OK, OK not all liberals are idiots. Yes, I know some non liberals are idiots too.
But
this last week I've noticed a growing number of my
liberal/DFL/socialist/communist friends and relatives on Facebook and
Twitter passing on and re tweeting all manner of anti Trump
articles,memes, and videos. I believe this to be idiotic for 2 reasons.
1.
Hilary's best chance to win is to face Trump. All the polls plus common
sense tells us this. If these folks were smart they would be doing
everything possible to help Trump win the GOP nomination, not lose it.
2.
Trump has spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. He is the
least conservative potential GOP candidate in recent memory. If Trump
win's they'll get a liberal SCOTUS nominee, more love for Planned
Parenthood, and all the other stuff he's donated money to liberals to
support. He'll also more than likely flip congress so there is no
chance of the wall getting built or any of the stuff they don"t like.
So
please, all you liberals, keep it up and hopefully we'll see the
anti-Trump sentiment coalesce around anyone else left and give us a
chance to beat Hilary.
I say Hilary because as screwed up as the GOP nomination process is, the Democratic process is just flat out rigged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
If these folks were smart they would be doing everything possible to help Trump win the GOP nomination, not lose it.
1. Trump is a joke. He's a PT Barnum. I want the GOP to offer a serious candidate. I don't want to merely have a Democrat in the White House, I want our Republic to work right. I feel sorry (on the one hand) for the GOP and hope they get a serious candidate, not Trump, even if it makes for a closer race.
2. While I think Trump is a joke and easily dismiss him, the fact that he has so many conservative supporters is troubling. It's troubling for the GOP and for our nation. I worry (a bit) about the unintended consequences of a Trump having as much support as he does... what does it say to the rest of the world that someone like him has so much support in the GOP (primarily)?
3. We believe it is important to stand firmly against the sorts of things that Trump has called for out loud and in such an unprofessional, nutty manner (and it appears that other GOP candidates support tacitly), like banning Muslims, all his wall building/anti-Mexican rhetoric, his anti-woman, anti-disagreement sentiments, etc, and so we do, even if it undermines our best hope to defeat the GOP. It's called integrity.
1. Good lord do you really think everything is about you. Why would you care if the GOP offered a candidate you consider "serious"?
2. Yes Trump is a joke in many ways, but the part of his support that is troubling is the liberals who support him. The bulk of his support is not from conservatives, because he's not a conservative. He's been a Democrat much longer than he's been a Republican and he's got the positions to prove it.
3. Really, which GOP candidates support "banning" Muslims? Yes, the Democratic primary process is certainly full of integrity. Hilary wouldn't know integrity if it bit her on the ass. The fact that Bernie whines about people "not paying their fair share of taxes" while trying to get Al Sharpton's support suggests a certain integrity deficit as well.
Look, you can try to dress this crap up all you want and try to suggest that you speak for every liberal out there. The fact is that if Trump is the candidate Hilary wins.
You know, I wrote a whole post based on your question about if I'd vote for Trump. So, given the unfairness of the Democrat nomination process and Hilary's many ethical clouds are you going to vote for Hilary?
1. I don't think Hilary is any less ethical than most other candidates.
2. Given the options, I'd easily vote for Clinton. I don't much care for her, but its not even a contest against any GOP candidate.
So, in your world lying is ethical? It just came out that Bill just violated MA election law by showing up and going into polling places, is that ethical?
Of course you'd vote for the democrat over the republican, doesn't that go without saying.
No, lying is not ethical. I just happen to think that the lies the GOP candidates are telling are worse. Don't twist my words. That is a form of lying... So I guess you think lying is ethical..?
Hey, the difference is you claimed Hilary was ethical, not me. The only GOP candidate I think has particularly high ethical standards in Carson. Unfortunately he's not in the running.
"Don't twist my words. That is a form of lying... So I guess you think lying is ethical..?"
The problem with your accusation is that I did not actually twist your words. What I did was to ask you a question. You can usually tell by the little "?" at the end.
Maybe that's why you don't answer many questions, you don't recognize the little coded symbol at the end that identifies it as a question.
No, you literally twisted my words, do you understand that?
What I said: I don't think Hilary is any less ethical...
What you claimed: "you claimed Hilary is ethical."
Do you see your factual mistake?
Sorry, I probably should have said "more ethical". It's just a typo, I'm only human, it's an honest mistake.
I guess do as I say not as I do might be a popular saying in your world.
But hey it's not really a complete thread unless Dan accuses someone of lying or slander or whatever.
Good lord, why not get a sense of grace or if not a sense of grace how about a sense of humor.
I just heard some guy seriously try to compare Bernie Sanders to Jesus.
"1. I don't think Hilary is any less ethical than most other candidates.
2. Given the options, I'd easily vote for Clinton. I don't much care for her, but its not even a contest against any GOP candidate."
Wow. Just, Wow.
See, this is part of the problem. Partisanship causes people to be blinded to their own side's failings, on the one hand, and to the reality of the other side's positions/people, on the other hand.
I recognize Clinton as the flawed human candidate she is. I recognize Obama as the flawed human candidate he is. I recognize Bush and Reagan and the crop of GOP candidates as the flawed human candidates they are. None of them are perfect.
The difference is that I recognize that Clinton has, by all evidence provided thus far, not committed any crimes (if she had, believe it, the GOP would have made sure she was charged and arrested), but there is this mythos that has floated in the minds of GOP fans that she is a "huge liar" and a "criminal..." seriously unethical. But the reality is that she is flawed, as are the GOP candidates. All of them say things that are stretching the truth. ALL of them. But I see zero data to support the suggestion that somehow Clinton is less unethical than the GOP class of clowns.
I do think she is less ethical than Sanders, but that is true of all the GOP group (with the possible exception of Carson, is merely in way over his head, but he's probably pretty ethical...)
Wow, just, wow, indeed. Says the guy from the party where a nut and conman who has made awful suggestions is leading the polls far and away. Before you criticize Clinton, too much, you need to deal with the huge number in your party who are supporting Trump and his misogynistic, racist, anti-American, anti-human rights, scary rhetoric.
Dan,
I agree with you that partisanship can blind people. The problem with that statement in this context is that I (over the years) have been specifically and vocally critical of candidates who I support. So, it can't be reasonably argued that I am "blinded"
"...(if she had, believe it, the GOP would have made sure she was charged and arrested),..."
When I see stuff like this (and other things you've said about the legal system), it makes me wonder if you actually understand how the legal system works in the US. As you may be aware P-BO has been the president of the US for the last 7 years(the executive branch). IN the US form of government the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes is reserved for the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ answers to the Attorney general who is a cabinet official appointed by the president. In other words the DOJ is part of the executive branch as is controlled by the sitting president. You may not be aware of the fact that the GOP is not and never has been an actual branch of the government. The GOP has no power either officially or unofficially in any criminal case. Given that reality there is no possible way that the GOP could in any way shape or form; arrest, detain, charge,convict, or incarcerate anyone. It's just not possible.
So, your comment quoted above is just silly.
Now, what we do know is that P-BO has used cabinet level departments in a political manner in the past (as Nixon tried to do) So the fact that the P-BO justice department is investigating Clinton and the fact that it has gone on so long suggests at least some strong suspicion of wrongdoing. The fact that at lest one witness has been granted immunity is also suggestive. Now, none of this is proof, and I have not treated it as such. There is also the unfortunate fact that at this level of politics these decisions are not always made free from the call of partisanship, so I honestly believe that without irrefutable evidence that Hilary was bribed as SECSTATE that there will be anything serious. Not that she hasn't done anything wrong, but that P-BO won't want his legacy tarnished any more than it already is. It is also possible the P-BO will issue a blanket pardon. (I hope that would anger you as much as it did when Bush was president)
I can point out that Hilary has lied publicly and on camera at least once. I can also point out her adopting a fake southern/black accent/dialect when she speaks to a black audience as one other specific sign of a lack of character. But, that's not definitive.
Way back in the past there used to be a standard which said the even the appearance of impropriety was enough to disqualify someone from office (not officially, but many people might agree with the old adage "Where there's smoke, there's fire". I think it's safe to say the Hilary's life has had plenty of smoke.
So, now that we're done with remedial civics.
I agree that Sanders is more ethical than Hilary, if for no other reason than the fact that he isn't taking hundreds of millions of dollars from anyone with a pulse.
I certainly agree that Trump has huge ethical issues, but haven't seen anything from Cruz or Rubio that really worries me ethically (There things politically), Carson is by far the most ethical person on either side, and I find it interestingly partisan that you don't think a brain surgeon is as qualified as P-BO to be president. I also find it interestingly partisan that you can't mention any specific ethical issues with any one candidate but simply dismiss all of them with a broad partisan brush. Just maybe you're one of those imperfect human beings who's more blinded by partisanship than you'd like to admit.
I'm a little shocked that you aren't aware of the large and increasing effort to prevent Trump from becoming the GOP nominee. Perhaps you think the GOP should take the Democrat strategy and just rig the primary system to get the result they want. It's also interesting that the primaries where Trump has (mostly) won are the open primaries where voters can cross party lines to vote. I've seen some numbers that make a pretty good case that it's Democrats in open primary states who have given Trump his lead. I can't say if this is political strategy or that they support Trump, but it's interesting to consider.
So, to suggest that we are not actively engaged in supporting other candidates is simply one more assumption on your part. To further suggest that we can't work against Trump while pointing out Hilary's flaws is simply another foolish assumption.
But you and Trump do agree on Planned Parenthood, so that's something anyway.
I have to admit that there is a certain amount of "dishonesty" that is just part of politics and we've kind of learned to live wit it. It's not good or ethical, it just is.
For example Bernie knows darn good and well that even if he is miraculously elected president, that there is no way in hell that he's going to get "free" tuition through a congress no matter who controls is, it's just not going to happen. It's the same with Trump's wall, there is just no way. So, while I believe that they don't think they are lying, the reality is that they both are. So is Hilary when she trots out the offensive fake dialect that makes her sound like Amos and Andy, it's not how she talks. It's a lie. Call it political theater if you want, but that just makes them hypocrites.
Cruz has flipflopped on positions, based on his paycheck. That is, he decries "big government stimulus programs" as a politician, but when he was a paid lawyer, he hailed stimulus programs;
Cruz said Texas-style tort reform—which places a cap of $750,000 on punitive damages—ought to be a federal law. Yet twice as a lawyer at Morgan Lewis, Cruz worked to secure $50 million-plus jury awards in tort cases prompted by corporate malfeasance;
"He was a run-of-the-mill corporate defense attorney who'd defend anything anytime a corporation wants to defend something.";
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ted-cruz-private-corporate-lawyer
Other half true or outright false claims by Ted Cruz:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/statements/
On those pages, you can find false claim after false claim by Cruz. And you and I agree that lying is unethical.
And, needless to say, I view many of his policy positions to be unethical (flat tax, immigration, his bill BANNING Muslim Syrian refugees, marriage equity, etc).
I can do this same thing for Rubio and, of course, Trump... all the serious candidates. Kasich seems like a decent guy, I don't know as much about him. But knowing how modern politicians work... well, I'm wary of any politician being wholly ethical. As I said, Carson seems like he may be a decent enough guy except for his horrible positions and that he seems way over his head in trying to be presidential material. You may or may not recognize this, but many (probably most) citizens watch people like Trump, Sarah Palin and Carson and it seems clear that they are just nowhere near informed enough to be a decent presidential candidate. But I will allow that Carson seems ethical enough. Of course, he has several lies under his belt, too, but in his case, it appears to be more like he may be just misremembering.
The point remains, I don't especially care for Clinton, the person. She does come across as too evasive, too "political" (in a negative sense), too cagey and not as ethical as I'd like. But that is true for all the serious GOP candidates. And no, I do not find her to be more ethically questionable than Cruz or Rubio. So, given four serious candidates who all (the three GOP top candidates and Clinton) have questionable ethical issues, and one (Clinton) whose policies are, to my estimation, significantly more moral, just, rational than the three GOP candidates, yes, it is no contest. I would gladly vote for Clinton, knowing (as I do as a rational voter) that she is a politician and a flawed human and that I have concerns about her character and positions... just as I would for Rubio and Cruz and Trump. But you have to vote for the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had.
How about if you cite a reputable news organization before you slam people. Do you seriously think Mother Jones is remotely unbiased or even journalism?
I guess I have to ask if your slightly more nuanced response means that you repudiate your previous broad brush partisan comment earlier.
I will say that I don't see any inherent conflict between expressing on opinion regarding what one believes the law should be, while representing ones client using the law as it is. I haven't look specifically at the Texas tort law, but most laws that set limits on recoveries in tort cases have exceptions that will allow for higher awards when appropriate. Further, when one becomes a lawyer one makes a commitment to use any means within the law to secure the best possible outcome for their client. So unless Cruz was using did something illegal or violated the ethics rules of a state bar association, I don't see anything wrong with zealously representing one clients within the scope of the law. IN short being a good lawyer isn't in and of itself unethical.
"Cruz worked to secure $50 million-plus jury awards in tort cases prompted by corporate malfeasance;..."
I'm confused, are you suggesting that the corporate malfeasance should not have been punished? You do realize that if Cruz secured jury awards against corporations who engaged in malfeasance, that it means that he was not defending the corporations, don't you? Given that it makes the "corporate defense attorney" claim seem ludicrous.
"He was a run-of-the-mill corporate defense attorney..." Then it's pretty impressive that a "run-of-the-mill" attorney somehow managed to argue before the Supreme Court and win.
" his bill BANNING Muslim Syrian refugees,"
Which bill exactly was that?
"marriage equity"
Interesting that you consider anyone who disagrees with your opinion on marriage "equity" to be unethical or that any anti marriage equity position in and of itself is a objectively unethical position to hold.
Ultimately, of course you disagree with republican candidates. Although your probably have more agreement with Trump than any of the others (Planned Parenthood, Marriage equity, left leaning SCOTUS nominees). At the same time of course your going to support the Democrat candidate no matter what their ethics are. No one expects you to do anything else.
Obviously all you've seen of Carson is sound bites on the news, seriously the guy is incredibly intelligent, well spoken (I've heard him speak, sound bites and debates don't do him justice), He has the personal back story that P-BO would love to pretend that he has. He grew up in poverty is government housing had a mother that instilled in him a love of reading and a desire to excel and somehow he ended up as one of the leading pediatric brain surgeons on the planet. You're right the experience of literally holding the life of a child in your hands and being able to save them is nothing compared to being a community organizer. Compare that to P-BO who grew up smoking dope while attending the most elite private school in Honolulu and really have no real success in his career. Certainly not to the point of being world renowned in his field. Sorry, if you don't think Carson could do the job, then you probably don't know much more about him than what you see on the news.
I'm impressed that you consider yourself a reasonable voter, which makes anyone who disagrees with you what? Unreasonable?
Maybe if you took a look around you would see that there is a very strong anti Trump movement within the GOP and that all the polls show that his support has topped out. If we can just keep the Democrats from voting for him in open primaries, he'll probably go down soon.
Just two things:
1. Of course I know that the GOP leadership and others would love to dump Trump, if ONLY your conservative fundamentalist voters would quit voting for him and being so enthused about him! So, you can quit floating that crap log.
Question: Do you support the GOP in efforts to dump him if he is the clear crowd-pleasing, vote-getting nominee?
2. You asked the question about Cruz bill banning Muslim Syrian refugees. This proposed bill:
http://time.com/4140502/ted-cruz-syrian-refugees-isis/
To be clear, I should have said "proposed" bill. I don't know if it ever reached the level of being a bill. Doesn't affect my point. Someone proposing that bill has an ethical problem, it seems to me.
1. Obviously you aren't paying attention. There are a number of very public and vocal conservatives trying to dump Trump. Maybe you just ignored the hostile reception he got at CPAC last week.
"Crap log" what in incredibly inelegant word for the truth.
Did you miss my earlier point about the voter breakdown between open and closed primaries? Do you know that there is a numerical correlation between increased voter turnout in Republican open primaries that corresponds almost exactly to the decrease in same state Democrat primaries? Do you actually even care what the reality of the situation is, or are you just so excited to be able to bash republicans that you'll blind yourself to anything that doesn't fit your narrative?
"Question: Do you support the GOP in efforts to dump him if he is the clear crowd-pleasing, vote-getting nominee?"
1. I somewhat addressed this in the post I wrote based on a similar question you asked.
2. I support the right of the people to fully and freely participate in the primary and caucus process and vote for anyone they wish. In theory I even support the right of Democrats to vote in open Republican primaries, even if their aim is to influence the selection of the GOP nominee in a manner that they feel helps Hilary the most.
3. I do not support the RNC trying to impose their will over and above the will of the voters as the DNC is doing in order to ensure that Bernie does not get nominated. To be clear, a rigged process is a flawed process.
4. I fully support the RNC, other presidential candidates, and other concerned entities in using their free speech rights to attempt to persuade voters to vote for someone other than Trump.
5. Personally I believe that it is time for Kasich to join Carson in suspending his campaign and for him to actively work to keep Trump from winning in the Ohio primary.
6. Personally, I think that Cruz and Rubio should either combine their campaigns (Agree to have one for VP) and to stop continuing to split the conservative vote between them and focus on Trump.
RE the Cruz bill. Are you aware of the difference between a "ban" and a "moratorium"?
Do you understand the concept of federalism?
Do you understand and agree with the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution?
Craig:
Obviously you aren't paying attention. There are a number of very public and vocal conservatives trying to dump Trump.
Dan, the COMMENT BEFORE:
Of COURSE I KNOW that the GOP leadership and others would love to dump Trump
Who's not paying attention?
Sorry should have been more clear. I was responding to your contention (and your ignoring of my addressing it earlier) that this is all "conservative fundamentalist voter". My bad for not being more precise and specific. I get annoyed when you are imprecise and unspecific and I should do a better job of holding myself to the same standard I ask of you.
I apologize for my lack of precision and poor choice of words.
I have to marvel at the fact that of everything I wrote in response, including asking some clarifying questions, there was only one thing you felt like responding to.
You know what they say; "Actions speak louder than words".
Yours are shouting.
I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine.
As to the voters, exit polls in many states show that it is religious conservatives who are voting for Trump for him to get the numbers he is getting. For myself, I'm much less worried about Trump than I am those who follow him so excitedly. One nutty man, in and of himself, is nothing to worry about. But when he has millions of followers (in the main, conservative and religious right followers), that is of great concern.
I will be more impressed with the GOP when they stop their efforts to get rid of Trump than when they begin to reject the type of people who are following him.
I too share your confusion about what would motivate those who identify as religious conservatives who support Trump. I am heartened that at least 65% of primary voters have voted against Trump and hope that they will be allowed to coalesce around one alternative.
Unlike you I have no desire to stifle voters behavior and who they choose to support no matter how wacky they are, they are American citizens who have the right to support whoever they choose and I fully support their freedom to do so. Look at the Sanders campaign.
I'd take your last more seriously if you felt the same way about denying the vote to whack jobs in both parties. But the fact that you appear to want to prevent people from exercising their franchise is an interesting position.
"I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine."
You've certainly got plenty of nerve, I'll give you that.
If you would have paid more attention, i was commenting on the fact that you chose to respond to only one thing and the one thing you chose to respond to was nitpicking a poorly worded phrase which I apologized for.
I've come to realize that you will not willingly answer many questions no matter how many of yours I answer.
Having said that I will (as I did on the other thread) go back through, copy paste all of your questions and answer them all. If your recent history holds, though, whether I do so or not will make virtually no difference to what you deign to answer or respond to.
As I said, actions speak louder than words. Yours are screaming.
One last "Politics makes strange bedfellows" comment.
Both major Democrat candidates have as a major campaign issue that "The rich don't pay their fair share.", yet both are seeking the endorsement of Al Sharpton and the people over whom he has influence. Yet not only is Sharpton not paying his "fair share" he's not paying any of his share. Yet, not only does this tax cheat not get punished, his endorsement is sought and valued. Trump may be crazy, but he pays his taxes.
It is claims like this one, singling out a black man, that raises eyebrows in the African American community. Read Snopes.
Does Sharpton owe back taxes? Yes. Is he "not paying them"? No.
According to the news stories I've Seen, he has a plan for paying back his back taxes. By saying this and framing this the way you are, it makes it appear as if you are singling out a successful black man for criticism. With no doubt, there are many white men who owe back taxes as well.
Al Sharpton has a 25 plus year history of Tax problems, racist comments, homophobic comments, civil and criminal convictions, disparaging remarks about other religions, and currently has a multi million outstanding tax liability to both the federal government and the state of New York, and you just want to write it off as "picking on a successful black man".
I'm sure there many white men who back taxes.
The problem is that Bernie and Hilary (who have made "rich folks paying their fair share of taxes" a major part of their campaigns. Are attempting to gain the endorsement of this particular person in order to convince Sharpton's supporters to vote for them.
Contrary to your portrayal, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with Sharpton's race (beyond trying to use him to influence other black voters), and everything to do with the hypocrisy of asking a habitual tax cheat to endorse a campaign based on making people "pay their fair share of taxes.
Do you not understand that asking someone who has had a 25 year history of failing to pay taxes to support a campaign based on making people like Sharpton pay higher taxes is at best ironic, at worst hypocritical?
Do you just intentional misinterpret things to suit your preconceptions or do you just not care about being accurate?
"It is claims like this one, singling out a black man,..."
Not a "black man". But a tax evader. Not a "black man" but a hypocrite.
So, yes please, lets put Sharpotn up as an example.
"...what does it say to the rest of the world that someone like him has so much support in the GOP (primarily)?"
That roughly 65% of voters in GOP primaries oppose him, and that the numbers are skewed by Democrats crossing the line in open primaries. It also says that too many folks like you are more interested in a story that feeds their preconceptions, than in the facts.
"No, you literally twisted my words, do you understand that?"
I don't believe that to be the case.
"Do you see your factual mistake?"
Yes, I factually left out the word "more", I'm just a fallible human who occasionally makes typos, please forgive my my heinous error.
"So I guess you think lying is ethical..?"
No.
"But you have to vote for the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had."
I guess this only holds true for the Democrats, since you want to deny Republicans their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
"Question: Do you support the GOP in efforts to dump him if he is the clear crowd-pleasing, vote-getting nominee?"
1. I somewhat addressed this in the post I wrote based on a similar question you asked.
2. I support the right of the people to fully and freely participate in the primary and caucus process and vote for anyone they wish. In theory I even support the right of Democrats to vote in open Republican primaries, even if their aim is to influence the selection of the GOP nominee in a manner that they feel helps Hilary the most.
3. I do not support the RNC trying to impose their will over and above the will of the voters as the DNC is doing in order to ensure that Bernie does not get nominated. To be clear, a rigged process is a flawed process.
4. I fully support the RNC, other presidential candidates, and other concerned entities in using their free speech rights to attempt to persuade voters to vote for someone other than Trump.
5. Personally I believe that it is time for Kasich to join Carson in suspending his campaign and for him to actively work to keep Trump from winning in the Ohio primary.
6. Personally, I think that Cruz and Rubio should either combine their campaigns (Agree to have one for VP) and to stop continuing to split the conservative vote between them and focus on Trump.
"Who's not paying attention?"
orry should have been more clear. I was responding to your contention (and your ignoring of my addressing it earlier) that this is all "conservative fundamentalist voter". My bad for not being more precise and specific. I get annoyed when you are imprecise and unspecific and I should do a better job of holding myself to the same standard I ask of you.
I apologize for my lack of precision and poor choice of words.
This isn't all of your questions yet, but it's a good chunk. It's easier to copy/paste.
Does Sharpton owe back taxes? Yes. Is he "not paying them"?
There seem to be some conflicting reports as to whether he's paying them or not. Either way it doesn't mitigate the hypocrisy.
Also, let's not forget Jesse Jackson. Another gentleman with problems paying taxes whose endorsement will more than likely be sought or given.
"I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine."
Two interesting things about this statement.
1. I'll be shacked if you do.
2. Given how much of the answers above were simply copy/pasted into the comment box from when I'd answered them before, it seems to deny reality to suggest that I had not "begun" to answer your questions. Why would you make this false statement?
Is it:
a) Because you didn't actually read my comments to see if I'd answered (as you've admitted to elsewhere)?
b) Because you just choose to ignore the reality of the fact that I consistently and intentionally answer your questions?
c) Because you prefer to live in the "I answer all of your questions and no one ever answers any of mine." fantasy world?
d) Because why tell the truth when a lie will do?
You keep making this claim and I keep demonstrating that it's hollow.
"I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine."
I've done what you want, let's see you start answering questions gladly.
Fact: I asked four questions/raised four concerns about that one opening paragraph... you at first didn't answer any of them, then admitted a mistake on the first one. Fair enough.
I offered to begin taking turns answering questions and I answered one of yours to show I'm prepared to answer your questions. I then repeated my next unanswered question. You opted not to answer.
Your call, but you can see that I am prepared to evenly answer questions on a one-for-one basis. I've done my part. The ball is in your court.
Fact, that's another thread. One in which I've already answered EVERY QUESTION you asked.
So, once you catch up, you'll be fine
This odd notion you seem to have, that saying you're going to do something is enough that you don't actually have to do what you say is kind of annoying.
That and the fact that you think that simply repeating a lie over and over again somehow makes it true.
Clearly, you think you have answered every question.
Clearly, I don't think you have.
I've proposed a compromise, trading off questions one for one. I've answered yours, as a point of fact. The ball is in your court.
"Clearly, you think you have answered every question."
No, clearly I have answered your every question in the two threads in particular. If you dispute that then you are free to prove that I am wrong. Clearly the evidence is there.
"Clearly, I don't think you have."
Clearly, your claim is not in line with the reality of (at a minimum) the two threads in question.
"I've proposed a compromise, trading off questions one for one. I've answered yours, as a point of fact. The ball is in your court."
The problem with your "compromise" is that even if you could prove that I had not answered every question (which I believe you would have if you could), that still leaves the indisputable fact that I have answered significantly more than one of your questions.
So, while you whine and repeat yourself, I have stepped up and answered your questions. You just continue to repeat your same old excuse as if repetition makes it more true.
""I've proposed a compromise,..."
You've proposed, I've answered. You've proposed, I've stepped up and delivered much more than what you asked. You've proposed, yet not taken action.
Dan,
I'm going to do you a favor. Maybe you just haven't rolled the little wheely thing on your mouse up to see all the answers I've given you. So, I'm going to save you all of that effort and re post them.
Al Sharpton has a 25 plus year history of Tax problems, racist comments, homophobic comments, civil and criminal convictions, disparaging remarks about other religions, and currently has a multi million outstanding tax liability to both the federal government and the state of New York, and you just want to write it off as "picking on a successful black man".
I'm sure there many white men who back taxes.
The problem is that Bernie and Hilary (who have made "rich folks paying their fair share of taxes" a major part of their campaigns. Are attempting to gain the endorsement of this particular person in order to convince Sharpton's supporters to vote for them.
Contrary to your portrayal, my criticism has absolutely nothing to do with Sharpton's race (beyond trying to use him to influence other black voters), and everything to do with the hypocrisy of asking a habitual tax cheat to endorse a campaign based on making people "pay their fair share of taxes.
Do you not understand that asking someone who has had a 25 year history of failing to pay taxes to support a campaign based on making people like Sharpton pay higher taxes is at best ironic, at worst hypocritical?
Do you just intentional misinterpret things to suit your preconceptions or do you just not care about being accurate?
"It is claims like this one, singling out a black man,..."
Not a "black man". But a tax evader. Not a "black man" but a hypocrite.
So, yes please, lets put Sharpotn up as an example.
"...what does it say to the rest of the world that someone like him has so much support in the GOP (primarily)?"
That roughly 65% of voters in GOP primaries oppose him, and that the numbers are skewed by Democrats crossing the line in open primaries. It also says that too many folks like you are more interested in a story that feeds their preconceptions, than in the facts.
"No, you literally twisted my words, do you understand that?"
I don't believe that to be the case.
"Do you see your factual mistake?"
Yes, I factually left out the word "more", I'm just a fallible human who occasionally makes typos, please forgive my my heinous error.
"So I guess you think lying is ethical..?"
No.
"But you have to vote for the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had."
I guess this only holds true for the Democrats, since you want to deny Republicans their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
"Question: Do you support the GOP in efforts to dump him if he is the clear crowd-pleasing, vote-getting nominee?"
1. I somewhat addressed this in the post I wrote based on a similar question you asked.
2. I support the right of the people to fully and freely participate in the primary and caucus process and vote for anyone they wish. In theory I even support the right of Democrats to vote in open Republican primaries, even if their aim is to influence the selection of the GOP nominee in a manner that they feel helps Hilary the most.
3. I do not support the RNC trying to impose their will over and above the will of the voters as the DNC is doing in order to ensure that Bernie does not get nominated. To be clear, a rigged process is a flawed process.
4. I fully support the RNC, other presidential candidates, and other concerned entities in using their free speech rights to attempt to persuade voters to vote for someone other than Trump.
5. Personally I believe that it is time for Kasich to join Carson in suspending his campaign and for him to actively work to keep Trump from winning in the Ohio primary.
6. Personally, I think that Cruz and Rubio should either combine their campaigns (Agree to have one for VP) and to stop continuing to split the conservative vote between them and focus on Trump.
"Who's not paying attention?"
orry should have been more clear. I was responding to your contention (and your ignoring of my addressing it earlier) that this is all "conservative fundamentalist voter". My bad for not being more precise and specific. I get annoyed when you are imprecise and unspecific and I should do a better job of holding myself to the same standard I ask of you.
I apologize for my lack of precision and poor choice of words.
This isn't all of your questions yet, but it's a good chunk. It's easier to copy/paste.
Does Sharpton owe back taxes? Yes. Is he "not paying them"?
There seem to be some conflicting reports as to whether he's paying them or not. Either way it doesn't mitigate the hypocrisy.
Also, let's not forget Jesse Jackson. Another gentleman with problems paying taxes whose endorsement will more than likely be sought or given.
"I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine."
Two interesting things about this statement.
1. I'll be shacked if you do.
2. Given how much of the answers above were simply copy/pasted into the comment box from when I'd answered them before, it seems to deny reality to suggest that I had not "begun" to answer your questions. Why would you make this false statement?
Is it:
a) Because you didn't actually read my comments to see if I'd answered (as you've admitted to elsewhere)?
b) Because you just choose to ignore the reality of the fact that I consistently and intentionally answer your questions?
c) Because you prefer to live in the "I answer all of your questions and no one ever answers any of mine." fantasy world?
d) Because why tell the truth when a lie will do?
You keep making this claim and I keep demonstrating that it's hollow.
"I'll be glad to start answering your actual questions when you begin to answer mine."
I've done what you want, let's see you start answering questions gladly.
Ultimately, the problem with your tiresome contra factual refrain, is that not only have I answered your questions, I've offered to expand on specific areas of those answers that confuse you. Instead of doing the intellectually honest and consistent thing and actually reading the answers, asking for clarification of specific points, you choose to act as if I've answered none of your questions. As if I was obstinately refusing to answer your questions, all the while ignoring both the existing answers, but also the offer to deal with specific problems from specific answers.
Post a Comment