE this dumb-as-vomit piece of slander or admit that you have ZERO data on these professional experts to malign their opinions.
You have nothing, is that right?
You are falling prone to the same attempt to con people with stupidly false and unsupported claims as your hero, Trump. You can't just make shit up, man. You've GOT to reason as a responsible adult, not a perverted con man with no great brains.
So, IF you can't support this stupid claim (and you can't), THEN admit that you were wrong to make it, you have no data on which to base that suggestion that these professionals are somehow making up their opinions for partisan reasons.
You go on to cite, "the well known and documented left-leaning partisanship of academia..." But you are offering ZERO data to support the claim about THESE people. Again, the documentation that I've seen has said that EVEN THE CONSERVATIVE historians rate Trump in the bottom five or so. So, it's not a matter that they are ONLY picking liberal historians. Nor is it a matter that you can prove that moderate or liberal historians are somehow part of a conspiracy to make Trump look bad.
IF you want to comment, comment like a reasonable adult. Support your claims or retract them.
Don't say a single thing else here until you do that.
To TRY (and fail) to defend his slanderous attacks against professionals and the educated, Marshal cited, ""the well known and documented left-leaning partisanship of academia..."
As if that were a sound point. But I wonder when people do this (discrediting the educated because they are "left-leaning" and claiming without support that they are "partisan"), do they ever think about WHY it is that more educated people tend to be more liberal/progressive/left-leaning?
One explanation (the one irrational conservatives often assume without support) is that these are people who hate God and morality and, the more they got educated, it just didn't change or help that hatred, and they held on to those biases.
Again, they think this without support.
But what if the more obvious reason is true? What if the data and sound, well-considered and educated reasons support more progressive ideas and ideals?
What if, when one looks at the data and sees just how expensive it is to do punitive criminal punishment (without supporting rehabilitative elements like drug rehab and educational opportunities), and how it's
1. More cost effective to educate/rehabilitate while in prison (due to lower recidivism, etc),
2. More beneficial to society to have ex-cons actually go straight and get jobs and become taxpaying citizens,
3. More beneficial to society from a racial justice angle to do so, etc
...if the more educated and reasonable people look at the data and decide for these and other reasons that the more progressive ideas of ending the drug war, changing criminal policies, addressing systemic racism, changing our prison policies, etc are just the more reasonable ones?
In other words, isn't it more likely that the more educated you are, you SEE the benefits of more progressive ideas and thus, you tend to support them, NOT because of prior biases, but because they are the more sound, more rational, more practical, more responsible ideas?
Why is THAT not the more likely explanation, I always wonder?
And can conservatives who slander and attack experts, scholars and the educated can find ANY data-driven support for their biases against the educated and learned (which of course doesn't always require schooling)?
I suspect they can't. And they just don't care that they can't. It's easier to slander and attack without support than actually make one's case.
It’s not law and order when Glenn cannot abide law and order officiated by duly elected and appointed officials with membership in the Democratic Party.
It’s unconstitutional will to tear the country apart.
Fire Fauci is his plan after 300,000 surplus deaths this year.
All of history will say he doubled our death count.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147.6141&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The above is from 2007, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that there's been some great change in what it says. It might actually be worse today. But you won't read it anyway, because it flies in the face of what you want to believe about the objectivity of the historians you've chosen to cite. Only my historians are "wildly extremist". Nonetheless, it absolutely is the "data-driven" evidence of the biases of those upon whom you rely. And here's more from 2016:
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
So you can stop pretending that your sources are impeccable and beyond the influence of their own prejudices in ranking Trump so poorly. It's without a doubt that everyone has their biases. The real focus of attention should be on just how a historian comes to the conclusions they do. At my blog, I went through your list of twenty laughable criteria (for which I have yet to find how any of them are actually supported) to easily describe how subjective the vast majority of them are. My "extremist" historians speak to actual accomplishments and policy decisions for their assessments.
As to explanations for why academics might be lefties, here's a great one:
https://fee.org/articles/why-most-academics-tilt-left/
YOUR suggestions to explain that sad reality is just more subjectivity. It presumes what they do is more reasoned and intelligent simply because they promote them. And even in cases where an idea might have some true merit, there's still issues regarding application, such as with your insistence that coughing up even more money without reimbursement to educate those lawbreakers who've wasted the education so many others have not is the way to go.
I'm sorry, your response to support your claim that these current historians in these surveys are unreliable and biased is to cite some generic study from 13 years ago that says that college professors are more liberal?
Do you understand that this does NOT SUPPORT YOUR SLANDER?
What data do you have ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR experts and scholars (who self-report being from across the political spectrum AND who have rated Reagan highly) to support your false charge that they are biased to the point of being unreliable?
Your non-answer (which I'll let stand for now, to show not only how devoid of reason or support your false slander is, but that shows how desperately you are grasping for straws) does NOT prove your false claim.
That THIS is your best attempt to support the idiot false charge you make just exposes how entirely empty your charges are.
YOU are making the claim that these professionals/experts/scholars are not reliable because they are biased AND YET you have nothing to support that. This non-answer exposes you as a liar and a Trump-league pathetic wannabe con man. Only idiots would fall for such nonsense.
So, then the question becomes: Do you recognize the reality that this does NOT support your false claim AND that your claim is false/not one you can support?
Hint: There is only one right answer to this question (Yes, I recognize this does not deal with the actual people I'm charging with being unreliable and thus, I can not support my claim with data... just empty suspicions based on my OWN biases and hatred of expert opinion).
Failing a correct answer grounded in reality, you're done here, Marshal.
Marshal...
http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/
Are you kidding me? There is ZERO data here about the participants in these regular studies, these hard-working professional experts in history, educated in their fields. ZERO. There is nothing here about historians in general. There is nothing here about university professionals. There appears to be one category, Teachers, that lean liberal.
Okay, so what? Does "leaning Democratic" mean their expertise is invalid? That their opinions are biased? What about the conservative teachers, is their expertise invalid?
This means NOTHING, Marshal. It does NOTHING to support your stupidly inanely false claims. NOTHING.
ALL it does is show that you can't support your claims.
Will you admit that?
And what does that say about conservatives that there are more liberals in education and higher education? That they don't care about education? That they're not as smart as liberals? That they aren't able to compete against liberals to get these jobs?
Not much good, it seems.
IF conservatives want to be better represented at the college and professional educator level, perhaps they should quit complaining about perceived biases and just go out there and get the education and be better professors than liberals.
Your data just makes you look worse and worse, man.
"Yes, professors lean left (although with some caveats). But much of the research says conservative students and faculty members are not only surviving but thriving in academe -- free of indoctrination if not the periodic frustrations. Further, the research casts doubt on the idea that the ideological tilt of faculty members is because of discrimination. Notably, some of this research has been produced by conservative scholars."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/27/research-confirms-professors-lean-left-questions-assumptions-about-what-means
Trying every legal trick to suppress voting as your strategy to win is a bare attack on democracy.
That’s who the GOP is today.
Just by way of reminder, here is what Marshal needs to defend before commenting further...
Marshal... "You want to pretend your historians are just angelic, non-partisan, non-biased pillars of objectivity."
1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one.
2. What I have said is that these experts in the poll I cite are experts, scholars, educated historians across the political spectrum. If I have a conservative Doctor who's an expert in medicine and I want her to treat me, I don't check to see if she's entirely unbiased. I just want to know if she can do the job and she has the expertise.
3. Marshall is casting aspersions on these people, these experts from across the political spectrum, that he does not know. I'm pointing out the reality that Marshal knows nothing about these experts... these historians. He has no basis to say that just because they are college historians, their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan. He has no data to make that claim and he has never even tried. Because he can't. Because it's a stupidly false claim.
I'm just wondering if he recognizes the slanderous false nature of his claim and can be adult enough to admit it
"1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now.
"2. What I have said is that these experts in the poll I cite are experts, scholars, educated historians across the political spectrum. If I have a conservative Doctor who's an expert in medicine and I want her to treat me, I don't check to see if she's entirely unbiased. I just want to know if she can do the job and she has the expertise."
The historians I offered are also experts, scholars and educated historians, and your hatred of them is irrelevant to that fact.
As to your doctor, you once again display your mentally challenged failure at crafting legitimate analogies. The issue here isn't bias, except that you've insisted my historians are and yours, by implication at the very least, are not. The real issue is when a historian, or in your "analogy" a doctor, makes an assessment. Your doctor doesn't make an assessment of your health based on incomplete information about your symptoms. He does a thorough exam. Historians...honorable historians of integrity...do not assess politicians based on one year in office before any impact of his service has even taken place.
"3. Marshall is casting aspersions on these people, these experts from across the political spectrum, that he does not know. I'm pointing out the reality that Marshal knows nothing about these experts... these historians. He has no basis to say that just because they are college historians, their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan. He has no data to make that claim and he has never even tried. Because he can't. Because it's a stupidly false claim."
This is a false characterization of my position, you lying sack. It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left. It's a mere statement of fact. And I only stated this fact after you castigated the historians I presented as "extreme right zealots"...an aspersion if ever there was one. And I'm still building my argument for why "their opinion is flawed and biased and partisan" at my blog, where I can do so without some extreme leftist zealot will delete it simply because it's overwhelmingly factual and true and makes you attempt to support your Trump hatred the crap sandwich it is. Join me there for real debate, free from petulant whining and demands.
"I'm just wondering if he recognizes the slanderous false nature of his claim and can be adult enough to admit it"
The only slandering going on is that which spews from your virtual mouth toward me and the historians I presented to counter yours. You're neither adult nor Christian, so no admission from you will be forthcoming.
So again, borrow a pair of testicles and visit my blog if you think you can support your wildly inaccurate opinions there. You'll be treated with far more consideration than is possible for any center-right visitor here, you fake Christian.
Marshal... "1. I've never said that any humans are unbiased. So that's just a stupid lie false claim. And just the first one."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now."
No, Marshal. It's not the "clear implication."
Stop reading things into my words that I did not say.
1. Repeat after me: DAN HAS NEVER SAID THAT ANY HUMANS ARE UNBIASED, not in general and not about these historians.
Say it and show me that you understand that.
Marshal... This is a false characterization of my position, you lying sack. It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left.
2. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE HISTORIANS that I've cited are not reliable? YES OR NO?
3. IF you are saying the are unreliable, THEN CAN YOU SUPPORT THAT stupidly false claim?
YES OR NO?
Of course, we all know that you can't support that claim if you're making it. Again, this is just a reality check.
Quit dodging and answer the questions that are being asked of you. Directly, without lying and without obfuscation and without dodging.
It's really simple.
Three tasks for you to do/questions to answer. Show me you understand reality. And two more...
It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left.
That is not what you said. You didn't say, "I'm guessing that these historians in these polls mostly or all lean left." What you DID say is that they are not to be trusted.
4. Are you changing that to say that they CAN be trusted?
5. Are you able to support your claim about THESE specific historians that they "lean left?"
Of course, you can't, but you tell me if you recognize reality.
And to be clear, before you repeat another stupidly false claim, I have not condemned all conservative historians as unreliable.
You cited some specific people, Newt Gingrich included, I believe. Newt Gingrich is a scoundrel who's willing to play games to gain power. By his own admission. Thus, such a person can't be trusted.
In other words, I've criticized specific historians for being unreliable, but I've made no across the board attack against all historians, or all moderate historians or all conservative historians. Because of course I haven't. I don't do that.
That's the sort of s*** that Trump, con men, and Marshal do. Demonize the other without any data. But that just does not hold ground with rational adults. You have to have some data. Empty claims are just that, empty.
CONSERVATIVE historians rank Trump in the bottom five.
https://www.bunkhistory.org/exhibits/30/74/1919
Are these CONSERVATIVE experts also liberals? Where is your data to support that nonsense claim?
You got nothing.
Marshal, you have questions and requests in bold above that you have to respond to if you want to comment here.
As to your empty suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, can you support that? If you have data to support the suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, provided it. If not, admit you have no data on which to make that claim or suggestion.
I'll gladly clarify that the article says Republican historians, but I have no reason to suspect that they are somehow secretly Liberal Republicans. Nor do you. Facts matter. Empty claims are just more trumpian bullshit.
Now if you want to comment here, go back and answer the questions in bold.
God sent Trump as a warning to us that we need to get right with love. Just like God sent Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V to punish greedy, authoritarian Trump-like Israel.
Maybe God will send our Cyrus and relieve and bring prosperity to the poor and working classes if we mend our ways and love our brothers and sister.
If we do not, Sargon II and Sennacherib could be the Trumpers to come: more whips to beat corrupt Christian America.
Sorry, I know you guys don't know your bible.
"As to your empty suggestion that these Republican historians are not conservative, can you support that?"
I didn't suggest that. YOU keep referring to Republican historians as conservative historians, when clearly one being Republican does not guarantee one is conservative. That's just a fact and what's more, your source didn't use the term to describe the historians. So try a little honesty for a change.
"1. Repeat after me: DAN HAS NEVER SAID THAT ANY HUMANS ARE UNBIASED, not in general and not about these historians."
When you rip on those historians I offered in rebuttal as "extreme right zealots", the clear implication is that YOUR favored historians are unbiased, not extreme, not zealots in any way. This is how these things work...at least when I'm dealing with honest people, unlike now." It's absolutely implied whether you meant to imply it or not. If you dismiss the historians I use as extreme right zealots, you're implying yours are not biased in the other direction or biased at all. This is more true when considering you do nothing BUT attack them as opposed to lifting a finger to debunk or refute their opinions of Trump, opinions based on his actual work and deeds as president than on the ambiguous twenty criteria yours used to "rank" Trump so poorly.
So as usual, I'm not "reading things" into your words. Your words can't help but provoke the conclusions to which honest readers come. Deal with it. Try thinking before you type and these things won't happen so often...like, always.
"2. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THESE HISTORIANS that I've cited are not reliable? YES OR NO?"
No. If I was, you have been able to copy/paste me having said "these historians are not reliable". Like you, I know nothing about them personally, and as yet, I haven't been able to even see the names of any of them. I'll try again later.
"Quit dodging and answer the questions that are being asked of you. Directly, without lying and without obfuscation and without dodging."
I always get a chuckle when you make demands like this...as if you ever abide your own demands.
"It's not casting aspersions to cite the widely known fact that most from academia (and historians and political science people are certainly that) lean left."
"That is not what you said."
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said.
"What you DID say is that they are not to be trusted."
You're going to have to provide the date and time of the comment I made that shows this to be true. I don't remember saying anything like that.
"4. Are you changing that to say that they CAN be trusted?"
I don't know why you're asking me this. I don't know the people who were surveyed. It seems to me you demand I trust them simply because they're historians, as if being historians means they're completely honest or totally good at what they do. But again, I don't even know who they are.
What I do know is that you think very highly of anyone who disparages Trump, and that these people rank him so poorly means they're god-like to you.
"5. Are you able to support your claim about THESE specific historians that they "lean left?""
Again, you'll have to provide the date and time of the comment I made where I actually made this claim. I don't believe I ever did. Maybe you should actually read my comments as if you're truly interested in understanding what I think.
"And to be clear, before you repeat another stupidly false claim, I have not condemned all conservative historians as unreliable."
I don't make "stupidly false" claims. I make honest claims based on the facts as I understand them, or I render opinions or conclusions about you and your positions based on YOUR words as you present them. The fact that you're inarticulate is on you.
Furthermore, I didn't even so much as hint that you've condemned all conservative historians. At the same time, I could easily imagine that you would were the situation such that it provided you with that opening. Just sayin'.
"You cited some specific people, Newt Gingrich included, I believe. Newt Gingrich is a scoundrel who's willing to play games to gain power. By his own admission. Thus, such a person can't be trusted."
Aside from the fact that you've provided a really good description of the asshole for whom you cast your vote for president, that's just your opinion. I'm not surprised that you'd demonize him for acting like a Democrat to fight against Democrats, but that's how you lefties roll. Nonetheless, no one is asking you to lend him a ten in hopes of being repaid. The question is whether or not his work as a historian is quality work. I've no doubt you've never read any of his stuff, so your hatred of him together with your ignorance of his historical work is childish in the context of this discussion.
At the same time, because of your hatred of Gingrich, you write off all who I listed with him with the same crayon. As such, I'm not convinced you wouldn't condemn all conservative historians were it not for the fact that you thought to head off any such accusation. The suspicion lingers nonetheless. Cuz that's how you roll.
"That's the sort of s*** that Trump, con men, and Marshal do."
What? You censored your use of the word "shit"???? You don't seem to have any problem saying things like "fuck" and worse at Craig's blog! Who're you kidding?
"Demonize the other without any data."
But that's what YOU do...CONSTANTLY!! Your surveys aren't "data". They're opinions. Opinions are only data if the goal is to prove that some people think one way or another. But your opinion that Trump sucks isn't proven true simply because other people...historians, political science geeks, whoever...think he sucks, too.
But it is data to back up my position that you will approve of anything that says the same thing you do, simply because it says the same thing you do. "SEE? SEE? Trump sucks because (insert name here) says he sucks! That's proof positive!! I win!!!" That's pretty pathetic.
Gonna delete me again?
At some point, I'd love to move on to your other "experts". But I'll likely have to do it at my blog. Again, you're welcome to respond there where you won't be deleted simply because you're just so clever...as if that's a real thing.
Post a Comment