The facts are these: The nation is made up of people who are conservative AND who are moderate AND who are liberal. Depending upon the poll and the topic, we could think of it being about 1/3 conservative, 1/3 moderate and 1/3 liberal. In rough numbers.
In this Gallup poll, we see that in 2019, we identified as 37% conservative, 35% moderate and 27% liberal.
And we see that liberals are the minority, but making gains. In other surveys and polls, we see similar results
This poll from 2020 shows the C/M/L mix at 34%/36%/26%...
The point being, there's not ONE view that represents all of us in the US and that we're roughly split into thirds. Again, it also depends upon the topic.
As we enter into a new post-Trump era at a very divided time, it is vital for us to recognize that we're all in this together. I know that many of us more progressive types have been quite wounded by the Trump years. Nonetheless, Trump conservatism has broad support. Those people are not going away and we in the middle and left have to recognize that and share this land.
Same for you more conservative types. I know you feel like you have to "take America back" - presumably from the 40-60% who disagree with Trump's policies - but the nation is not yours to "take back." It belongs to all of us.
And I know you all feel quite wounded and are grieving Trump's loss - not even trusting that Trump lost! Nonetheless, the fact is just as ultraconservative Kellyanne Conway recently noted: Trump lost, Biden won. The fact is just as ultraconservative Bill Barr has said: There is no evidence for widespread voter fraud.
Trump has lost and Biden has won. Biden is our president elect.
For those on the right, grieve this if you must. Take your time. But in the end, your ~37% of the nation has to work with my 27% of the nation and the other third in the middle.
So, can we stop with insults and attacks and start to find common ground? Can it be that difficult?
Some ideas:
1. We are in the midst of this pandemic. We have a vaccine now starting to come out. Let's find effective ways to distribute that vaccine. That goal should be something we can all agree upon.
2. The spread of covid is skyrocketing. We don't have to like the measures suggested by medical experts, but we need to cooperate to stop the spread from getting worse. We should be able to agree to this. If you truly don't want to follow the guidelines, that's fine, but then stay home. If you can't wear a mask in a store, stay home. It's your right to not wear a mask if you don't want to, but it's not your right to insist upon going wherever you please without a mask and put other people at risk.
For a short time, we can do this. We should be able to agree upon this goal.
3. Our economy has taken a big hit this last year. We need to find ways that are safe to get us working again and we can do it. Social isolation and masks are a convenience, but it's also an opportunity to find new ways of doing things. Groceries need to be delivered more. Restaurant food can be delivered. We can be smart about this and create jobs and help one another in the process.
4. While we're figuring it out, many people are hurting. We need financial aid package and we need it now. This should be an area of common ground. We can disagree upon the exact numbers, but we have to work together to get something out.
5. In Trump's four years, we never really got our infrastructure moving. Experts will tell you that our infrastructure is crumbling. We HAVE to invest in infrastructure and we can find common ground on that.
6. Whatever you may feel about the police, the vast majority of the nation would like to see some systemic reform. It's going to HELP police to not to have to be social workers and mental health workers on top of being police. And we have to recognize that we don't want to see our black citizens killed because the police "feared for their lives..." Again, the majority of the nation agrees we need to do something about this. Let's find some common ground.
7. Likewise for our drug and prison policies. There are systemic problems with how we've handled this. We need to find some common ground. Conservatives: You all are supposed to be about fiscal responsibility. Providing education and rehabilitation to prisoners results in LOWERING the prison population and increasing their odds of making it on the outside. It is a money saver. We can find common ground there.
I could go on but will stop there. We may not agree about abortion or some other topics, but we can agree on a lot and we have to start there. This decade after decade of dysfunctional family squabbling is no way to operate a commonwealth.
Three final suggestions as we seek common ground:
A. We have to learn to listen to experts and trust expert opinion. That's not to say we can't ask reasonable questions of experts, but if we're not operating based on best advice, what will we operate upon and find common ground upon? Our gut feelings?
B. We have to stop accepting false claims and unsupported claims. It's NOT okay for a president to insist that "he won," when he is not in charge of the electoral system and when he has no data to support that claim. It's not okay to say that there is a conspiracy and that the media or the Democrats or the GOP WANTS to see our nation collapse. Sweeping unsupported charges are not okay. We have to be adult about this and just stop accepting it when a politician or expert or news source makes sweeping unsupported or just false claims.
C. We have to agree that causing harm to others is not acceptable. Period. Especially causing harm to innocent people. That's a line we can't cross or accept.
Now, let's put on our adult clothes and find some common ground.
188 comments:
Your simple schemata, Dan, of American political reality infers that there are no illegitimate politics. Which is naive.
Formally, there have been several parties in America's history that represented non-democratic goals. George Wallace's American Independent Party was only one of several. That such party's get votes does not legitimate them as true political positions. Hence, your problem.
Conservatism is a legitimate political position. But not everything Trump has attempted is conservative. Banning travelers for their religion is not conservative. Dividing illegal immigrant families and caging the children separately for weeks and months is not conservative. Labeling whole countries as shithole countries and defaming whole nationalities is not conservative. Lying about scientific evidence is not conservative. Lying about facts and photos is not conservative. Ignoring national health crises is not conservative. Destroying the post-war alliance of the West is not conservative.
Likewise, wanting to dismantle capitalism is not liberal.
If we are clearer about realities, we would have to account for anti-political movements which Trump carries to the tune of 70 million Americans. Given the irrationality of what they support and the absence of true conservative politics that they ignore, we have to call them reactionary. The extreme left would be revolutionary.
So, our current political crisis is due to the massive movement of millions of white Americans into an irrational, non-governing, non-compromise, anti-democratic power grab. Which produces figures more like these:
30% anti-democratic reactionaries like Marshal, entirely, and most of Craig and Stan, for theocratic motivations.
10% true conservatives, now a remnant of the former interested-in governing conservatives/never Trumpers - fiscal but not social conservatives
15% centrists interested in two party leadership just because
20% left of center liberals
20% progressive left: universal health coverage, free college, dramatically cutting defense/police budgets
5% anti-democratic revolutionaries
And will continue to stymie actual democratic political ideas and policies and the compromise that governing allows until tens of white Americans give up nihilistic self-destructive rage and/or die.
That such party's get votes does not legitimate them as true political positions. Hence, your problem.
I agree that not all politics are legitimate free republic politics.
But, those people still live, breathe and have voting voices.
The thing is, I know many of these people. I was one of those people. And not all variations of modern conservative - or even Trump conservatives - are insane. They have rights and thoughts and opinions. Unfortunately, way too many of them have embraced irrational and potentially dangerous beliefs that are not reality based.
But, given that they're not going away and that they represent a large minority in this nation, what do we do with them and their voices? We aren't going to deny them the chance to vote, right?
So, why not seek common ground with them?
And I agree with you that much of what Trump has stood for is not at all very related to traditional conservatism.
Seems to me, we need to encourage these folks to embrace their own traditional conservatism and get them to flavor it with a bit of pragmatism, that their traditional conservative views don't get to have their way just because they are used to having their way.
Traditional conservatism would reject out of hand the entirely irrationally false claims that Trump conservatives have embraced. Let's encourage that, for instance.
Traditional conservatism would embrace financial, fiscal responsibility... it's one of the things I think we need conservatives for, to help rein in any overspending tendencies (not that I think liberal=irrational spending). Let's encourage that, for instance.
I mean, what is the alternative?
As to your "30% anti-democratic reactionaries..." etc, I don't know that I disagree with those groupings, but are you numbers just guesses or do you have some data to support them?
"But, those people still live" Yeah, I'm working withe the understanding that dead people have a very difficult time being illegitimate.
As I have written several times, Dan, you and I both were intended to be white supremacists. If not by parenting, then uncles or coaches, teachers, school curricula, older brothers and sisters, neighborhoods, hometowns, television, movies, books, government, etc.
HiIlbilly Elegy tells us a lot of truths about the 40 year tightening vise on white quality of life and the mounting white turn toward irrationality. And while it, too, as most of white cultural analysis fails to do, cannot tell the truth of the bedrock of racism, misogyny, and bigotry that propels the irrational.
You cannot hand out a hand of common ground to those who are apologists for brutality. It is collusion to do so. It is American history of us white people to do so.
It hasn't, and will not save us. We are in a slow rolling civil war where the sustainability of our social idea of democracy is at stake. If Reconstruction had held, we would not be at this point. If the lessons of the 60s had been thoroughly enshrined in constitutional law, we would not be at this point. We are a broken body politic with oldest un-revised constitution in the world.
And 55% of your people and mine cannot be trusted: they have destroyed their commitment to live in a democratic community. They must thoroughly defeated in ideology. Not grafted in. They kill. They cage. They beat. They tear gas. They incarcerate.
Instead of a simply human moral of calling for a government that acts on behalf of all citizens.
___
My numbers are my ballpark figures.
My experience is that having been married now for 20 years to a black woman, having black in-laws, and working for 30 years in black dominant communities in Philadelphia and New York and Brooklyn, my world view is entirely desegregated.
Which is to say that seeing with non-white eyes doesn't play with American myths: let's keep it real and awake to the fact that over half of all white people are deeply set against, actively opposed, engaged in reactionary attacks toward, where the US needs to be in the 21st century. Even now, they support and fund a President calling for a southern governor to overturn Georgia citizens' choice for Biden.
They cannot be accommodated in such a state.
People who lost health insurance during the pandemic:
Canada: 0
United Kingdom: 0
Germany: 0
France: 0
Australia: 0
Japan: 0
South Korea: 0
Taiwan: 0
Denmark: 0
Finland: 0
Norway: 0
United States: 14,600,000
Disproportionately people of color.
Health care must be a right, not an employee benefit.
#MedicareForAll
The fraud Craig isn't looking for and will not acknowledge because he likes these decades old fraudulent tactics (and has unethically given us 12 years of GOP Presidency in the last 20 against the popular will because Bush and Trump lost 3 of the 4 elections as candidate):
- gerrymandered all of the red states
- suppressed the vote
- closed polling places in high Dem votes
- removed drop boxes in Dem counties
- vilified legal mail-in voting
- stripped the USPS of capacity to process mail-in votes
You guys are hilarious. Morons, but hilarious.
Marshal, you’re the one so poisonous even your brutalizing pen pals don’t want to hear from you these days.
And what do you find "hilarious" or "moronic," Marshal?
The reality that we're a diverse nation and that no one group has The Voice for what America is?
That we need to find some way to cooperate, find some common ground?
That we should rely upon expert opinions and certainly not attack them?
That we should not allow false claims to be accepted as normative?
These are all reasonable positions, you should know.
When they deny these facts and what this means, they are beyond reaching out to.
Top Deadliest Days in American History (so far):
1. Galveston Hurricane
2. Antietam
3. SF Earthquake
4. 9/11
5. last Friday, COVID
6. last Thursday, COVID
7. last Wednesday, COVID
8. last Tuesday, COVID
9. Pearl Harbor
Craig always praises things that are inferior. He wants you to praise Trump for a vaccine. 1) Trump had zero hand in scientific research; in fact, he obstructs scientific research. 2) What country started vaccinating its citizenry? Not us. Hint: a country with 1/10 the economic power and 1/30 the scientific resources that we have.
Craig is stupid. For years now.
5, 6, 7 & 8 are lies.
Marshal is such stickler for research data.
I repeat, when they deny these facts and what this means, they are beyond reaching out to.
Revised: Top Deadliest Days in American History:
1. 8000 - Sept 8 1900 - Galveston Hurricane
2. 3600 - Aug 17 1862 - Antietam
3. 3000 - Apr 18 1906 - SF Earthquake
4. 2977 - Sept 11 2001 - 9/11
5. 2769 - May 7 2020 - COVID
6. 2733 - Dec 2 2020 - COVID
7. 2706 - Dec 3 2020 - COVID
8. 2661 - Apr 9 2020 - COVID
9. 2563 - Dec 4 2020 - COVID
10.2546 - Apr 15 2020 - COVID
Pearl Harbor - 2403 - no longer makes the top 11
US surplus deaths:
419,000 - WWII - 1940 t0 1945
286,000 - COVID - 10 months
117,000 - WWI - 1917 to 1918
58,318 - Vietnam War - 1955 to 1973
4,825 - War in Iraq - 2003 to 2011
2,420 - War in Afghanistan - 2001 - Present
"Trump administration officials passed when Pfizer offered months ago to sell the U.S. more vaccine doses."
Marshal, if you want to comment here, make it productive. These little snipes and false accusations don't help us come together.
I asked you a question: What about my post do you find funny and/or stupid?
I'll answer: Marshal's evidence is funny.
Marshal, I repeat: What about my post do you find funny and/or stupid?
3,124 COVID deaths yesterday. A horrible, new record.
Now the third most deadly day in the US.
Marshal’s vile world is collapsing. So what firm grasp of Christian behavior can he exhibit?
👌🏻
Marshal, I repeat: What about my post do you find funny and/or stupid?
Telling me, "I answered..." is not an answer to that question. Saying that you don't like Feodor or his comments is not an answer to that question.
Understand?
Good gosh, you asshole! It was right there in the first comment of mine you deleted. The very notion that you're seriously interested in a real search for common ground, after going on about so much that is false. To pretend common ground can be had when starting from a place of lies and falsehoods is a pathetically hilarious notion that only a lying, socialist asshat like you would dare posit. You're the last person (besides your troll) anyone should ever hope to engage in such an endeavor given how steeped in lies you are! The very notion makes me laugh.
But I'm literally NOT "pretend[ing] common ground can be had when starting from a place of lies and falsehoods is a pathetically hilarious."
1. Do you understand that truth?
2. Are you trying to pass on a lie, yourself, in defense of not trying to find common ground?
3. You recognize that I have literally NEVER advocated trying to find common ground while relying upon lies, as a point of fact - yes or no?
Indeed, one of my primary reasons for opposing the trump-style "conservatism" is because he is so utterly dishonest - amorally dishonest, giving no sense of even understanding the need for facts and truth. CLEARLY, honest communication is important to me.
4. Do you understand that reality?
Now, what I suspect is happening is that you are disagreeing with some of Feodor's data he's cited. If so, speak to the specific areas you think he's mistaken and provide support for your claim. What you said, all I saw, was "That's false!"
Your claim that he's said something false is not proof that it's false.
5. Do you understand that reality?
Here's the latest set of data that feodor (who is not me, of course, so it's not my statement, but I have seen similar bits of data elsewhere and it sounds right, from what I've heard)...
1. 8000 - Sept 8 1900 - Galveston Hurricane
2. 3600 - Aug 17 1862 - Antietam
3. 3000 - Apr 18 1906 - SF Earthquake
4. 2977 - Sept 11 2001 - 9/11
5. 2769 - May 7 2020 - COVID
6. 2733 - Dec 2 2020 - COVID
7. 2706 - Dec 3 2020 - COVID
8. 2661 - Apr 9 2020 - COVID
9. 2563 - Dec 4 2020 - COVID
10.2546 - Apr 15 2020 - COVID
Do you suspect some of these numbers are wrong? Where is your support for that claim?
You merely saying "HE'S WRONG!" and me not verifying either of your claims is not the same as me not valuing Truth. It's the reality that I am not going to do someone else's work for them.
I believe that the CDC IS saying that ~2500 people have died on these days due to Covid (or Covid-related deaths, or however they're phrasing it). Are you suggesting that the CDC is wrong? Or that I've misunderstood the CDC?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/10/fact-check-covid-19-deaths-rival-pearl-harbor-toll/6506431002/
6. You DO understand, don't you, that disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as not valuing Truth?
If you want to comment here, you MUST answer these questions directly and without obfuscation and with data to support any data-based claims.
Marshal... "a socialist like you..."
Reality... "socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
I literally don't believe in socialism as it's normally defined. I'm literally not a socialist.
I certainly lean towards Democratic socialism, depending on how that's defined and implemented, but that's not the same as being a socialist. Do you recognize the reality that this is a false claim on your part? That if I do not advocate the means of production being owned by the collective or state that I'm literally not a socialist? And thus, I'm literally not a socialist and your claim is false.
Do you recognize that reality?
More Americans have died from COVID in nine months - 292,000 - than died in over four years of WWII battle - 291,557.
Disproportionately black and brown people, upon whom we essentially depend.
And they don’t have a single word of comprehension for anything morally inferred from either fact.
"But I'm literally NOT "pretending] common ground can be had when starting from a place of lies and falsehoods is a pathetically hilarious.""
But you literally are as I've explained in my post in response to this one.
"2. Are you trying to pass on a lie, yourself, in defense of not trying to find common ground?"
No. I don't lie. That's what you do. A more generous way to express that fact is that you clearly seem to have trouble knowing what truth looks like.
"3. You recognize that I have literally NEVER advocated trying to find common ground while relying upon lies, as a point of fact - yes or no?"
No. You routinely present as reality that which is only what you wish reality to be, as well as express and repeat outright lies, even after having been corrected repeatedly...and you do so with nothing to support any possibility that you're correct in your misrepresentations.
"4. Do you understand that reality?"
That's NOT reality. It's what you desperately need to believe is reality. As a liar, you rely on a WaPo list (you never read or never confirm if you do read it) of what it and you like to pretend are lies, mixing exaggerations, self-promotion and opinion and referring them all to lies of the kind constantly spewed by Dem politicians and those like yourself. Joe Biden still lies about Trump having said about Charlottesville that there were good nazis.
"5. Do you understand that reality?"
I made no such claim, so you lied yet again. I also never said, nor have I ever provided evidence that I would suggest, that saying something is false is proof that it's false. It's absurd and what's more, to suppose I might say something so absurd is a lie in itself.
Regarding the Covid numbers, they're absolutely false. Only a Trump-hating liar would make a list like that in order to further smear a president that's done so much to lessen the effects of this Chinese virus and minimize the death rate.
My claim the numbers are false is supported here, here and here. (CAUTION: That last link is a trap. Consider carefully your response to it.) Using reported death totals to compare the death rate of covid to other things like hurricanes, wars, 9/11 is lying when those covid numbers include deaths not caused by covid, but only where covid was present. In short, it's a lie that Trump-haters use to pretend Trump is culpable for a large number of deaths. That's more than lying about Trump...that's pure evil. Not surprising your troll would make such a lame attack.
"6. You DO understand, don't you, that disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as not valuing Truth?"
In general, yes it's true. Where you two are concerned, no, it's not necessarily true, and more often than not, it's totally true. More specifically, my opinions don't enter into it. You've both proven over the years neither of you value truth.
Surely, despite having answered directly and despite having provided evidence where needed, you will delete these comments. I don't care. Regardless, you now know more truth that you'll pretend isn't truth.
You say, "I'm literally not a socialist."
Then you say, "I certainly lean towards Democratic socialism, depending on how that's defined and implemented, but that's not the same as being a socialist."
This is what lying socialists always say. It doesn't matter what qualifier you put before or after "socialist". You're still a socialist by your own admission. "Leaning towards" any form of socialism is to be a socialist. One either is or one isn't. You are. By your own admission.
Point your finger at Marshal and he plays brain dead.
His logic stops at the US border, as if the whole world is not experiencing a dramatic increase in surplus deaths compared to 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, etc.
His worship of Trump also stops at the border: the UK and Canada both started vaccinating their citizens before we did. Despite the US have 20 times the funding and medical technology that those two countries... combined.
Why did Trump fall behind countries that don't have anywhere near our resources? Because he is a gargantuan narcissist and a proven threat to national security.
There are already about 350,000 mored deaths in 2020 than any previous year of the last decade, and any year before these but the population was lower as you keep going into the past. And yet, more surplus deaths even than for the whole of WWII battle deaths.
Which brings up the point that if you take all war casualities over the more than four years of WWII, the number is more like 450,000. Because not everyone dies in battle. They die because war is going on around them.
Just like Covid.
The year 2020 has been abnormal for mortalities. At least 356,000 more people in the United States have died than usual since the coronavirus pandemic took hold in the country in the spring. But not all of these deaths have been directly linked to Covid-19. More than a quarter of deaths above normal have been from other causes, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, high blood pressure and pneumonia.
But they died because our medical system was overwhelmed, because Covid brought about morbidity in those deaths that otherwise would have been spread out over many years, and because of misdiagnoses, especially early on.
Like his God, Marshal has zero feeling for 350,000 dead that didn't have to die if it weren't for Trump. He has blood on his hands. And Marshal bathes in it.
Marshal, so much of the problem with finding common ground with you is that your views are based on non reality. Let's just begin with one instance.
I say that I am not a socialist. That is because the definition of socialism as typically understood means the state ownership of things, of the means to produce things. I do not support this. I support private ownership. Therefore, by definition, I am not a socialist.
So, what definition are you using for socialists? If you're using something than the typical English understanding, then you really need to explain your position and your definition. If by socialist, you mean someone who loves God and tries to follow the steps of Jesus, then yes I am a socialist. But that's not the typical definition of socialist. So, Define socialist. How are you using the term?
I appreciate that you tried to answer my questions, but each instance, I believe, is you relying upon non reality to address my questions. So let's take it one at a time.
If I had to guess, Marshal, you are not using the typical English definition of Socialism (State ownership of things) but are instead using a vague and open-ended definition of something like, "Those who support capitalism but want more regulation than I want..."
Of course, the reality is that most free nation citizens support gov't regulation. We don't want private owners to be free to pollute our streams or air, we don't want owners abusing their employees or cutting corners that threaten safety. Probably even Marshal supports some regulation. So, it's not a matter of "If you support regulations, you're a socialist..." Instead, it's probably, "You support 'too much regulation of a sort I disagree with,' therefore, you're a socialist." But that's not a definition.
So, define away. Support your case. If you can't support it, then admit you misspoke when you called me a socialist and that you were wrong.
That would be the respectful, reality-based way of finding common ground.
2 things Craig - in his cast iron bubble - will ignore with hypocrisy:
1. Conservative gadfly Alex Jones appeared to threaten president-elect Joe Biden Saturday when he told a pro-Trump rally in Washington D.C. that the former vice president “will be removed one way or another.”
2. “Joe Biden rarely misses Sunday Mass. So it was notable when the President-elect didn't attend church on November 29, the first Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the season when Roman Catholics like Biden prepare for Christmas. Biden's absence was understandable, since just a day earlier he had broken his foot. But the following weekend, Biden was back at his home parish in Wilmington, Delaware -- St. Joseph on the Brandywine -- for Saturday's vigil Mass. He was there again on Tuesday on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, a holy day of obligation.
That's a level of devotion to regular religious services not seen from recent presidents, who were professed Christians but intermittently attended church or worshipped privately while in office. Donald Trump has not had a habit of attending church services weekly, though he made several appearances at the Episcopal church in West Palm Beach near his resort as well as at various evangelical churches across the country. Barack Obama would go to church for the occasional Christmas or Easter service in Washington or on vacation in Hawaii, but rarely during the rest of the year. And George W. Bush, despite being a high-profile born-again Christian, tended to worship privately as president and only attended church when back home in Texas.”
Haven't the time at present to deal with definitions. I know you enjoy abusing definitions to avoid truth, but I'll surely address that reality when time permits. For now:
I again direct you to your own words regarding "leaning towards" a form of socialism many socialists use to convince themselves, as well as others, they aren't socialists. This admission of yours precludes any need on my part to provide definitions...though again, when time allows...
On another point, you'd do well to refrain from "guessing" what I mean then wasting keystrokes arguing against it.
Finally, I do not struggle in any way recognizing reality, despite your desperate need to believe such a thing. The rich irony here is how far from reality this routine assertion of yours is.
Where is Craig? Where is Marshal? Where is Stan? “With their lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification?”
“A Black Lives Matter banner and sign were torn from two historic Black churches in downtown D.C. and destroyed during pro-Trump protests Saturday night. D.C. police said they are investigating the events as potential hate crimes.
In one of the incidents, videos posted on Twitter show a group of people identified as Proud Boys marching with a Black Lives Matter banner held above their heads, then cheering as it is set on fire while chanting “f--- antifa.”
The banner was taken from Asbury United Methodist Church, one of the oldest Black churches in the city. Ashbury United has stood at the corner of 11th and K streets NW since 1836.
“Last night demonstrators who were part of the MAGA gatherings tore down our Black Lives Matter sign and literally burned it in the street,” the Rev. Ianther M. Mills, the church’s senior pastor, said in a statement. “It pained me especially to see our name, Asbury, in flames. For me it was reminiscent of cross burnings.”
Another video, posted by @BGOnTheScene, shows a Black Lives Matter sign being torn down from in front of Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church at 15th and M streets NW. The group is heard chanting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” as they destroy the sign in front of the church where worshipers have included historic leaders, such as Frederick Douglass, and presidents, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and William Howard Taft.
In response, William H. Lamar IV, pastor of Metropolitan AME, tweeted: “We have not been distracted by signs, sounds, or fury for nearly two centuries. We worship. We liberate. We serve.”
Marshal... "I again direct you to your own words regarding "leaning towards" a form of socialism many socialists use to convince themselves, as well as others, they aren't socialists."
Democratic socialism is not socialism.
Lightning bug is not lightning.
Words have meanings.
By all means, take your time and provide your definition. But the facts are just the facts: I am literally NOT a socialist in the sense that socialism is typically defined. I don't want state ownership of the means of production. Period.
It's not hard to understand and it's just a fact.
Nice try. Democratic socialism IS socialism, while a lightening bug is a bug. Here again we see the fruutlessness of trying to find common ground with a leftist.
Sigh. Define socialism as you are using it and then we can see if THAT is something I believe in.
I'd be willing to bet that either it's not something I believe in OR your definition is not socialism.
just define it. It's not that hard. Are you using some non-standard definition? Give it. Are you using MW's definition? Give it.
Nothing else, Marshal. I'm being respectful. I'm giving you a chance. You have said that I am a socialist. I'm giving you a chance to support that claim.
I gave you the standard definition of socialist and that is NOT what I believe.
Do you recognize that reality?
That is, I do NOT want state ownership of the means of production. I just don't. I don't want state ownership of property (your house, my house, etc). I just don't. Thus, by the normal definition, I'm not a socialist, literally so.
Right?
Marshal keeps showing his respect for life by denying 350,000 American dead at the hands of Trump.
More domestic terrorism attacking our way of life and democracy for Craig and Marshal and Stan to ignore:
"Now, “credible threats of violence” ahead of the state’s electoral college vote Monday — a pivotal step in cementing the swing state’s votes for President-elect Joe Biden — have forced Michigan’s top lawmakers to close all legislative offices in Lansing. Gideon D’Assandro, a spokesperson for state House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R), confirmed on Sunday to The Washington Post that Michigan House and Senate leadership consulted with the state police regarding the threats. The state Capitol, where the vote is set to take place, was already set to be closed to the public Monday."
Marshal, in a comment that has been deleted because he didn't do the one simple thing I asked of him (define socialism) said, "keep in mind that when you say you 'lean towards' some form of socialism, that means you are a socialist..."
So, when I say I lean towards catching lightning bugs in my hands, that means I like to catch lightning. Because the words mean the same thing.
Is that what you're saying?
Because it's false in both instances.
Words have meanings. This is why I'm politely requesting that you give YOUR definition of socialism to support YOUR false charge that I'm a socialist. I'm politely giving you a chance to make your case, but you have to, you know, actually make your case. And that will begin with defining how YOU are using socialism. Because as I have demonstrated, I am not a socialist, by definition.
So tired of idiots who cannot learn. The US has socialist leanings.
1. The US military supplies equal housing, absolutely equal health benefits, free education for children, heavily subsidized shopping all funded and controlled by the Government.
2. Universal Free Education for anyone from K-12 (No Charge) paid by progressive tax system.
3. Transportation and Infastructure are funded and controlled and upgraded by the State.
4. A Single-Payer Healthcare System for America Seniors called Medicare which is is very Cheap and Affordable in most states for most Elderly Americans to have Medical Free in Some States it’s Totally Free.
5. Healthcare Plan for the Poor called Medicaid although it’s complicated for one Medicaid doesn’t really give actual poor people the Healthcare it depends on what income even for some reason some poor people can’t apply for Medicaid because there a bit more Richer than what you need to Apply but nevertheless Medicaid gives Free or very Low Cost Affordable Healthcare for the Poor here in America it’s not Universao because it’s dosnet cover very poor American unlink Medicare which coverage every Senior American.
6. The US has property taxes and uses eminent domain. Rights of private property owners are restricted by laws and regulations.
7. Federal Reserve Bank for the American Government to use it for many Policies.
8. Social Security:America is a Great Country for Social Security it encompasses social Welfare and social Insurance Programs for Americans.
9. Public Funded Police System.
10. Public Parks in America are Public and are Green Spaces and Recreation Space for all .
11. Libraries in the US are Publiclay Funded by the State
And, as everyone knows, the NFL is absolutely socialist.
- The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
- The salary cap structure
- In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play
"So, when I say I lean towards catching lightning bugs in my hands, that means I like to catch lightning. Because the words mean the same thing."
Still trying to make this work? At some point, one would expect a dude insisting he's rational would be embarrassed of himself. "Democratic" describes the type of socialist you are. "Lightening" describes the type of bug. So if you say you "lean toward catching lightening bugs", you're catching bugs, of a species called "lightening". If you "lean toward 'Democratic' socialism", you're leaning toward socialism, of a species called "democratic". It's still socialism, just as the lightening bug is still a bug. And to lean towards "Democratic socialism" means you're a socialist...by definition.
But Democratic socialism and socialism have different definitions. Literally. They are not the same thing. What about that are you failing to understand?
A Democratic Socialist leaves in one set of policies. A socialist believes in different policies.
To give another example, a Shadow Boxer and a boxer are, I guess, both boxers. But one never hits another human being. Boxers, by definition, hit human beings. Shadowboxers, by definition, do not hit human beings.
Words have meanings.
Even though you refuse to do the one thing I'm requesting - simply offer your definition of socialism - I'm going to leave your comment and try it another way.
Define Democratic Socialist - as it is used here in the US typically - and explain what it is about those policies that you do not like.
And I would ask you to give her rationale, adult answer. Not something like, "it's a type of socialism and I hate all socialism!" Explain yourself. Here's your attempt to show Goodwill and reason.
I suspect that Marshal knows full well that I am not a socialist, by definition. That is, I do not believe in the government owning of the means of production. Thus, I'm literally not that type of socialist.
But rather than admit that and explain what he means, he's just refusing to offer a simple definition. I don't think it's the case that Marshal has some secret definition unknown to humanity for socialism. He has the same definition that everyone has and he's well aware that I am not a socialist by definition.
Instead, he's choosing to conflate Democratic socialism and socialism - which do not support the same set of policies. They're different things, different policy systems, by definition. But since he won't offer that simple definition and explain himself, it's hard to say.
"A Democratic Socialist leaves in one set of policies. A socialist believes in different policies."
Both are socialist policies.
"To give another example, a Shadow Boxer and a boxer are, I guess, both boxers."
For a second you had it there. Then you had to move on to the irrelevant. The point is, both are boxers, both are socialists.
"Here's your attempt to show Goodwill and reason."
I show goodwill by continually engaging with you...more so than you choose to engage with me, and never by deleting comments of yours I find difficult (of course that's because none of them are, but that's besides the point). And all my comments are based in reason. Your inability to infer any isn't my problem. We can see by your well known inability to form analogies and explanations that reason isn't your strong suit.
Again, I've only time to poke you by dealing with those comments of yours that are so incredibly obvious in their goofiness. My desire to address your larger concerns requires more time than I have.
As to you insistence that I offer definitions of any kind, that's not likely to happen given it allows you to dodge if you believe you can show what you believe or how you behave doesn't match with absolute exactness any definition provided. That's not how things work in the real world. Take your socialism/democratic socialism attempt. They are degrees of the same thing and one can be a socialist but fail to exactly align with either. So it really doesn't matter what definition I choose to use. You're on the scale...it's just a matter of exactly where, which doesn't matter to me in accusing you of being a socialist.
Of course it does distract from the blog topic, doesn't it?
Marshall, I will leave this comment here too, just to show how belligerent you're being. If you're going to call me a socialist and I'm not a socialist, by definition, you WILL have to explain yourself. You WILL have to offer your definitions that you're operating from.
IF you want to comment here, that's the price you pay. You must engage and respectful give-and-take conversation. That's what we need in our nation, is to find some common ground. I'm giving you a chance to find Common Ground.
Define your words you're using or admit that it's a stupid stupidly false claim. I'm being quite patient... do not comment again without a definition.
What are you accusing me of believing? You've accused me of being a socialist and I'm not a socialist, by definition so what is it exactly that you are accusing me of? That must be answered.
If, by socialist, you mean I believe in a commonly paid for fire department and library and public education, then yes, I and the majority of the nation believes in that. That's not socialism but we believe in it.
If by socialism you mean I favor taking property from the owners, then no I am not a socialist. If by socialism you mean I support taxation to pay for a common needs, then yes, I do believe in that. Along with the majority of people. But that's not socialism.
So here's your chance. Show you're willing to to engage in an attempt at respectful dialogue and explain yourself. If you're only wanting to mindlessly attack, then that is not the point of this post. Be better than that.
Marshal: "The point is, both are boxers..." Shadow boxers are boxers? 😂😂😂
Marshal loves to go to Merriam-Webster for complex things that dictionaries can’t handle but won’t go for the simplest things he willfully lies about.
boxer noun (1)
1 : a person who engages in the sport of boxing
2 boxers plural : BOXER SHORTS
boxer noun (2)
: one that makes boxes or packs things in boxes
boxer noun (3)
: any of a German breed of compact medium-sized dogs with a short usually fawn or brindled coat
boxer noun (4)
: a member of a Chinese secret society that in 1900 attempted by violence to drive foreigners out of China and to force Chinese converts to renounce Christianity
Marshal just posted this on Craig's page...
Dan likes to demand definitions,
which is another overt act of diversion and obfuscation.
The irony and unintentional humor is just astounding.
Expecting some clarification around word usage is an act of obfuscation? Clarification = Obfuscation?
Marshal, bud, 1984 is not a How To manual!
Craig doesn't have the guts to come to your show like you go to his because he can't take you exerting control like he does. And I'm here; which he cannot face either.
Marshal whines. He has to make like he's winning somewhere other than his unvisited blog. He needs a fantasy world where he is right.
Marshal can take confrontation because he just can't read reality. Craig cannot take open confrontation because he can read reality and here, undeleted, reality too often tells him he's wrong.
I've actually tried commenting on Marshal's blogs several times the last few weeks. So, while it may be technically true that "never by deleting comments of yours I find difficult," not posting them is the rough equivalent of deleting them.
I sort of guess that he's just too busy to get to it, and I get that. But then, it doesn't leave him much room to boast about his "openness" to dialog with others. Neither does his refusal to comply with simple requests like "What exactly do you mean by that word" or "Where is the data to support that charge?"
He doesn't' dialog at all. Dialog is a mutual commitment to present one's opinions with as much reason as one can muster. Marshal is a liar because he believes in a white supremacist god. He is a gold star member of a diffuse, cultural white cult.
We won't make a dent in cast iron crazy.
Dan,
I've not seen any emails indicating you've tried to post any time in the last...I dunno...year or so (possible exaggeration...not about to attempt to verify). I have the same issue with Glenn's attempts to post, but then my attempts to post at his blog require other means of alert as well. I constantly get your troll trying to post and his crap shows up in my spam folder. I'll have to check for yours through blogger...something I've not made a habit of doing for anyone.
Marshal made a comment saying that he DOES provide support for his arguments.
Don't TELL me that you give support for your arguments, SHOW me.
You made a claim that I'm a socialist.
By definition, I'm NOT a socialist. So, provide support for your charge. Don't TELL me that you'll do it or that you HAVE done it, just do it.
IF you want to say I'm a Democratic Socialist (which is different than socialist, by definition), and you find that objectionable, then define Democratic Socialist and explain what you find objectionable about my views.
For instance, as someone who leans Democratic Socialist (I most closely would align with Green Party, fyi, but as always, it depends upon the topic and HOW IT'S BEING DEFINED),
I support taxation to pay our mutual bills (but that's not socialist, and it's normative in the US)
I support a progressive tax scheme to pay our mutual bills (but that's not socialist, and it's normative in the US)
I support using our collective money to pay for public schools, libraries, fire stations, roads, inspectors, environmental protection, our prisons, our justice system's expenses, our police departments, etc... (but that's not socialist and it's all normative in the US).
Of THOSE things I actually believe, is THAT what you object to and why you (wrongly) call me a socialist?
If so, then do you recognize that these are normal, typical beliefs/values in the US?
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247052/americans-long-standing-interest-taxing-rich.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/190775/americans-say-upper-income-pay-little-taxes.aspx
Yes, Marshal I posted (two comments, I believe) on your most recent post last week and your Nov 15 post maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago.
Craig: “Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member...”
Factually wrong. Trump never nominated Grenell (Marshal’s bigotry - “Grendel” - has him thinking of the Beowulf monster). He named him as acting. No Senate review. Trump’s modus operandi to get around democracy.
Mr Buttigieg is first to be nominated for a permanent chair.
Whose assumptions and prejudices are showing?
But he thinks he really got you in a mistake.
Corrupt hypocrite.
Yeah, well. Clearly he was mistaken. It happens.
And I've read some news reports that did appear to speak of this as if Grenell hadn't been appointed. Sloppy journalism doesn't help.
Nope. The Constitutional use of Presidential "appointments" is solely in the context of Senate oversight. Interims are "designated".
The Press is right.
The Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, says that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.”
The Appointments Clause allows the President to make nominations for appointed positions like cabinet officers, but the Senate controls the process, including the rules that allow a nomination vote to get to the full Senate floor.
What I'm saying is that, early on, I saw at least one or two news stories to say something like "First openly gay person to serve in a cabinet position..." or otherwise, use loose language that was not quite correct. I of course get the distinction you're making and, as I look around now, it appears all the media is stating it correctly. But when I first looked, I found some article somewhere that used imprecise language.
And I get that Craig and Marshal are missing the point. But, as someone who was schooled in journalism, I just also get the importance of using precise language and wording when reporting news.
Craig: “Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member...”
It remains, re you, he's a hypocrite.
Craig, on his blog, speaking of me... "was to watch Dan jump in with both feet, and then point out his partisan hackery."
Maybe, just maybe, the overt hypocrisy and ironic humor of him mistaking my position, thinking HE had taught ME in some partisan hackery, but it turns out that he was the one catching himself up in partisan hackery... maybe he'll be a bit embarrassed about it all and it'll give him pause.
Hope Springs Eternal?
Dan: "2. Trump did not nominate and confirm the first gay Cabinet member. Correct?"
Craig: "Read what I wrote in the original post very carefully, then think about it, then decide if this question makes sense."
Feodor reading what Craig did in fact write to Dan: "... But y’all are so obsessed with giving Biden this “honor”, that y’all ignored the fact that Trump nominated and confirmed the first gay cabinet member..."
God, who hates hypocrisy and is also reading what Craig wrote to Dan: "Oh lord, the lengths you’ll go to in order to avoid admitting that you could possibly have been wrong. "
Yeah, well... I just don't know.
I love how he defends Carson because Dr. Biden knows that the word 'doctor' comes from the Latin word for "teacher."
But he wants to dismiss Mr Buttigieg's qualifications for Transportation Secretary. This from a guy who is committed to a party that picked Trump for President.
"Jared Kushner helped set up a shell company that secretly paid President Donald Trump’s family members and spent nearly half of his 2020 campaign’s funds.
The president’s son-in-law and White House senior adviser directed his sister-in-law Lara Trump, Vice President Mike Pence’s nephew John Pence and Trump campaign CFO Sean Dollman to sit on the shell company’s board, a source familiar with the operation told Business Insider."
OK. So the problem with your demand for definitions is that it allows you to hide behind them if you think you can dismiss the use of a word on a technicality. That is, there's some way to look at the definition and say, "See? This isn't exactly identical to me and thus you can't refer to me with that word."
But definitions don't work quite that way, particularly when dealing with ideologies of any given individual. For example, you call yourself a Christian because you can go through a list of things that you can assert proves your contention. I'll keep it simple here for the sake of argument: "I'm a Christian because I've accepted Christ as my Savior." If you live a life that doesn't reflect this acceptance, the assertion is worthless. "I'm not a socialist because I don't believe in government control of the means of production." That's not compelling when you do agree to various types and degrees of government control...which you clearly do.
My definition of socialism is as I've stated, anything left of center. I say that because these days that's about as true as true can be, with the only caveat being to what degree one might be. If you imagine a political line on the ground and stand directly upon it, you're in the center. If you take one step to the left, you're now a socialist to the degree of one step. One step to the right and you're one step to the US Constitution. Moving right in this country is to honor the Constitution because that's what's made this country the United States of America as the founders imagined it.
So getting back to the analogy of the line on the ground, you've stepped more than one step left of that line and thus are more socialist than one who hasn't stepped as far as you. But socialist you are regardless of how far to the left you've chosen to step. To thus insist you are not a socialist because you don't match exactly a dictionary definition is the type of obfuscation and deceit to which I've referred. You don't need to "go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" or wear the socialist decoder ring. You only need to advocate for policies that are socialist in nature if not in absolute fact. To whine that you don't match that dictionary definition is to muddy the waters of discourse. The point is that you're not arguing for that which is American or Constitutionally based. You argue for that which is socialism based. More on this later.
"If by socialism you mean I favor taking property from the owners, then no I am not a socialist."
But you do. You argue for taking more money out of people's wallets to finance that which is not the duty of government. If you're looking to see the implementation of Medicare4All, Obamacare, single payer health care or any other government sponsored health care arrangement, you're pushing a socialist form of health care.
If you're looking for "free college" via government, you're pushing a socialist idea of education.
When you're looking to tax people for such things, you're talking about government taking over the means of production in these areas, as well as taking over private property...our wealth...to make it work...which it never will.
"If, by socialist, you mean I believe in a commonly paid for fire department and library and public education, then yes, I and the majority of the nation believes in that. That's not socialism but we believe in it."
Only socialists try to make this argument or think they're winning a debate with this nonsense. All governments have police, fire, military and a few other things that are justifiable given their duty to protect their people. Those are necessary functions of government. That's not at all socialism or anything like it. When you get into things like education and health care, that's a different story and the more you add on, the more socialist you get.
"Be better than that."
You're condescending to the wrong dude. Leave that for the man in your mirror and your troll.
"Marshal made a comment saying that he DOES provide support for his arguments."
Because it's true. When you delete my comments that contained my evidence in support of my arguments, you can't then say I didn't supply it. You also can't bitch when I refuse to supply it again and again every time you delete my comments due to some BS reason, as is your practice. Again, "Be better than that."
"For instance, as someone who leans Democratic Socialist (I most closely would align with Green Party, fyi, but as always, it depends upon the topic and HOW IT'S BEING DEFINED),"
Here you've done two things:
1. You've admitted you're a socialist by saying you "lean" that way. This is all the evidence I need as a result...your admission.
2. You've admitted that defining things is a matter of some subjectivity. I would say that based upon the Green Party website, they're just another socialist outfit who doesn't use the term to describe themselves, but who promote socialist ideas and notions.
"I support taxation to pay our mutual bills (but that's not socialist, and it's normative in the US)"
The only "mutual bills" our tax dollars are supposed to fund are those bills that are the result of actual and specific functions of government, as referenced above. Too much of our national debt is the result of too much that is outside the parameters of legitimate government function due to the leftist, socialist influence of the Democrat Party and others of the left.
"I support a progressive tax scheme to pay our mutual bills (but that's not socialist, and it's normative in the US)"
Socialist. Definitely not American to implement an unequal policy such as a progressive tax scheme. To say it's "normative" does not justify its inherent unjust nature. "Normative" is not moral.
"I support using our collective money to pay for public schools, libraries, fire stations, roads, inspectors, environmental protection, our prisons, our justice system's expenses, our police departments, etc... (but that's not socialist and it's all normative in the US)."
This is a list of behaviors, not all of which are legitimate government functions. "Normative" is not legitimate. It is also another attempt to imply that I would suggest legit governmental functions are socialist. Again, only socialists make that argument to rationalize socialist policy proposals.
Finally, using opinion polls to rationalize bad policy isn't evidence of anything other than how many people agree with bad policy. Taxing the rich at a higher percentage than anyone else is an unequal application of law...a law that isn't necessarily Constitutional as well.
This should bring us up to date.
"My definition of socialism is as I've stated, anything left of center."
Stupid nonsense. That's no one's definition of socialism.
But then, Marshal belongs to the McConnell club. Vladimir Putin acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory before Mitch McConnell did.
Up to date:
The U.S. recorded more than 3,600 deaths on Wednesday, shattering the previous record.
The national death toll soared past 310,000 this week, and there are few signs that the pace will slow soon. California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas have all announced more than 1,000 deaths in the past week.
The (Republican led) South is on a worrisome trajectory. Georgia, Arkansas and South Carolina have all set weekly case records. Tennessee is identifying cases at the highest per capita rate in the country.
Marshal... "Definitely not American to implement an unequal policy such as a progressive tax scheme. To say it's "normative" does not justify its inherent unjust nature. "Normative" is not moral."
Are you suggesting that you are the one who gets to decide what is and isn't American? And if the majority of the citizens of the United States disagree with your hunches, then you're the American and we're not? Does that make us all socialists? These are legitimate questions. I'll expect answers to them.
Also, many of the founders of our nation supported progressive taxation schemes, you know that, don't you?
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2010/06/16/the-founding-fathers-and-taxes-the-real-story/
So, on what basis would you make a bold claim like it is unamerican to disagree with you about the rational option of having a progressive tax scheme?
It's unAmerican to bring up American historical practice.
uh huh
Hm. Hard to wrap one's mind around, ain't it?
History is funny!
using opinion polls to rationalize bad policy isn't evidence of anything other than how many people agree with bad policy.
Not what I'm doing at all. I'm showing you that your opinion is the outlier, not in the majority. I'm also showing you that, according to you, more than half the nation is socialist.
Do you think that's rational?
My definition of socialism is as I've stated, anything left of center.
You DO realize that this is not rational, nor, well, English? By THAT very broad (and unique to you and perhaps some outliers who agree with you) "definition," nearly everyone is socialist in some regards. Which returns us to a couple of points:
1. You're not using a standard definition of socialism and you're an outlier on this point.
2. Your "definition" is whimsical and not data-driven or supported by reality.
3. By THAT definition, I am a "socialist..." TO YOU. But not by definition.
Can you at least agree that this whimsical definition of socialism is pretty meaningless if only you and, oh, I don't know, 10,000 (being generous and just grabbing a random large number) people share that "definition..."?
Can you admit to the reality that I'm NOT a socialist by normal definitions of socialism, as the word is defined in English?
Oh, and I've made some more comments on your post, Marshal.
Marshal... "only socialists make that argument to rationalize socialist policy proposals."
You can't support this claim, you know that, right? People who are not socialists (like ne, for instance) may very well make the claim. Right?
Also, did you know that I am not opposed to capitalism, nor do I want to see it destroyed or defeated. That, too, is a position of actual socialists, showing again that I'm not a socialist.
I believe in the freedom of capitalism, along with the responsibility of seeing it reasonably and well-regulated.
Words have meanings.
"Do you think that's rational?"
No. I do not think it's rational to speak of half the nation when the subject is YOU.
"You DO realize that this is not rational..."
It's perfectly rational.
"By THAT very broad (and unique to you and perhaps some outliers who agree with you) "definition," nearly everyone is socialist in some regards."
No. Only those left of center are.
"1. You're not using a standard definition of socialism and you're an outlier on this point."
No I'm not, but that doesn't mitigate the truth. "Standard definitions" don't always account for degrees, which is my premise...anything left of center is socialist, the difference between immediately left of center and totally socialist is just matters of degree.
Being an "outlier" doesn't make me wrong.
"2. Your "definition" is whimsical and not data-driven or supported by reality."
Totally data-driven and supported by reality.
"3. By THAT definition, I am a "socialist..." TO YOU. But not by definition."
Sure, not by an anal-retentive, desperately inflexible adherence to the letter of the definition.
"Can you at least agree that this whimsical definition of socialism is pretty meaningless if only you and, oh, I don't know, 10,000 (being generous and just grabbing a random large number) people share that "definition..."?"
Nope. And I don't much care how many others "share that definition", though I'd wager it's orders of magnitude larger than your "generous" number.
"Can you admit to the reality that I'm NOT a socialist by normal definitions of socialism, as the word is defined in English?"
Nope. Not when you've admitted to being a socialist twice in the midst of your denials. Are you a full on socialist according to the definition you insist upon? Who cares? You're a socialist by your own admission.
More later...
Okay! Some common ground. Here we go...
1. By Marshal's "personal definition" of socialism ("left of center") we AGREE that I am a "marshal-socialist," ie, I'm left of center. Along with a huge portion of the US, depending upon the topic.
2. Marshal's "definition" of socialism IS unique to him, so far as we know, and not shared by anyone else BUT Marshal (I suspect there are some others, but we don't know how many and there's no evidence that it's common or widespread). We agree to that.
3. I'm NOT a socialist, as the word is typically defined. I support a well-regulated capitalism (socialists don't support capitalism, but want to see it ended) and I oppose the gov't-owned "means of production." I'm just not a socialist, period, as the word is normally defined.
4. Being an outlier doesn't make one wrong. But neither does it make one right.
At least four points of agreement/common ground.
How's that for starters?
You've proved you're not a socialist, Dan
Here is Marshal's go-to on deep thinking: Merriam-Webster's definition of "socialism" (oddly ignored by him):
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
(Dan is a no.)
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
(Dan is a no.)
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
(Dan is a no.)
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(Dan is a no.)
"1. By Marshal's "personal definition" of socialism ("left of center") we AGREE that I am a "marshal-socialist," ie, I'm left of center."
Thanks for naming a form of socialism after me. It's like naming a form of poop after me. But as I've stated, there's only "socialism" regardless of degree or "form". That's a more accurate representation of my position.
"2. Marshal's "definition" of socialism IS unique to him..."
Not at all. But you're getting hung up on demanding a strict adherence to a dictionary definition so that you can avoid being called a socialist. I don't operate that way, given the strict definition is useful for identifying socialism of lesser degree as well. And it certainly helps to identify your socialist tendencies. I'll be getting to that within the next day or so when my time is more plentiful for the purpose.
"3. I'm NOT a socialist, as the word is typically defined. I support a well-regulated capitalism (socialists don't support capitalism, but want to see it ended) and I oppose the gov't-owned "means of production." I'm just not a socialist, period, as the word is normally defined."
Actually you are, just not to the degree to which you feel you need to be in order to qualify. For example, government regulation of business is government control of the means of production. That it isn't full control as we'd see in a totally socialist economy is besides the point. Said another way, there's no such thing as being "a little" pregnant.
"4. Being an outlier doesn't make one wrong. But neither does it make one right."
The former is true. The latter I've never asserted.
"At least four points of agreement/common ground.
How's that for starters?"
Horrible. There's no agreement at all, since you have such poor understanding of my position, as well as how to identify a socialist and thus no common ground. Want to try again? I do. I'm trying to put together a post on explaining exactly what "common ground" can look like.
Evidence of voter fraud:
A Pennsylvania man is facing up to 19 years in prison after prosecutors say he admitted to illegally casting a ballot in the general election for President Donald Trump as his dead mother and also registering his dead mother-in-law to vote with the intent to do the same.
Uh oh. Craig has to turn another hypocritical blind eye to “white-is-right” violence.
“Armed far-right protesters attempted to break into the Oregon Capitol in Salem on Monday and clashed with the police as legislators extended COVID-19 relief and restrictions. Members of far-right and white-supremacist groups including the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer were there, according to The Daily Beast and Oregon Public Broadcasting. Protesters broke glass doors, sprayed chemicals at police officers, and assaulted journalists. They did not make it into the session.”
On my first point, we are agreed. By YOUR OWN UNIQUE TO YOU definition of "socialism" (which is not socialism as it's normally defined, but merely "left of center"), we agree.
On the second point, you are trying to disagree, saying, ""2. Marshal's "definition" of socialism IS unique to him..."
Not at all."
Um, yes. It is. Now, you can demonstrate that I'm mistaken and ALL you have to do that is show where ANY ONE ELSE defines "socialism" as "left of center." IF you can't find anyone else who defines it that way, then it is a fact that it is unique to you (or at best, unique to you and a few others who define the word in a way that is not normative.)
Now, ONE simple task: Admit that your "definition" of "socialism" is unique to you OR show where other people are defining socialism as "left of center."
Nothing else, Marshal. I'm trying to find common ground and thought we had on this point, but you appear to want to disagree with reality. You need to either admit it's unique to you or support your claim that it's not.
Don't post ANYTHING else until you've clarified your misunderstanding on this point.
Same here: DAN: "3. I'm NOT a socialist, as the word is typically defined."
Marshal: "Actually you are, just not to the degree to which you feel you need to be in order to qualify."
No. I'm literally NOT a socialist, NOT AS THE WORD IS TYPICALLY DEFINED. I'm just not.
Do you recognize that reality?
(Hint: There is only one factual, reality-based answer.)
Vis a vis, Craig and Pelosi's "obstruction to aid": "The President wants more money in American's hands. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, chimed in: “Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the president wanted for direct checks. At last, the president has agreed to $2,000 … Let’s do it!”
Well there's a chance for common ground with Trump. I wonder if Craig and Marshal could join in agreement?
😂😂😂
I haven't been deleting you, but you have an assignment right now so I'm deleting the comment where you asked if I'm deleting you.
Nope. I don't play that game. You're gonna have to go pound sand.
And thus, he withdraws from dialog and any attempt to find common ground, all to keep himself from acknowledging a simple reality.
Marshal keeps commenting but not following the rules. I've asked for a few simple clarifications, to see if he can agree with reality and he's stubbornly refusing.
The reality is that socialism has a definition and I just don't fit it, as someone who believes in a regulated capitalism with private ownership of stuff, including the means of production. All I'm asking is can he recognize that I don't fit with the dictionary definition of socialist. He insists on insisting I do, in spite of literally not fitting the dictionary definition.
Also, since Marshal defines "socialist" in a non-standard way that I can't find anywhere else, I'm just asking him to recognize that his definition is not THE definition of socialism, as found in the dictionary or used by other people. He refuses to recognize this reality.
I don't know what to do with that. IF you can prove that other people DO use "left of center" to define socialist, then provide the proof. If you can't, admit you can't.
If you can prove that I fit the dictionary definition of socialist (I don't), then do it. If not, then just admit that reality.
Two simple things you need to do before you can comment here. IF you're opting to not oblige these reasonable requests, then you're choosing to not engage in a respectful conversation.
Stan, reasoning on biblical theology, writes, “ Jesus, who was "in the form of God" (Php 2:6) became a native human by means of birth.”
Exactly. Became human by means of birth. Not conception.
Common ground.
It seems I hadn't posted the following after all. Sorry for any confusion. I'm going ahead and posting it because it actually adds more evidence of your socialist tendencies, and this time by your own words of recent comments:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see your problem (On this topic, not in general. That would take at least one book to explain.): You're confusing socialism with socialist. The former is an ideology, the latter is one who advocates for that ideology to one degree or another.
But again, you can't say you "lean toward 'Democratic' socialism" and not be a socialist. Those who advocate for "Democratic socialism" are socialists. You can tell by the name.
The same is true when you spoke of an affinity for the Green Party (make up your mind). The Green Party is another socialist outfit, advocating for a number of socialist principles.
Then you say you support "a well-regulated capitalism". I'd wager you're far more tolerant of regulations than I am, likely supporting more of them than I ever would. Unfortunately for you and your attempt to distance yourself from the word "socialist", the more regulation, the more the control of the means of production by the government.
I'll let this one stay, because you almost seem to be trying, even while failing.
Marshal... "you can't say you "lean toward 'Democratic' socialism" and not be a socialist."
1. "Lean towards DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM is not the same as "I am a democratic socialist." For starters, but set that aside.
2. A Democratic Socialist is NOT a socialist.
That is, THE DEFINITION of a socialist is one who believes in socialism. The definition of socialism is...
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
THIS is not me.
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
THIS is not me.
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
THIS is not me.
I do NOT advocate socialism, as defined by Merriam Webster (or any other entity I can find). In reality, I do not advocate for socialism as it is defined.
That's just a statement of reality.
Do you recognize JUST THAT MUCH reality?
We can talk about what I do advocate (state regulation of matters like health, job safety, pollution - NONE of which are outside of the realm of capitalism and are not outside of mainstream American thought - hell, YOU almost certainly support some regulation, unless you're an anarchist and not a capitalist) but ONLY AFTER you recognize the reality that I'm not a socialist AS IT IS DEFINED. I'm just not.
I'll even make it easier for you: I'm not a socialist as Merriam Webster defines socialism.
Do you now recognize that reality?
Marshal... "Unfortunately for you and your attempt to distance yourself from the word "socialist", the more regulation, the more the control of the means of production by the government."
1. Regulation is not control.
2. From your comment, is it fair to say that you do, of course, support some regulation?
3. Are you trying to infer that at some point, regulation becomes socialism and if so, what is that point?
"1. Regulation is not control."
Are you freakin' kidding me?
"2. From your comment, is it fair to say that you do, of course, support some regulation?"
Not really. I allow for the possibility that some regulation exists that I might personally support...though I can't think of one that I believe is necessary or has the power to prevent non-compliance anymore than any civil law on the books...but certainly conceptually or theoretically, no. I don't support regulation.
"3. Are you trying to infer that at some point, regulation becomes socialism and if so, what is that point?"
If socialism is the governmental control of the means of production, than government imposed regulations control the means of production by degree. As you are quite clear in your tolerance for far more regulation than me, you're decidedly closer to socialism than I would ever be just on the basis of your tolerance for more of it.
More later...stop deleting, coward.
Dan... "1. Regulation is not control."
Marshal... "Are you freakin' kidding me?"
Not any more than Laws are fascism.
Look, in our nation, you are not free to kill or punch someone in the name of personal liberty. There's a rule against such actions and rightly so.
Just because there are rules/laws regulating our freedom does NOT mean that we are not autonomous or don't have control of our lives, right?
Likewise, a business is not free to dump toxic waste into a stream in the name of liberty and control. There are regulations against such, and rightly so.
Just because there are rules/laws regulating a company's freedom does NOT mean that they are not autonomous or don't have control of their business, right?
Do you disagree? Are you for anarchy in the name of corporate autonomy?
Shaun King: “Only a white man can bomb an American city and the US President doesn’t say a thing.”
We cannot make common ground with deplorable people.
Feodor, just help me make sure I'm not crazy. Marshal is saying that I'm making false claims. He says that when I said that Barr said there is NO DATA to support the charge of widespread voter fraud, that I was lying because I left off "SO FAR," as in "So far, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud." Marshal said...
"Let's see you prove it. REALITY says that when a person makes an emphatic statement "there is no data to support that claim", rational people will assume there's no data...PERIOD."
Am I missing something? Is it not obvious and always the case that if someone says, "There is NO EVIDENCE of ...[fill in the blank]" then it is ALWAYS something we can assume that implied in that is the idea of "SO FAR..." right?
I mean, "There is no hard evidence proving the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life" is not saying "AND SO THERE IS NO DATA and that can NEVER BE THE CASE!" right? It's only saying, INSOFAR as we know, based on the data we have at hand, there is no hard evidence establishing the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life..."
Right? Am I missing something that Marshal is trying to communicate? This sounds totally irrational to me, so much so that I fear I'm missing something that he's saying.
The thing you are missing, Dan, are the things you will not say. And you will not say them because you live and belong to a region that is minority sane. That is your burden. I acknowledge that I do not have that burden so what I say is unburdened. You have your life where you need to inch the marginally majority brutality whisperers along so that Northwestern Kentucky can heal itself by incremental degrees.
And given that burden, it is natural for you also to maintain ultimate positivity and supreme patience in order just to enjoy your own life: to create that rational, peaceable, hopeful island in a red state. Which you do, to your great credit.
I have no such need. I left Texas 35 years ago because of some dimly perceived desire to live among people who are more free, more honest, more creative and expansive. Which I've achieved, to my credit.
So you appear to not get what you cannot say very often. These bitter facts:
Marshal is NOT communicating. Communicating in dialogue requires paying responsible attention to one's own reasoning and having the humility to platform discussion on an understanding of the subjectivity of viewpoint of each participant. That is basic decency and basic communication capacity.
Marshal is NOT communicating.
Marshal is enjoying a vision of a radical protestant apocalypse where everyone he hates is getting divine punishment: women who will not keep their place; non-hetrosexual people who will not hate themselves; the poor who will not, against the laws of physics, pick themselves up with the aid of nothing; black and brown people who think they can lead; people of post-Enlightenment reasoning; and his white male friends, like Stan and Craig, who hate like he does but are not yet ready to abandon a base, bottom line faith in American democracy and join the self-destructive fantasy of an apocalypse.
Stan and Craig are financially better off than Marshal, which explains their reluctance to support full on fascism.
Marshal is ready. He's given himself over. I doubt there is a way back for him.
All the comments he adds, all the criticisms he makes of you, all the ways in which he has increasingly made his own definitions of common things, are just symptoms of the derangement of his political religion. Aside from comfort, that is the other principle that divides Marshal from Stan and Craig which has so recently come out into the open. Marshal's faith is solely that of controlling other people by his absolutist understanding of what constitutes right. He wants to damage people until they fall in line with with him, which he mistakes for god. Craig and Stan aren't that devolved into barely contained evil. They admit they do not know the acts of god even though they think they can anticipate the mind of god. In fact, for all of them, there is no anticipating the acts of god because their god does nothing new. It's all already written down in a book, two millennia ago.
What you do not get (and with this I get personal, Dan, because both you and I were intended to be Marshals and Craigs and Stans and that fake bagpiper) is that the white supremacy identity in which we all grew up is a manufactured identify based on a 400 year old ideology - socially constructed and socially/symbolically learned - and intended by all of us to repress the guilt that would ultimately though incrementally undo our exceptional and unmerited quality of life over the world via native genocide and chattel slavery of Africans.
What you do not get is that these guys and 70+million white Americans have moved once again into the deep end of lawlessness just like the old South, the old West, and the more subtle, quiet, suffocation of the old North.
Marshal is NOT communicating. He has his head out of the window of the White Pride car, joyfully - but in nihilistic self-destruction - catching in his empty mouth all the winds he possibly can which bring news of retribution and destruction of modern progress.
It's your nice white politesse they depend upon to help them feel like they are not on the outside of sanity and screaming. Craig will go on forever with you because you give him what white people demand: ultimate acceptance. Marshal, on the other hand, being more irrationally enraged, thrills to stand outside of reality and scream. But he lives in a fantasy, so reality looks like an enemy.
Me they block, because, given my life, I am clear that all those who remain steeped in whiteness live in condemnation. God cancels their willfully chosen identity. Willful because the truth of the world as fashioned by god's love comes to them daily and they reject it. I do not give them nice white politesse, and so I betray their corrupt need. And they cannot take it.
This guy is and the Nashville bomber was a white man. That’s why you haven’t about these acts of terrorism from the holder of the office of President of the US. And won’t by their own volition from Craig or Marshal.
“An active-duty Special Forces soldier has been charged with murder after three people were killed and three wounded in a shooting Saturday at a bowling alley in Rockford, Illinois, authorities said Sunday.”
"Not any more than Laws are fascism."
Depends on the laws and how many there are. But regulation is indeed control because that's what "regulate" means. The more regulations imposed by governments on business, the more government is controlling the means of production. Indeed, it's the whole point of government regulation, and regardless of the intent of a given regulation, it's seeks to impose a degree of control on how a given business or industry operates. You want to wet yourself over the fact that American regulations haven't risen to the level of dictionary definition of socialism. Honest people recognize each additional regulation pushes us toward that definition and by doing so, those who advocate for more regulation are socialist.
"Look, in our nation, you are not free to kill or punch someone in the name of personal liberty. There's a rule against such actions and rightly so."
Don't pretend this makes your point in the least. A government is tasked with protecting the people it governs against those who would do them harm. But you may have noticed the fact that laws concerning murder have not done much to eliminate murder. How much less effective are laws and regulations which are directed at far less harmful outcomes. Those who are burdened the most by such regulations are those who aren't prone to operating in negligent ways...and courts can still hold accountable those who have done harm...as regulations so often involve additional costs payable to the government...thereby commandeering the business to profit.
"Just because there are rules/laws regulating our freedom does NOT mean that we are not autonomous or don't have control of our lives, right?"
Wrong. The greater the amount of laws and regulations, the less liberty we have...the less control of our lives and/or the businesses we run.
I'm not for anarchy in any way shape or form, but it's interesting that you acknowledge what I've said for years: the extreme of leftism is socialism and fascism and the extreme of the right-wing is anarchy. That's a nice admission on your part. Rare and appreciated.
But of course, what I'm for is irrelevant to the point regarding your socialist bent.
Marshal... " A government is tasked with protecting the people it governs against those who would do them harm. But you may have noticed the fact that laws concerning murder have not done much to eliminate murder."
YES! A free nation's government is tasked with protecting people. And IF a company would engage in actions that can harm their employees or neighbors, THEN it is not fascist nor unduly "controlling" to say, "Hey, you can't harm people."
Because of course you can't and of course a government in a free nation will say that. Doesn't make it "socialist" or fascist.
It just doesn't.
But you may have noticed the fact that laws concerning murder have not done much to eliminate murder.
I rather doubt that you can prove that. Our laws in our free nation that "control" people by saying "You can't kill people" may not eliminate murder, but does it limit the potential for murder? What would the murder rate be with no "controls" against murder? Are you suggesting anarchy would result in fewer murders?
Regardless, while you could call laws against murder or against polluting "controlling," they are reasonable rules, nonetheless.
Do you disagree?
Marshal, I''m not a socialist, by definition. You have to recognize that reality before commenting further. MW literally defines socialist as someone who supports socialism and socialism as one who wants gov't control and ownership (ie, ultimate control) of the means of production. I'm literally not that.
Further, I am literally saying the same thing as Barr. SO FAR, there is NO DATA showing widespread voter fraud. The claim is stupidly false and Barr has said the same thing. There is NO DATA to support the claim. So far or however, the point remains, there is NOT NOW ANY DATA to support the stupidly false claim.
Acknowledge reality or move on.
When a man refuses to acknowledge 330,000 American dead from COVID, he makes himself sick and poisons his soul.
"And IF a company would engage in actions that can harm their employees or neighbors, THEN it is not fascist nor unduly "controlling" to say, "Hey, you can't harm people.""
Except that regulations too often impact companies that would NEVER engage in actions that can cause harm. No one, particularly the government, is required to tell such companies anything and they're far less in need of being regulated.
"Doesn't make it "socialist" or fascist."
Depends on the regulations/laws and how many there are of them.
"I rather doubt that you can prove that."
Chicago alone has had a record year for murders. It's pretty simple to prove that laws against murder have not eliminated murder.
"What would the murder rate be with no "controls" against murder?"
I'd wager the same because those who would will regardless and those who won't won't regardless. I don't need a law to keep me from murdering anyone. Are you suggesting you're more likely to murder without laws penalizing it? That would be pretty pathetically sad.
"Are you suggesting anarchy would result in fewer murders?"
No laws against murder does not mean total anarchy. Thus, a silly question.
"Regardless, while you could call laws against murder or against polluting "controlling," they are reasonable rules, nonetheless."
The issue isn't whether a specific law you could name is reasonable or not. The issue is support for more regulations becomes socialism because more regulation is more government control of the means of production.
"Marshal, I''m not a socialist, by definition."
Yeah, you keep saying that. But when you said you "lean toward 'Democratic socialism'"...as if that means it isn't socialism because you put "Democratic" in front of it...and when you said you like the Green Party, and when you support more regulation rather than less, and when you support the taking of personal property to support social programs as opposed to soliciting donations...when you support such things and others that are hallmarks of a socialist bent, I'm not persuaded by your refusal to accept what your words and actions say you are.
"You have to recognize that reality before commenting further."
Maybe you're right. Maybe socialist isn't the most accurate term. What term is appropriate for one who threatens those who won't believe what they're told to believe? "Fascist" works. So does "totalitarian".
"MW literally defines socialist as someone who supports socialism and socialism as one who wants gov't control and ownership (ie, ultimate control) of the means of production. I'm literally not that."
You're hiding again, but I can see you! "Literally"? Maybe not. Practically? Absolutely.
"Further, I am literally saying the same thing as Barr."
You are now. You weren't when you first cited him as if he validates your wish that there wasn't evidence of widespread voter/election fraud. And really, you're doing some fine contorting to make the claim work. But the reality is that there is plenty and I provided three links at my blog and like all other links, you ignore, dismiss and pretend there's nothing to see. Said another way, you're a liar.
There. I've totally acknowledged reality. No doubt you'll delete all this because you're all about common ground and grace.
Dan... Doesn't make it "socialist" or fascist."
Marshal...
"Depends on the regulations/laws and how many there are of them."
Okay. How many laws and regulations does it take it to become socialist? Fascist?
You see, the problem with your personal "definition" is that it is vague and whimsical. You have no line to say, THESE laws, regulations are okay within the framework of capitalism and freedom, but ONE MORE rule and regulation and it becomes socialism. It is entirely arbitrary, whimsical and personal to you. It's not a hard-and-fast definition. Thus, anyone and everyone could potentially be a socialist or a fascist by your whimsical definition, depending on how you feel that day. That's not a helpful definition or recognition of reality.
Dan... Further, I am literally saying the same thing as Barr."
Marshal... "You are now. You weren't when you first cited him as if he validates your wish that there wasn't evidence of widespread voter/election fraud."
No. I precisely was. I've always said that. It is always the case that given the known data, this is what we know right now. Is always the case that if other data shows up that contradicts the known data, then the known data changes. That is always my application because that's just how words work. That you didn't understand me correctly is not an indication that I was lying. Do you understand that?
I'll say it again. The reality is, there is no data showing widespread voter fraud... that is, voter fraud widespread enough to have affected the election. There is NO data to show that.
So far, based on what we would know right now, to the best of our knowledge right now, there is NO data to show widespread voter fraud. Just like Barr knowledged. That is what I've said. That is what Barr has said. That is what I have always said, because it is ALWAYS the case that if new data arises, then new data arises.
Now that I have clarified your misunderstanding, do you understand that that is not a lie on my part, that is not dishonesty on my part?
"Okay. How many laws and regulations does it take it to become socialist? Fascist?"
How many are you willing to endure before the labels fit to your liking in your desperate mind? You think trying to pin someone down on definitions mitigates the argument of your opponent. You think if there's some disparity between a dictionary definition and someone like you, then the argument is voided. Nonsense. In arguing about "good", even by your sanctimonious position, there are varying degrees of goodness under which you'd still insist the label fits any number of individuals. Yet here, you demand nothing but a strict adherence to that definition. Too bad life doesn't work that way. Even among the most ardent advocates of socialism differences will exist between them. As a constitutional conservative, I've disagreed on a few points, such as term limits. Yet, I would never regard those who favor term limits to be something other than conservative. But I would argue that they're not as conservative as I am...as I'd be less than surprised if they said the same of me.
"You see, the problem with your personal "definition" is that it is vague and whimsical."
You see, the problem with your personal definition that demands strict adherence to dictionaries is that those strict definitions don't account for human differences. We see this manifested in your party's rejection of pro-life members, despite those members advocating for most everything else the socialist Democrat party promotes.
More importantly, I'm not putting forth a definition in the first place. I'm acknowledging reality. Anything left of center politically is moving toward socialism, and it's been that way since Woodrow Wilson.
"Thus, anyone and everyone could potentially be a socialist or a fascist by your whimsical definition, depending on how you feel that day."
Nonsense. It's not a matter of how I feel on ANY given day. It's a matter of the things those like yourself promote, enable and celebrate, as well as what you oppose. Thus, you can reject the label all you like. But as you continue to promote and support more leftist positions, the label is appropriate.
"I'll say it again. The reality is, there is no data showing widespread voter fraud... that is, voter fraud widespread enough to have affected the election. There is NO data to show that."
This is clearly a lie because I've provided links that lay out the case. You just lack the honesty to accept any of it and you reject it without any attempt to provide arguments for why any of it fails to prove the charge. If Pennsylvania disregards the mandates of its own state constitution with regard to what is required for a ballot to be legitimate, all ballots that don't meet those requirements must be rejected as illegitimate. They counted them all. That's fraud enough to turn the results of that state...indeed, to void the entire election in Pennsylvania.
It's a lie on your part...dishonest to pretend there isn't evidence enough. Barr's limited investigation doesn't make your dishonest rejection of reality any less dishonest.
Reality is, Marshal. Embrace it. You're done on this thread. I can't help you understand reality on these points. Even though Barr and other conservatives are recognizing the reality that Trump lost, they are, no doubt, part of the plot.
Good luck.
But to address your links to a site "proving" there was widespread voter fraud.
First of all, your source is listed as EXTREME right and LOW reliability on reporting basic facts. Sources matter. If you cite the Flat Earth Society as a "proof" on some scientific matters, you won't be taken seriously. If you cite extreme nut cases to "prove" your case, you won't be taken seriously.
You're not going to be taken seriously citing Frontpage Mag."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frontpage-magazine/
First of all, there's that. Crazy is as crazy does.
Secondly, I reviewed FPM's case and I don't see a single thing that demonstrates Biden lost. The author leads with "the Implausibility of the Win" and cites things like (my paraphrase)"Look at how many votes Trump got!!" as if that means a damned thing if Biden didn't get more.
He says things like noting that Biden won fewer counties than Obama. So what? IF those counties are in places with sufficient voters that puts Biden over the top on popular vote (and he did), then he won the popular vote. Period. IF Biden won in the counties where sufficient electoral votes are that he won the electoral college (and he did), then he won the electoral college. And he did so at a level that Trump called a "landslide" in 2016.
So, before going any further, do you recognize that this claim means not a damned thing about saying that electoral fraud happened or that Biden didn't win?
DO you acknowledge that saying "It's implausible that Biden won" is LITERALLY NOT proof of widespread fraud?
You MUST answer these questions with a fact based answer before going on.
Also, this one:
IF any of this nonsense held ANY weight at all and "proved" a single thing, don't you think that Trump's lawyers would be presenting them in courts and the courts would be saying, "Wow! Look at that! Proof!" Why aren't Trump's lawyers winning their cases if the evidence is proven by idiots like the liars and criminals like Steve Bannon and FPM?
Also, as evidence of the lack of integrity by FPM, they don't provide any data to support their claims, at least the few that I sampled. For instance, they say that Georgia had "illegal ballots" by 2500 felons, but they don't provide a source for that claim. I tried validating that claim looking around some and found nothing. The "link" that FPM DID provide only took them to their own front page. This is so stupid as it makes me vomit just a bit.
If you use junk "news" sources, you get junk, not news.
Can you validate that this nonsensical claim by FPM - with no link to any support - is nonsense? You DO recognize that making nothing claims with no support to prove them is NOT journalism, but just lies and empty claims of the sort that your pervert liar president thrives upon?
"Reality is, Marshal."
Here again you demonstrate you regard yourself an authority on what constitute reality. I reject that wholeheartedly, as you've not truly demonstrated in the least that you actually have a good grasp of what reality is. Case in point:
"Even though Barr and other conservatives are recognizing the reality that Trump lost, they are, no doubt, part of the plot."
You continue to insist that Barr is convinced, while nothing in the brief AP quotations of his words express this in the least. Further, "other conservatives" are not insisting that either, simply by virtue of encouraging Trump and his supporters "move on". That those you need to believe are solid conservatives acquiesce to the notion does not mean they all believe Trump lost. Nixon conceded to Kennedy despite the widely held belief that cheating took place then as well, but only to spare the nation the problems fighting the outcome could bring about. I think most on the right who are not NeverTrumpers but also believe it would be better to simply concede are wrong to encourage it but are encouraging it for the same reasons Nixon did.
"First of all, your source is listed as EXTREME right and LOW reliability on reporting basic facts. Sources matter."
Clearly, sources don't matter to you. Here, you think because FrontPage is biased, it is therefor unreliable, and you cite mediabiasfactcheck.com to support the contention. And who are they? According to Wikipedia:
"The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on factual accuracy and political bias."
It goes on to say:
"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications."
So it seems you're not all that interested in quality sources yourself. This is not news to me or anyone else who's read your shpiel. You're quick to grab that which you see as validating your preconceived notions without regard to the quality of the source. Bias of the source is not an issue, and if there's anything that should consitute common ground between us at all, it should be on this point. Bias of the source is not the issue...accuracy of the information a given biased source provides is. Discounting info due to the source is intellectually lazy and dishonest. (Fancy that)
"Secondly, I reviewed FPM's case and I don't see a single thing that demonstrates Biden lost."
Of course you don't. But then, you're a biased source who also fails to provide quality info.
"So, before going any further, do you recognize that this claim means not a damned thing about saying that electoral fraud happened or that Biden didn't win?"
That would be lying, so no...I do not recognize what you demand I must. Explanation to follow.
"DO you acknowledge that saying "It's implausible that Biden won" is LITERALLY NOT proof of widespread fraud?"
I never said it was proof, so I don't need to acknowledge the opposite of what I never said regardless of your irrational demand that I must.
But what you refuse to acknowledge, or are too stupid to understand, is that "plausibility" is indeed evidenciary. Imagine gambling on the roll of dice and your opponent rolls sevens 100 times in a row. The odds of 100 straight rolls of the same number is incredibly implausible while not being absolutely impossible. The chances are, unless you're an idiot, if you had money on the line, you'd check the dice or insist upon a different pair if he just rolled ten in a row. The same would be true if he flipped a coin that turned up heads 100 times in a row. You wouldn't let it go that long without determining whether or not the coin had two identical sides to it, both "heads".
The same is true in elections. What is implausible indicates the potential for fraud...the proverbial "red flag". This election has a plethora of implausibilities which scream fraud. My links list them. The more of them there are, the more likely chicanery took place regardless of whether or not it remains possible that each one of them were legitimate outcomes. The implausibility of each, as well as so many, indicators demands examination to determine of fraud or error took place.
"IF any of this nonsense held ANY weight at all and "proved" a single thing, don't you think that Trump's lawyers would be presenting them in courts and the courts would be saying, "Wow! Look at that! Proof!" Why aren't Trump's lawyers winning their cases if the evidence is proven by idiots like the liars and criminals like Steve Bannon and FPM?"
Please provide a link to the case that was actually tried...where the defendants were allowed to counter the evidence and prove it invalid. Which case has actually been heard?
"Also, as evidence of the lack of integrity by FPM, they don't provide any data to support their claims, at least the few that I sampled."
They're not required to argue any case in an article intended to list all the fraud for which evidence exists. Thus, there's nothing wrong with the articles I've presented except that having now seen a list of what evidence exists, you now raise the bar to demanding each case be argued and evidence presented as if in a trial.
Yet, even if I had presented evidence in that way, just how do you think you're capable of rebutting it in a manner that would be more than just your lame opinion?
"I tried validating that claim looking around some and found nothing."
Really, Dan? You could find nothing that listed each of those fraudulent ballots with proof of each one being in the name of an ineligible felon? What makes you think there's be such a link with that degree of information? And do you really think that because you found nothing the only explanation is that there no such evidence? Nice try. Try harder, as if you were a real journalism student.
"If you use junk "news" sources, you get junk, not news."
Your less than half-hearted attempts to verify, as well as your incredibly dishonest and biased hatred for anything so much as hinting even just objectivity regarding Trump, does not equate to my sources as junk in the least.
"Can you validate that this nonsensical claim by FPM - with no link to any support - is nonsense?"
YOU couldn't. And I don't believe it is nonsense. What proof do you have? None. You simply assert in on the basis of your weak claims you actually investigated any of it.
"You DO recognize that making nothing claims with no support to prove them is NOT journalism, but just lies and empty claims of the sort that your pervert liar president thrives upon?"
First of all, the article's claim was that there is evidence of fraud. It didn't claim it had the evidence itself. They aren't the only source that acknowledges the existence of evidence. Those who have the evidence are eager to present it, if only a judge would allow it to be presented in court. No judge has allowed such a presentation yet.
Secondly, the guy you voted for is a rapist, a liar and is corrupt and there is evidence of that as well which you, like all Trump haters, ignore because you have no concept of truth and honesty.
BTW, I noticed at my blog I had linked to the same article twice. I provided the third that I intended to present with the other two.
Georgia’s ballots have been counted three times, once by hand.
But Trump is pressuring the pro-Trump Republican Secretary of State: “all I want to do is find 11, 780 votes... call it a recalculation.”
Trump knows he’s lost. He also knows he will be in legal jeopardy as soon as he leaves office. And as late as this he’s still committing crimes.
Marshal is a pathetic joke as an amoral cretin, who loves an orange faced, bald PT Barnum.
Marshal, I'm leaving your comments for now, but probably not for long.
I've given you one simple task: Either provide proof that the "election was stolen" and that there was "widespread voter fraud" sufficient to undermine the election OR admit that the claim can not be proven (at least) and that the claim is stupidly false (even better).
After much dodging and obfuscation, you finally provided links to ridiculously inept and corrupt sources to "prove" this ridiculous false claims of yours and Trump and the rest of his useful idiots. You said that you COULD provide proof and that you DID provide proof with your little impotent links.
And yet, when I noted that this link did NOT provide any links or data to support the claim, you said, "They're not required to argue any case in an article intended to list all the fraud for which evidence exists."
Yes. Yes, YOU are required to provide proof. You're making an obviously stupidly false claim, the same your corrupt idiot leader wants his useful idiots to make - that the election was stolen, that there was widespread voter fraud. I've said all along that IF that were true, you'd have most of us on your side, because we're opposed to corruption. BUT, you MUST prove it.
And now, now all these hundreds of comments later, you come up with inept sources that do not provide that proof. ALL I'm asking you now is to admit that your sources are nothing, they provide no proof, only wishes and conspiracies.
Admit it or move on. Don't be Trump's useful idiot any more. You lost. The only action of integrity you can do now is admit it. If you can't, just move on.
Marshal... "Once again, liar. The links I presented listed the many charges of fraud that have been leveled regarding this election."
What are you failing to understand? Trump and you have said that there was "widespread voter fraud" that resulted in a "stolen election." THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM.
IF you have proof to demonstrate otherwise (and you don't), present it. That is ALL you have to do to win us over. Present proof. Show data. SUPPORT THE FALSE CLAIM YOU ARE MAKING IF YOU CAN.
You can't. But IF you can, support it. With data demonstrating that you are correct.
I can't tell you how VERY UNINTERESTED I am in your "list of many charges of fraud..." that have been presented. I don't want CHARGES. Charges, unsupported and devoid of any data, are just so much vomit and I don't give a damned about Trump's or your vomit.
IF you can support your charges, do it.
IF you can't, then be a rational adult and admit there is no proof that demonstrates the election was stolen.
Admit that the charge that the election was stolen is a false claim because you can't support it.
Just be an adult. Or move on. Those are your options.
There is no "lying" on my part when I say you haven't presented proof of these claims. Linking to a disreputable site that offers theories and charges IS NOT PROOF.
Last time. Admit you were mistaken or present PROOF, hard, definitive, authoritative, undeniable data that shows your crazy theories aren't crazy. Or admit you were mistaken to make these charges when you can't support them.
Marshal continues to post without providing support for his argument or without admitting he doesn't have it. You asked, What would it take for me to accept the claim of widespread voter fraud as factual? The answer is, proof. Something that shows tens of thousands of votes being fraudulent.
For instance, in Pennsylvania, Biden one by 80,000 votes. Is there any proof that there were tens of thousands of fraudulent votes in Pennsylvania? The answer is no. In Georgia, Biden one by 12000 votes. Is there any evidence of thousands of fraudulent votes in Georgia? The answer is no. You have to demonstrate with proof that shows significant voter fraud sufficient, anywhere close to sufficient, to disrupt the election. I'm not sure what's not clear to you on this.
Theories are not sufficient proof. Saying, Trump had really big rallies and Biden didn't is not proof. If you're going to claim wide-scale voter fraud, then provide proof for wide-scale voter fraud.
In Trump's criminal call to Georgia a few days ago, he kept citing thousands and thousands of fraudulent votes. And the GOP administrator in Georgia kept saying that's not factual. You have to have data based evidence widespread voter fraud. You don't have it. Trump doesn't have it. No one has it. That's why Trump lost.
So, what does it look like to make your case? Pick a state were you think Trump actually won. Tell me how many votes Biden won by officially. Then show me that Trump actually had more votes. Or show me that a significant number of the Biden votes were fraudulent. Did Trump win in Georgia? Then show me proof that thousands of Georgia votes for Biden were fraudulent. That's all. You know, proof.
Also, I'm curious, Marshal... in Georgia, if you think Trump actually won there, do you think that the Republican election officials have been tricked? You think these Republicans are part of a plot and I know that Trump actually won and they're just lying about it?
Why would these Republican administrators be lying to help Joe Biden? Where is your proof of that?
Part of the problem with this assault on Democracy by Trump and his useful idiots is just the insult to all the good people who are involved in our elections. To say that the elections have been rigged, you also have to say then awful lot of good citizens, Democrats and Republicans and otherwise, are dishonest and Criminal. This reasoning just collapses under its own weight.
Did you actually watch the presentation in the link Art provided, Dan? If the data and the process being discussed are accurate, I've got some questions about our voting system myself.
The Trump endorsing, pro Trump Governor of Georgia and the pro Trump Secretary of State of Georgia have refuted - with evidence - every one of Trumps' and pro Trump lying sites' manufactured fake facts.
Further, we have repeatedly confirmed evidence that there was no voting fraud going on: the sworn Georgia election officials, overseen by a GOP Secretary of State, counted ALL THE BALLOTS (all mailed and all Election Day executed) THREE TIMES, ONCE BY HAND.
EVERYTHING WAS COUNTED AND NOTHING ASKEW WAS FOUND.
This constitutes constructive evidence disproving white paranoia.
Did you watch the presentation, Feo? Are you aware of the specific data it addresses?
Have you listened, Les, to the 10 hours pro Trump Republican Georgia elected officials have given to a refutation of all that fake bullshit your bigoted heart so wants to believe?
To your comment of January 5, 2021 at 7:26 AM, this has all been done. When are you going to respond to any of it with something more substantive than "Nyuh uh"? You've addressed nothing. Try this one example and make an effort to explain why it's not squirrely:
"Because so many ballots were cast in 2020 by people voting by mail for the first time, most experts, using historical patterns as a guide, predicted a higher-than-usual rate of ballots being rejected for flaws such as missing information, inaccurate information, or a failure to place ballots in secrecy envelopes.[26] But precisely the opposite occurred in the battleground states:
In Pennsylvania, a mere 0.03% of the state’s mail-in ballots were rejected in 2020 – a rate more than 30 times lower than the 2016 rejection rate of 1%.
In Georgia, the rejection rate in 2020 was 0.2%, more than 30 times lower than the 6.4% figure from 2016.
In Nevada, the 2020 rejection rate was approximately 0.75%, less than half the 1.6% rate from 2016."
"Also, I'm curious, Marshal... in Georgia, if you think Trump actually won there, do you think that the Republican election officials have been tricked?"
As in most of the battleground states, where the legislatures are majority GOP, they were not involved as their state and federal constitutions grant only them the authority to dictate election law. So it's not a matter of being tricked. It's a matter of them being ignored and their authority commandeered by the state courts, governors and election officials...none of which have that constitutional authority. Pay attention to the facts.
"To say that the elections have been rigged, you also have to say then awful lot of good citizens, Democrats and Republicans and otherwise, are dishonest and Criminal."
No I don't. Some are Trump-haters, too, however. But the point upon which you haven't the honesty to focus is the cases as actually laid out. But then, honesty isn't something about which you give a flying rat's ass.
https://www.dailyechoed.com/georgia-secretary-of-state-has-already-investigated-bombshell-video-giuliani-claims-proves-fraud/?noamp=available
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/14/fact-check-georgia-suitcase-video-missing-context/3892640001/
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/video/none-true-georgia-election-official-210928721.html
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/weve-never-found-systemic-fraud-145300107.html
You didn't actually answer the question, friend. You answered my question with a question. Again, do you know specifically which data is being discussed in the link?
Also, I'm not sure what the "bigoted heart" stuff is about. I'm just a liberal dude with some questions.
Les, welcome to this page. I did not review that particular link. But I have reviewed MULTIPLE other links from Marshal.
First of all: They are universally not journalistic sites, respectable organizations that respect the basic rules of journalism. They aren't even Fox News (which is a legitimate journalistic group, I'd say, just one that doesn't live up to the standards they aspire to at times).
That's one huge red flag. Nonetheless, I read through them.
Secondly: NONE of them offered proof of widespread voter fraud. They just don't. Mostly, they link to opinion pieces that talked about, for instance, "Look at the size of Trump's rallies! And Biden didn't have nearly as many!" as if that was any legitimate proof about a "stolen election."
And when they did refer to some problems, they were all nothing. "What about that guy that drove a NY truck of mail to Pennsylvania! And, and, and then, he stopped for coffee and came out and the truck was GONE!" As if that sort of nonsense was proof. And the story they refer to would not have a link or, as in the case of this alleged truck driver, no proof of who he was or anything at all to substantiate his claims.
To a person, these stories - where you could find ANY reference to them - inevitably pointed to not very reputable sounding people with no proof to substantiate their claims. Every time.
Look, the reality is that IF Trump had access to proof, he'd put it out there. IF he had proof that he won in Georgia by 10,000 votes instead of losing by 10,000 votes, he'd provide it. Marshal could provide it.
IF there was proof that the GOP election officials who were responsible for counting the votes and verifying that Biden won... IF there was proof that they were lying, then Trump and Marshal would provide it.
Trump is not providing proof, nor are his lawyers, precisely because they don't have proof. IF it were there, he'd be posting verifiable data to Fox News and Fox News WOULD be covering it.
And here's the thing about real journalism organizations: IF the proof was there, NPR, BBC, the Washington Post, etc, would be putting it out there. Why? Because even though there may be people who lean liberal working for those groups, they are STILL reporters and they WANT to report news. And Trump actually winning Georgia or any of these other states, that WOULD be news.
It's simple: Georgia reports Biden winning by ~12,000 votes. IS there proof that there were NOT that many extra votes for Biden? Present it. Present the proof that shows that the GOP election official or the GOP governor are covering up this fact. SHOW US the votes for Trump or the proof of widespread fraud (which, Marshal, has ALWAYS been defined as "widespread enough to have potentially tainted the election - bad votes in the thousands in Georgia, for instance") and you'll have done what you need to do.
But point to some video of wackos in no position of authority and no position to know, making their videos on YouTube to make silly little claims and guesses? You'll just be laughed at.
Fair enough?
I feel ya, Dan, but this isn't that. The link is a video of a presentation made to the Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Elections last week (I think). The issue is the hard data. Like, the actual votes and the process and timing of their reporting. It's worth a look, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on it. I certainly would like some clarification as a voter.
For instance, the last link that I can find from Marshal's place is this from the American Thinker...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/the_strange_story_of_georgias_pallets_of_ballots.html
Media Bias Check categorizes (rightly) AT as "extreme right" and "low" on factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/
Red flag #1.
This AT story leads with this unsupported claim:
"In the aftermath of the election, the Democrats who control the election machinery in the disputed states have gone out of their way to avoid scrutiny."
Says who? What is the source for this claim? Who says that the Democrats are controlling the election machinery in the disputed states? The Democrats are controlling Georgia's election machinery? Where is the proof for that? I rather doubt that this is true.
Red flag #2, and we have just read one sentence.
The rest of the first paragraph...
"Americans have been inundated with stories of shredded mail-in envelopes, lost thumb drives, wiped computers, and slow-walked requests for documents that states are required to preserve for post-election reviews. No state, however, has acted with such heavy-handed desperation as Georgia when it comes to hiding ballots. We've already reported here twice about the Georgia ballots, but the story keeps developing, and there's always more to tell."
LOOK at all those claims and yet, NONE of them have any links to support the claims. Like Trump's idiotic stupidly false claims, they're just claims with NO support. And rather dubious claims, at that.
There are red flags #3-about 7.
Do you think the GOP leaders at Georgia's election board are ignoring all these claims? Where is the proof for that? Georgia's top election official (the one that Trump criminally tried to pressure into reversing the count and "adding" 11,000 votes to his name), Raffensperger, is a Republican.
What did Raffensperger have to say about these claims? Well, for one thing...
""He [Mr Trump] had hundreds and hundreds of people he said that were dead that voted. We found two, that's an example of just - he has bad data," he added."
Trump just made up a number (hundreds and hundreds). He had no data to support it. The REPUBLICAN responsible for the count said there were only two. TWO.
Marshal, if you're keeping score: TWO is not "widespread voter fraud." Hundreds and hundreds (in Georgia alone) would be, but that number is just made up and not factual.
More to come...
The FIRST link from that AT story that allegedly is making the case for widespread fraud is to a guy named Jovan Philyaw, who changed his name to Jovan Pulitzer. He is a crackpot "inventor" who "testified" before Georgia's Judiciary Subcommittee with no proof, only theories about voting trends. This from a man who is clearly an opportunist and crackpot. Take a look at this (no doubt, self-published) book and the first few pages, which you can review...
https://www.amazon.com/More-Commanders-Lost-Treasures-Washington/dp/1495950433#reader_1495950433
This guy may be many things, but I see nothing to suggest he's reliable.
That's the person that AT LEADS with in their story to support their "fraud" suspicions. If you lead with a crazy-sounding person, what does that tell you about the claim? Is there any doubt as to why this nonsense doesn't get covered by actual reputable media? Why courts kick the cases out of the courtrooms?
There's just nothing to these claims.
From there, the story cites an unknown woman named Susan Knox (unknown who she is or what her authority is) who spreads a conspiracy theory about shredding documents that is debunked here...
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cobb-county-shredding-evide/fact-check-videos-of-shredding-truck-do-not-show-destruction-of-voter-fraud-evidence-at-cobb-county-ga-idUSKBN2862BA
and...
http://eastcobbnews.com/cobb-government-shredding-didnt-include-elections-office/
I could go on reading tortured sentence after tortured sentence - and I have, in the past, with Marshal's ridiculous links, but they're all the same. Crackpots, liars, disreputable people with no authority and conspiracy theorists. Ghost hunters, treasure hunters and opportunists.
Marshal: If you have leads "proving widespread voter fraud," then LEAD with your best link. This ain't it.
At some point, when someone KEEPS referring to crazy conspiracy theorist after crackpot, and you spend some time in a good faith effort to review the nonsense and SEE that it's nonsense, you just give up.
Les... "The issue is the hard data. Like, the actual votes and the process and timing of their reporting. It's worth a look, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on it. "
IF someone cites a reputable source (not ghost hunters, treasure hunters and part-time self published "experts" on crazy theories) that has done research into this checking with people in authority and reliable sources, THEN I will read it. I'm not going to watch another hour long YouTube "expert" citing crazy-sounding theories. I'm just not.
IF there were a story there, Trump would be citing it and Fox News would be covering it. That Fox News recognizes that Trump lost tells you all we need to know.
But Dan, you're essentially ignoring what you asked Art to provide. Yes, his link is from American Thinker (gross), but the only important thing I'm asking you to take in is the video presentation it includes. Ignore the article itself - go right to the committee video. You don't even have to search for the relevant part. It's all queued up at the applicable moment. Trust me - it's worth 20 minutes of your time, if for no other reason to debunk later when and if reasonable explanations emerge.
Oh, one more thing: The AT story cited "Pulitzer's" claim that he hacked into Dominion software as "evidence" that something was wrong with Dominion... but they provided NO PROOF that Pulitzer actually did this. It's just another empty claim. And yet, the AT story cites it point blank as evidence, without noting there was nothing to it but an empty claim by a crackpot treasure hunter. IS he a treasure hunter? Or is the treasure he's seeking is coming from people willing to buy his "how to find treasure..." books?
What's his net worth? How many treasures have been found by his treasure books?
Nothing out there but a man who clearly and ineptly trying to promote himself and take advantage of people.
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5708
THAT is the first source cited in Marshal's last AT link.
So, I've reviewed his multiple links on this issue and many more links on other topics and, to a link, they've been garbage "reports" on nonsense... but THIS link (which I don't have any more and am not interested in) will provide the proof of SOMETHING that Marshal has said?
I am dubious. I hope you'll understand.
"My name is Susan Knox. Tenth Generation Georgian... Patriot... I happened to be at Miller Park on Friday... I knew they were certifying the vote that day. I happened to be in the parking lot... I pulled around corner... I saw A-1 Shredding Truck... shredding ballots..."
And she provides a video of a truck that SHE says are shredding ballots. But who is she? How does she know that they're shredding ballots? EVEN IF they were (and they weren't), how does that prove election fraud? It doesn't PROVE anything. It's an empty claim by someone not in a position to know.
And there's many minutes (MORE) of my life that are forever wasted.
IF there was anything at all to Knox's story, WHY didn't Trump use it in court?
Because there's nothing to it. These are hacks and wannabe spies who just don't have anything.
IF there's something there, take it to court. We'll wait to see how that goes.
"County elections director Janine Eveler responded by saying that only documents that were “not relevant” to the election were shredded after the hand recount was done."
http://eastcobbnews.com/cobb-government-shredding-didnt-include-elections-office/
Yes. Don't get all excited. I can't believe you all are still doing this.
Dan, here's a link to the actual committee footage itself. Go directly to the 4:38:25 mark:
https://youtu.be/u5ZP_HpBKos
Watched it. So what? There is no There there. There's no proof. There's nothing.
But by all means, have Trump's lawyers take it to court. If there's anything to it, it can be settled then and there.
Do your research first, Les, before you ask me a damn thing. The rational answers are all over the place. Be an adult, look at the obvious, and your answer will be answered. Use YOUR mind, son. And when you're still stumped by the obvious, then ask for help.
My research on what?
I don't think my reply posted, Dan. Or I did something wrong (likely). I'll try this again.
Basically, I wouldn't mind seeing this in court at all. If the information these folks presented is accurate, I'd like an explanation as to why decrementation in Trump's numbers occurred in that early, pre-adjudication, machine-to-machine stage of the process. I'd like to know why any tangible records of pre-adjudicated ballots are erased. I'd like more transparency in what ultimately produces the voting data we all ultimately argue over. Everyone should, no?
Les, why didn't you just goggle "officials shredding ballots in Jim Miller Park"?
How fucking easy is that?
https://www.cobbcounty.org/elections/news/document-shredding-jim-r-miller-park
Feo, I don't understand what your issue is here. Nowhere in this thread am I discussing the myriad debunked complaints of voter fraud that many of Trump's supporters are clinging to. You're arguing a position I'm not even talking about. What I brought up is the hard voting data issue mentioned in the link initially provided by Art. You don't seem to be grasping this. I can't tell if this is intentional, or if you just made an assumption right away without really looking and just ran with it. In any case, take a step back, man.
Marshal said (in a comment now-deleted because he has a task to do)... "If those docs bring shredded weren't ballots, how can that be proven now that they've been destroyed?"
Then you CAN'T PROVE what I've been asking you to prove? Is that what you're saying?
IF so, then just say that. "I can't prove that there was widespread voter fraud that "stole" the election for Biden." THAT is precisely what I've been asking. Either PROVE it, or admit you can't prove it.
Marshal... ""If those docs bring shredded weren't ballots, how can that be proven now that they've been destroyed?"
Also, you don't KNOW that they were destroyed if you don't know, right? You're wanting to assume this conservative woman with no authority and no inside knowledge is right when she's GUESSING that these were ballots that mattered (actual ballots, as opposed to garbage of some sort)? And that the election authorities (Democrat AND GOP) are lying when they say that these are not votes being tampered with... you're making that assumption, right? But on what basis are you making that assumption? Nothing but your wishes, right?
For what it's worth, those Data Integrity Group guys from the video were, in fact, on Lou Dobbs' show on Fox Business yesterday, I believe.
And it appears they have Hannity connections. Fox is certainly trying to start this hard data narrative, if nothing else.
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-impressed-his-producers-attempt-overturn-georgias-presidential-election
Les, you see a video and get troubled in your mind about veracity. And yet, some few hundred man hours have been spent in the US judicial system presenting and refuting everything you've seen and heard. Many Trump judges have presided over these cases. The plaintiffs and the public attorneys all have seen these videos. Governmental officials, most of them pro-Trump elected white men, who have presided for over a year on all the preparations and executions of elections under historic threat of Russian tampering, pandemic, unprecedented mail in voting, etc.
And everything has been overseen once, twice, three times by hand by honest, diligent people of Georgia.
Claims of fraud have all been heard and denied.
But you think you, in the circles of your own mind, have the capacity to watch a 20 minute video and set all this massive attention by thousands of several sets of eyes from the ground up to executive officials to state and federal judges, with all evidence reviewed, re-reviewed, re-reviewed, and absolutely denied by pro- Trump, electoral-dependent Governors, Secretaries of State, and chair of Board of Elections - you think your laptop time can set aside all that and suggest we all should have reason to raise questions of possible Presidential election fraud of heretofore unseen levels that cast doubt on the outcome.
What is the personality term for people prone to believe in conspiracies?
That's exactly right on, feodor. Trump and his lawyers and all these professional people getting paid lots of money have indeed seen every bit of this. If there was anything to it at all, they would have presented it and it would have held. It's a bit presumptuous and silly to assume that Trump and Marshall and other non-professional and uninformed types have seen something that all of Trumps experts have not.
It is the mark of a common person to make bold claims as a Fairfax and yet never present hard data. That is what Trump is doing. That is what that treasure hunter guy was doing. It's a con, not a fact-based concern.
Marshal cannot do his own simple minded research, apparently cannot Google. The Board of Elections of Cobb County has clearly enumerated what was shredded, among them envelopes that are not blank, but as envelopes do, have private information on them. You know, Marshal... like addresses, you fucking idiot.
Statement from the Board of Elections and Registration Concerning Social Media Posts:
There has been significant social media chatter about some document shredding at the Jim R. Miller Park Event Center in Marietta, Georgia where our Elections Department had previously conducted the state-ordered re-tallied of votes in the November 3rd election.
The shredding company routinely responds to the Elections Department following an election to help dispose of non-relevant materials that cannot be easily disposed of. The company did work at the Jim R. Miller Event Center early on Friday, November 20th, and helped dispose of the following items:
- Mailing labels (with voter info) that are incorrect or if we’ve printed too many
- Copies of apps printed from OnBase if we are looking for something (the originals are filed in evidence)
- Copies of outdated or changed procedures, policies, forms, notes, or form letters
- Regular and third-party envelopes with voter info on them
- Reports when we are finished doing ‘check off the list’ steps
- Sticky notes and phone messages with voter phone #s or email addresses
- White privacy envelopes after the election is certified.
- Printouts of old emails when we have a more current response in the chain
- Duplicates of faxed applications (when voters fax multiples copies of the same app all at the same time)
- There were a tub or two of applications we had copied for the December election and labels that we put in the shredder when the elections were combined and moved to January 5th
“None of these items are relevant to the election or the re-tally,” said Elections Director Janine Eveler. “Everything of consequence, including the ballots, absentee ballot applications with signatures, and anything else used in the count or re-tally remains on file. After an out-of-context video was shared on social media we contacted state officials to reassure them this was a routine clean-up operation and they could come to inspect our stored materials if they wished.”
And now, Marshal, your fellow useful idiots are now storming the US capitol. Are you a proud boy now?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/us-capitol-lockdown/index.html
Ok good talk fellas I'll just go fuck myself.
That’s right, Les. Don’t you give in and anybody make you feel like you’re wrong. You’re a white man: you’re never wrong!
Feo, can you clarify this comment please? Are you saying I'm wrong about something specific? Can you specify what that is? Do you mean I'm wrong to want any facts that might be available that can disclaim or disprove what the Data Integrity people are arguing about voting timelines? You're clearly just fine collecting information that disproves voter fraud claims, otherwise you wouldn't post links like earlier. Why is it that you're apparently so aggressively opposed to my interest in looking into these particular claims? I don't get you, dude.
The freely allowed lawlessness of white rioters who invaded and destroyed federal property, terrorized Capitol staff and law makers, and killed a woman... should be yet another epiphany to all of us of a deeply ingrained characteristic of brutal anti-black hate throughout our policing, generally in white people, and shrouded in the ways and means of our social organization and laws.
How do you tell the difference between a protestor and a rioter, Dan?
A protestor is protesting. For a reason. Protesting a policy or law that is unjust or exercised unjustly. For instance, take qualified immunity. Take the 8 minute choking of George Floyd sprawled on the street pinned down by 3 men. The 10 second shooting of Brianna Taylor in her bed. Atatiana Jefferson, fatally shot looking out of her bedroom window because she heard some noise. Eric Garner chocked to death for selling loose cigarettes. The multiple shots in Jacob Blake's back who wielded no weapon. Take the cases of tens of thousands of black men and women - and children - killed over the last 100 years; throw in Emmitt Till and thousands like him were executed by civilians who were cleared of their crimes.
As you and I have been telling the cretins for a few years now, protestors protest in rage when their voice isn't heard telling all of us of the terrorism striking fear of living a normal life in this country as a black man and woman because laws and law doctrine uphold the principle that a black life never matters as much as a white one.
But they are heartless because, in their case, their brutalizing religion has stripped them of conscience and consciousness of their neighbor.
Craig wants to shield the rioters yesterday by saying they are apples just like BLM are apples.
He has a poisoned and cauterized mind. Those white people wearing MAGA hats, buffalo horns, three cornered hats and camouflage, marched from Trump's cheerleading to them to not be weak and use strength to overturn the nation's election, broke into and invaded the Capitol building, stripped and destroyed federal property in order to stage a half-assed coup NOT because the police shoot them in the back; NOT because the police choke them to death; NOT because the police shoot them because they ran a stop sign, or looked like a description or just looked out of their bedroom window.
Rioters are not protestors because they do have not law or policy in mind. Just because they are enraged and outside of their right mind and all reason. They raged against the nation because they love a corrupt, criminal President not because he was cheated out of an election but because, as the great White Hope, he WASN'T BEING ALLOWED TO CHEAT THE NATION AGAIN.
They raged because they think gay and lesbian people and people of color are out to get them and their jobs. And in this, they echo the corrupt religious indoctrination of Craig, Stan, Marshal, the fake bagpiper and the whole devolved, paranoid caste of undereducated, bigoted, White Pride, white people whom Craig, Stan, Marshal, and the fake bagpiper belong to.
And the nation's police let them rush barriers and escort them down the stairs and take selfies with them.
Absolute proof that policing in this nation was designed from the first and continues to serve for the protection of white people from all others considered less than full citizens.
We need massive police reform as only one policy of protest required if we are ever to make of this society a true nation.
To add: BLM staged protests to make changes in racist policies, laws, and abuses of power.
The rioters yesterday, like Trump in their demented paranoia, just want to instill fear.
Yup.
And the silence on the right blogosphere is deafening.
Let me ask it another way, Marshal:
1. Do you (at least now) recognize that there is no proof showing that the election was stolen?
2. When Trump makes the false claim that the election was stolen, do you now affirm that this is a false claim, one that he has not proven and can not prove? That when he says he won in a landslide, that that, too, is a stupidly false claim?
3. Will you go further towards reason and righteousness and admit that Trump making such stupidly false claims is not just wrong, it's dangerous?
1. No. That hasn't been established and confirmed by anyone, least of all a liar like you.
2. No. It's not a false claim unless it has been proven to be a false claim. As yet, it hasn't been, least of all by a liar like you. He has not been allowed to prove his claim as no court has scrutinized the cases brought before them in a legitimate trial or hearing. Thus, there's no way to affirm or deny whether or not he won big or by a small margin.
3. I've not strayed from reason or righteousness, but you aren't familiar with either. If you can prove the claims are false...stupidly or otherwise...do so, or just keep your head quietly up your ass where you seem most comfortable. Your hatred is what is most dangerous.
Dan: You should not minimize it. This is a day that will live in infamy."
Craig: Yes, this is on par with Pearl Harbor. I thin we know who the idiot is here.
Benghazi: 4 dead.
Trump's half-assed insurrection: 4 dead.
But she wasn't egging them on.
Current DC police officers just went on the record as saying that off-duty police officers and members of the military were a part of the mob that stormed the Capitol - and even flashed their badges and ID's to partake in the process.
Marshal compares these rioters favorably with 1960s protestors: “Visuals from the riot show that thousands of Donald Trump's supporters waved Confederate flags, hung nooses, paraded white supremacist symbols, some neo-Nazis, including one man, who was pictured wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” shirt.”
Trump said he loved them and that they are special.
I asked... "1. Do you (at least now) recognize that there is no proof showing that the election was stolen?"
And Marshal responded... "1. No. That hasn't been established and confirmed by anyone"
I'm not sure that you are understanding the question. I asked if you recognized there was no proof SHOWING THE ELECTION was stolen. You answered No.
That means that you think there IS evidence proving the election was stolen. Is that what you think?
IF SO, then you can present that evidence, yes? Please do so. I'll wait.
I've done so repeatedly. You lie by pretending I haven't. Those links at my blogs are only the latest and aren't repeats of those provided in earlier comments you deleted. This constant demand is just another deflection to avoid admitting you've no way of confirming the results are legitimate. That's what actually allowing legal scrutiny in court could have provided and why it wasn't allowed.
As such, I don't think there's evidence the election was stolen. I know there is. So do you. You just lack the honesty to acknowledge it and less so the intelligence to account for any of it. So you dismiss it providing in your mind the out you need. It's what all Trump-haters have been doing.
And that's the most glaring and compelling piece of evidence: that you lefties aren't willing to defend your victory as legitimate. What better evidence could there be?
So, Marshal, alone in the world, can "see" the "proof" that Trump actually won. He can't get that information to Trump to save him, though (or maybe Trump is part of the plot to overthrown Trump??), you think this is rational and not insane?
The reality is, you don't have proof that Trump won. Trump lost. The data shows that. The GOP and other states and courts all show this.
The reality is, you're lost in delusion.
Good luck. You're done here.
Pence, McConnell and all the rational Republicans are all saying that Trump has lost and it's over. They're all condemning Trump for his insane conspiracy-driven lies that led up to this riot and they're laying the blame for the riots on Trump's words and actions.
Even Trump is beginning (against his will, clearly, but still) to admit he lost.
If Trump admits he lost and that Biden actually won (and thus, his claims that the election was stolen and that he won were, in fact, false), I wonder if even then Trump will admit to reality and understand reality and give up his allegiance to conspiracy theories and stupidly false claims?
Or will Marshal be like one of those traitorous confederates who goes to his death believing he alone (well, and the other "true believers") was right in "recognizing" that Trump actually "won" (in spite of the evidence)?
William Barr: "Trump’s conduct was a “betrayal of his office” Barr said in a statement to The Associated Press news agency on Thursday.
Barr, who had resigned as the top US law enforcement official at the end of 2020, said “orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable”.
Maryland GOP Gov Hogan: Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, has called for Trump to resign the White House or be removed from office, saying Vice President Mike Pence should take over to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden.
“I think there is no question that America would be better off if President Trump would resign,” Hogan, a Republican, told Baltimore-based WBAL Radio.
GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger: “It’s with a heavy heart I am calling for the sake of our democracy that the 25th Amendment be invoked,” Kinzinger said on Twitter.
“The president is unfit. And the president is unwell,” Kinzinger said. Trump “must now relinquish control of the executive branch voluntarily or involuntarily”.
Former GOP Speaker John Boehner: "I once said the party of Lincoln and Reagan is off taking a nap. The nap has become a nightmare for our nation. The GOP must awaken. The invasion of our Capitol by a mob, incited by lies from some entrusted with power, is a disgrace to all who sacrificed to build our Republic."
[Quotes above from Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/7/us-republicans-condemn-trumps-role-in-capitol-insurrection)
Vermont GOP Gov. Scott: "Vermont’s Republican governor, who was just sworn in for his third term, was among the first prominent Republicans to demand Trump resign “or be removed from office by his Cabinet, or by Congress.”
“Make no mistake, the President of the United States is responsible for this event,” Scott wrote in a thread on Twitter Wednesday afternoon. “President Trump has orchestrated a campaign to cause an insurrection that overturns the results of a free, fair and legal election.”
Mass. GOP Gov. Baker: "“I think people should pursue whatever they believe will make it possible, in the most expeditious way possible, for the president to step down and the vice president to assume the powers of the office for the next 14 days so that an orderly transition can take place.”
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/7/22219192/trump-republicans-removal-office-hogan-kinzinger-scott
I could go on. But we've all seen them. In various degrees and words, even rational GOP officials and former Trump allies are condemning him and admitting he lost, according to the data.
It's over, it's over. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept reality.
Marshal... "First, I never claimed I had proof. I said there was evidence..."
Then say it.
Say, "I have no proof that the election was stolen."
Say "Trump lied when he said the election was stolen. Trump lied when he claimed he won."
You have NO proof the election was stolen, and neither does he, and certainly no proof that he won. It's all a lie.
Say that. Say that next or no more on this post.
Hmmm. I wonder what happened to my response?
Trump believes the election was stolen? How is that a lie?
You believe the Bible gives you justification for your belief homosexual unions can be blessed by God. This is a lie if you wish to be consistent. Trump has far more quality evidence for his opinion while you haven none. Who's the bigger liar? (Hint: The bigger liar's initials are "Dan Trabue")
But then, you've always been a far more egregious liar than Trump ever was.
There is NO data to show the election was stolen. The experts in charge at the various states election offices don't validate the claim. Thus, the CLAIM itself is not factual. The claim that he won in a landslide is not factual.
What Trump COULD honestly say is, "I don't see how I could lose... so many people supported me..." or, "there were SOME voting irregularities and that concerns me that they may be more widespread..." or something like that. THAT would have been fine.
Saying, "I won in a landslide" is just giant dumbass stupidly false. There is NO DATA that shows he won in a landslide or that he won. There is NONE. The claim itself is stupidly false.
That he BELIEVES the stupidly false claim doesn't mean shit.
IF there is no data showing that the election was stolen, (not that there were some voting irregularities as there always have been), then it is a false claim to say it was stolen.
I don't know what you're failing to understand about this.
Are you suggesting that if Trump TRULY believes that the unicorns are demanding that he won the election, that it's not a false claim if he says that out loud?
Facts are facts.
Marshal... "Trump believes the election was stolen? How is that a lie?"
Let me put this another way.
I don't care what Trump does or doesn't believe. What he SAID was "I won the election in the landslide" and "they stole the election."
As a point of fact, he has NO DATA demonstrating that it's a fact that he won the election in a landslide and that anyone stole the election. Those are FALSE CLAIMS, whatever Trump does or doesn't believe about them.
Do you recognize that reality and if so, say so.
As to the "belief" thing, as his own niece (who is also a mental health specialist) says, he always assumes he wins and that he can't lose. Reality doesn't matter to him, he's a malignant, toxic narcissist. Because he's been a spoiled rich white boy his entire life with people just giving him his way because of his wealth and position, he thinks that he just is a winner and if he says it forcefully enough, and with threats if some disagree, he'll get his way, "speaking into being" his "winning."
But it's based on delusions and psychotic thinking, not reality.
I don't care what he believes. I care what he says when he makes dangerously stupidly false claims and gets his followers to believe it, too, regardless of reality.
It's quite sick.
Dan, Marshal thinks that a liar defended by a liar... precipitates out truth. It’s a kind of white male supremacist chemistry.
https://youtu.be/yEptA86BZxg
DISTURBING VIDEO OF BLUE LIVES NOT MATTERING TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS
--- Shocking video of Trump supporters ( law and order, blue lives matter people) drag and beat Capitol Hill police officer as he tries to defend our government from anti democratic insurrection by right wing, Republican, Trump supporters.
Two things you can do now, Marshal:
Either provide proof that the election was stolen (it wasn't and you've admitted as much, Marshal)
OR say,
"There is no proof that proves the election was stolen. Trump is lying when he says that because he has no data to prove it. It's a stupidly false claim that only idiots would believe."
That's where we are. You've admitted you can't prove it (because there is no data to prove this stupidly false claim because it is stupidly false... the Stuff of conspiracy theories), go the rest of the way and admit that Trump WAS lying when he's made his false claims.
I was reading one of the Useful Idiots writing tonight. He was talking about how Trump has already declared martial law (presumably secretly) and thus, no impeachment can happen (again, secretly and unknown to anyone else) and Trump has verified that the military is on his side and so we all need to be ready and listen for the message coming from Trump, probably this weekend.
You believe that, too, Marshal? I mean, there is ZERO data to suggest it's factual and it's insane as hell, so it sounds right up your alley.
When you lie down the the conspiracy theorist pigs, you sleep with the muddy useful idiots.
Trump, end of May, at the thought of massed black protestors demanding equal protection:
“These thugs are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen... Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Trump, last week, after white rioters broke into the center of our government, assaulted police, destroyed federal property, and sought to lynch Pelosi and Pence:
“We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special.... go home and go home and peace."
Washington DC and all 50 state capitols are on lockdown, shutdown, and high alert.
But BLM - demanding equal treatment under the law- are terrorists.
60+ million fraudulent white Americans and Marshal, Craig, Stan, and the fake bagpiper.
THE MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVER. And top 5 racists.
I had said, in earlier comments... "1. Do you (at least now) recognize that there is no proof showing that the election was stolen?"
And Marshal responded... "1. No. That hasn't been established and confirmed by anyone"
No. He said, admitted. It has NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AND CONFIRMED BY ANYONE. Another way of saying, it hasn't been proven by anyone.
NOW, Marshal is backtracking. He just said, in posts now deleted... "So let me be clear: The election was stolen."
and... "I admitted I can't prove it because the effort to do so is beyond my ability as a working stiff with personal responsibilities."
Regardless if you think your first answer was right "it hasn't been proven/established by anyone" OR if you think your latter answers are right, "The election was stolen..." REGARDLESS of what you think in your head or believe in your brain, the reality is that Biden won the election, a fact that has been established by election officials - both Republican and Democrats - in all the states in the US.
What you THINK in your head or believe in your heart doesn't matter. The facts remain:
1. Biden was elected,
2. The election was not "stolen"
3. The claims that Trump won are demonstrably false and stupidly false and dangerously false, even if it is a "belief" instead of being stated as a fact (which is what he did)
4. The claims that the election was stolen is a dangerous and stupid claim, as well.
You lost. Believe it or not, you lost. I don't care if you don't believe it - any more than I care that my cousins and other family members believe it and believe that a "civil war" is coming... ALL of that is false and stupidly false and dangerously false.
Stop aiding and abetting the traitors.
Or, WTF, go on and join in with them. Take your little toy guns and camp out outside the capitol and get arrested and go to jail. IF you believe in your little toy war with your little false claims, then be an adult and put your stupid money where you stupid mouth is.
And I don't say that as an insult, it's just a genuinely stupid and false thing to believe. But you do you.
History will judge those who aid and abet this coup attempt as the villains in this story. Because that is the reality.
Marshal said, in a now deleted comment (for all the reasons already stated)...
2. Yes. It was. There's evidence aplenty.
The facts are, there is NO PROOF that the election was stolen. What we've seen are the typical glitches and occasional bad vote that happens in every election (we know, because we've caught the GOP in the middle of making some false, fraudulent votes), but, JUST LIKE EVERY ELECTION, there is no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud sufficient to impact the election.
The states have all affirmed this - GOP and Democrats alike - and election experts will tell you this is the case. Now, Marshal thinks that because he saw a video on youtube of somebody making empty and stupid claims, that this is "proof" of sufficiently widespread voter fraud that he "thinks" the election was stolen. This is, I'm sorry to say, just delusional (at best) or fraudulent (at worst) and just factually wrong.
IF there was evidence of widespread fraud, Trump's team would have presented it in the court rooms across the land. Instead, the court rooms everywhere where Trump's team TRIED to make the case have rejected these claims as nonsense and ridiculous nothings.
The data is what the data is.
3. If Trump's claims are demonstrably false, when will you demonstrate it? See how using that word works?
Trump is claiming - in spite of having NO EVIDENCE of it - that there was widespread fraud. I can't PROVE what doesn't exist. The proof that Trump is lying is that HE can't prove it, himself. The proof that Trump is lying is he has NO DATA on which to make that claim. The proof that Trump is lying is his claims have been rejected by GOP and Democrat officials across the US.
There is no There there.
Trump is an established liar lying again. That's all you need to know.
4. No lefty thought so in 2016, nor in the years that followed.
? Trump won the electoral college in 2016. There was no serious dispute to that. We do dispute the validity of the electoral college method of choosing a president, but we don't dispute that he won it, under the system that existed.
Where there have been objections raised by Democrats (Gore in 2000, for instance) is when there were reasonable concerns. When those concerns were investigated and addressed, we conceded. Indeed, Gore probably DID win in 2000, but he conceded nonetheless, in spite of the questionable votes.
Facts are facts. You're done here, Marshal. Get help.
Marshal, in a now-deleted comment said..., "If only there was a court that would take the time to allow his evidence to be properly presented and argued."
So, the courts across the land are conspiring against Trump to prevent him from presenting his evidence?
Di you recognize how insane all this sounds?
Seriously.
Get help.
Trump appointed judges dismissed the evidence-absent, manufactured delusionary diversion cases... every single time.
Wonder why black folks across this entire nation, black folks living in entirely different regional culture contexts, vote at a near 90% majority for one party only?
1st line: "The crisis of leadership in the white community is remarkable—and terrifying—because there is, in fact, no white community."
...
Last line: "It is a terrible paradox, but those who believed that they could control and define Black people divested themselves of the power to control and define themselves."
___
James Baldwin's 1984 short article, "On Being White... And Other Lies"
https://bannekerinstitute.fas.harvard.edu/files/bannekerinstitute/files/on_being_white.and_other_lies_baldwin_0.pdf
Trump owns 50% of the nation's history of impeachments.
"So, the courts across the land are conspiring against Trump to prevent him from presenting his evidence?"
So, you're going to suggest something you think is crazy, attribute it to me and then ask me if I think it sounds crazy. Got it. Clearly, by that sort of typical and tired deflection you think you’re fooling someone. So much easier for a liar who hasn't the brains to argue against the fact there was no court that would take the time to allow Trump's evidence to be properly presented and argued. Do you even know what testicle are?
For days now, as Marshal’s frustration explodes about Trump, he increasingly soothes himself with obsessive mentions of male genitalia. 🤔
Post a Comment