Let's see, the dems have gone 0-fer on the various special "referendum on the Trump presidency" elections held of late, they just got shut out at the Supreme Court, but we keep hearing how rosy things are for them and how they can hear the GOP death rattle.
Interestingly enough, that just might not be quite as true as some might hope, as the first article linked points out.
http://commentators.com/democrats-will-keep-failing-until-they-do-their-own-autopsy/
The other thing we hear frequently is how vital and healthy the religious left is. Again, someone begs to differ.
http://commentators.com/democrats-will-keep-failing-until-they-do-their-own-autopsy/
As usual, this is not necessarily an endorsement of everything the GOP does or will do, nor is it indicating a change in my support for Trump, it's just pointing out some things that other folks are saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
Just wondering, Craig...what if Trump does something that you really like, or if he says he intends to push for something that you support. Will you consider yourself in a conundrum? If he's moving in the right direction generally as president, why would you NOT support him? For all those Dans and feodors who get off by pretending they are on the moral high ground, who cares what they think? I will never deny my desire for Cruz over Trump. I will never deny my desire that Clinton not win the presidency, even if it meant Trump getting the nod. Neither situation means I "support Trump". I stand by my vote for him and will continue to do so, as the right move for the situation, and I will not suffer the idiocy that having done so means that I ignored his character flaws or that my vote means I support, encourage or enable those flaws. I find such attacks to indicate a greater character flaw than any Trump possesses as it indicate willful dishonesty.
With that said, I remember too well the previous worst president, Jimmah Carter. There was one thing he did that I support, at least in hindsight. I don't recall the details of how it came to be, but the result was that microbreweries and home brewing became legal and widespread. Clearly I don't support Carter. He was and still is a buffoon. But I have no problem supporting what led to more beer. (Maybe brother Billy had something to do with it.) If I thought he was doing more such things, I would indeed support him. If I thought Obama did such things, I would support him in those endeavors as well.
It's OK to support Trump, and so long as he does the right thing, he is worthy of the support. Few presidents will do everything the way any of us would prefer. We don't have to accept responsibility for the thinks we'd never have backed in the first place, just so we can enjoy all those things we do.
Just sayin'.
I have no problem supporting the actions of any president when I believe them to be correct, I support and respect the position/office, that doesn't mean I have to support the individual.
On these types of posts I feel compelled to add the disclaimer so that the Dan types don't try to twist things into support for Trump.
That's what I mean. I'm done justifying my righteous actions to those who insist on perpetuating lies and deceptions. Dan is an inveterate liar on many issues, and this is just another. We've both explained ourselves clearly and accurately about our respective positions regarding Trump. It won't ever matter to him, as he needs to frame us as having forsaken our moral principles every time we do less than vilify and demonize Trump in the manner he finds acceptable...all while he continues to support sexual immorality, the murder of the unborn and the theft of money from those who earned it legitimately (among other non-Christian positions).
Marshall, I understand your defense. "I think that Clinton would be worse than a lying, cheating, sexually deviant, ignorant buffoon..." I GET that is your defense.
I'm saying that if you choose the lesser of two evils, you still choose an evil.
IF I had a candidate that was clearly as evil and fundamentally unfit as Trump is, EVEN IF I could not vote for the other candidate, I still could not opt for that evil. If you choose the lesser of two evils, you still choose an evil.
I have not said you were happy about him. I'm just pointing out the reality that you opted to vote for a moral deviant and an utter buffoon.
That's not a lie, and I have not lied about anything.
~Dan
Cmon Art, Dan has never lied about anything, he's the only 100% honest person you've ever interacted with. Of course his insight on the apparent demise of his beloved party is amazingly insightful as well. I appreciate that he acknowledges Clinton as being one of the two evils, you know, the evil he actively supported.
Dan,
I realized again that sarcasm doesn't communicate well in this medium, so just chill out, it's just a joke.
No offense taken. I'm chill. Your comments do make me wonder though, do you generally or even occasionally lie on comments at blogs? I'm not boasting and I'm certainly not lying, but I haven't lied in this context. That is, I have never one time thought to myself, "Hm, if I just make a false claim, it'll boost my position, therefore, I'm going to lie..." At least not on a blog. I don't know that people generally do that.
Make misstatements? Sure. Make mistakes? Answer too quickly and unknowingly make a false claim? Sure, that happens. But i all seriousness, I have never lied on a blog. I don't think that's boasting. I don't think it's exceptional. Who would do that?
Do you?
That I've never lied on a blog in these sorts of conversations is not the same as saying I'm a 100% honest person. I've told lies, deliberately misleading in the past. Just not in a rational conversation like I strive to have in places like this. Again, have you? The way you set that up, it makes it sound like you think that people do it all the time.
~Dan
"I'm saying that if you choose the lesser of two evils, you still choose an evil."
First, one must realize and accept that "choosing the lesser of two evils" is an expression that simply illustrates what voting is.
Second, one must be honest and admit that voting is never anything BUT choosing the lesser of two evils, unless one chooses to adopt the worldly notion that man is basically good, as opposed to the Biblical notion that man is sinful by nature and always less than morally perfect.
Third, the above quote comes from a man who not only supports evil himself (abortion on demand and homosexuality), but has cast votes for people who do likewise, and no doubt will continue to do so barring an epiphany.
Fourth, "fit" obviously means something much different to you than to others. The character flaws obvious in Obama were easy for you to dismiss due to a delusional belief that what he offered as an inexperienced candidate for president would be an improvement over that of G.W. Bush, and that either he or Clinton brought more real world experience to the office than did Trump, who clearly has a track record in the private sector that is far more tangible than the Saul Alinksy-type fantasies embodied in both Obama and Clinton.
Fifth, I am in no way convinced that yours is a matter of moral principle over political power given the clear character flaws inherent in the very policies promoted by Democratic/leftist candidates, as well as in the candidates themselves as a result. No. YOUR intent to to market the opposition in the worst possible terms while doing exactly the opposite in support of those who will eventually get your vote.
In short...hypocrisy is strong in your words quoted at the top of this response.
one must be honest and admit that voting is never anything BUT choosing the lesser of two evils,
No, one must not admit that, not if it's not true.
Obama was not an "evil." He was human, he was imperfect, but not evil. Clinton was not evil, just imperfect. Hell, even Bush was not evil, although he certainly embraced some evil policies.
I don't conflate evil with imperfect. Is that what you're doing?
Trump, on the other hand, IS an awful, truly evil person. He lies casually and regularly about the most inane ideas. He has oppressed and sexually assaulted women, according to his own admission. He has mocked disabled people. He has spread lies about decent people for the purpose of the grossest (and sometimes stupidest) of reasons. He has encouraged and given support to racists and oppressors and sexual deviants. The man is a moral mess.
EVEN AL MOHLER SAYS AS MUCH.
So, truly, Trump is an evil, awful person. That's not really in question. Even conservatives agree, generally.
Now, you may hold the opinion that Clinton is equally (or moreso) actually evil in the way that Trump is. And you are welcome to that opinion, but it's nothing like universally embraced.
I do not hold that Clinton is evil. Therefore, I am not voting for the lesser evil. I voted for a flawed human candidate, as opposed to an evil and awful man.
Your opinion falls apart.
You refer once again to Al Moehler as if that somehow ends the conversation. In the attendant link, Moehler himself speaks of respected Evangelicals who chose to vote for Trump for the very same reasons that I did. His reasons for not doing so reflect the sentiments of those like Craig and Stan. But Moehler taking that side of the question does not in any way make that side more valid or proper. It's simply one man's opinion added to the same opinion from other men. And it's one more who is wrong on the issue.
But while you defer to Moehler to validate your Trump hatred, you fail to acknowledge that he felt every bit repulsed by Clinton. What's more, among the reasons for rejecting her are those that indeed made her AND Obama evil...primarily the support of the legal, but unjustified killing of the unborn (murder), and the support for legalizing and legitimizing sexual immorality (homosexuality/SSM). I don't believe Sanders opposes either of those policies, and they all, to one degree or another, support other policies that have no history of benefit for any nation or people who have employed them.
In the meantime, who has Trump groped since he's been in office? What policy of a sexually immoral nature has he pushed? It's clear, YOUR people are imperfect, while the other guy is evil or one who embraces evil policies. What hypocrisy!!
"He lies casually and regularly about the most inane ideas."
ACA has proven to be a most inane idea, just as the GOP said it was, and Dems lie about it to this day. They lie about Planned Parenthood and abortion in general. They lie about the LGBT agenda. They lie about the 2nd Amendment. They lie about the rich not giving their fair share. The lie about Republicans wanting to see people die in the streets, about caring only for the wealth at the expense of the poor, about having disregard for the environment, about being war mongers and colonialists/imperialists. They lie to minorities and the poor. They lie to each other.
"He has oppressed and sexually assaulted women, according to his own admission."
I've never heard any such admission. I have heard you misrepresent things he's said about women, even after repeated corrections...making you just as much a liar as you claim he is.
"He has mocked disabled people."
Obama mocked them as well, but unlike Trump, he actually mocked their disability. Obama mocked entire swaths of Americans as "bitter clingers". Clinton mocked Americans as "deplorables".
"He has spread lies about decent people for the purpose of the grossest (and sometimes stupidest) of reasons"
As I said, Dems regularly spread lies about decent GOP politicians for the purpose of garnering support for their stupid reasons.
"He has encouraged and given support to racists and oppressors and sexual deviants"
Obama has encouraged and given support to racists, oppressors and sexual deviants. His support of BLM and those who protested every righteous shooting of a black thug. He raved about rappers, having one or two over to the White House for a private audience, who make their bucks writing misogynistic lyrics of the most sexually deviant kind.
"The man is a moral mess."
And your candidates are freakin' lilies of the field. It's as I said...you hype up the character flaws of Trump and totally downplay those of your candidates. As such, you pretend Clinton is not evil (despite her well known penchant for talking to subordinates and family alike in the most vile and condescending terms). You voted for what you believe is the lesser of two evils, but like most leftists, you're very subjective and self-serving with regards identifying evil.
You've totally validated my opinion. Thanks. You're a pip.
No Dan, I don't regularly lie. But I also don't craft statements so that they hide or shade the truth. I also don't continue to repeat falsehood after it's been corrected.
It's interesting that you call Trump "evil", yet can't bring yourself to call Islamic terrorists "evil", What you fail to realize is that you simply making an assertion doesn't make that assertion true. Clearly you can offer no objective proof that Trump is "evil", and have no credibility when you excuse similar behavior by others.
Oh, by all means, comment on the topic if that's not inconvenient.
Because I usually try to be as generous as I can, I'll concede that your comments could be somewhat on topic. But only in the sense that you're demonstrating one of the reasons why the democrats are locked in failure mode currently. You think that simply attempting to demonize Trump is actually a viable strategy, when it clearly hasn't worked yet. It's much easier to obstruct, call names, make false exaggerations, and refuse to even attempt to find any area where compromise is possible than to actually try to accomplish anything positive.
So, thanks for the examples of why the dems are failing.
I don't regularly lie. But I also don't craft statements so that they hide or shade the truth. I also don't continue to repeat falsehood after it's been corrected.
I don't craft statements so that they hide or shade the truth. Are you suggesting I am? Because (ironically), if so, you are stating a false claim.
Nor do I continue to repeat falsehoods after it's been corrected, at least not on purpose. That I might disagree with your opinion and reasoning is not the same as repeating a falsehood.
Are you suggesting I am? Because (ironically), if so, you are stating a false claim.
But I'm still interested in this notion that you "don't regularly lie..." Are you suggesting that sometimes you DO lie? Or, like me, do you just not lie - ever! - in the context of these type of blog discussions?
You seem to be suggesting that people engage in deliberate lies on a regular basis, and you seem to be criticizing me for suggesting that I don't lie in these type of conversations - at all! - as if that was an exceptional idea.
Perhaps this is part of the problem with those of the "mankind is utterly depraved crowd" in conversations like this... you know that you are utterly depraved and you are certain that everyone else is, too. Is that the case?
I'd be willing to bet that, like me, you have never deliberately lied in a blog post/comment, but you tell me.
~Dan
"I don't craft statements so that they hide or shade the truth. Are you suggesting I am?"
No. You're far more blatant than that. Your understanding of Biblical teaching on sexual immorality is wholly fallacious and unsupported by Scripture, as has been demonstrated time and time again. Your response that you don't buy the "hunches" of your opponents is less than weak. It's avoidance.
"Nor do I continue to repeat falsehoods after it's been corrected, at least not on purpose."
Clearly you do this, and do so on purpose under the thin defense that you disagree with opponents' opinions and reasoning. That excuse would fare much better if it was followed up with solid counter arguments complete with the type of hard data you demand from your opponents. You never do. More recently, you've continued to push this "Trump grabs female crotches" nonsense when THAT lie had been corrected repeatedly, with links to the actual video easily available for review.
"Or, like me, do you just not lie - ever! - in the context of these type of blog discussions?"
Pretending you believe the falsehoods you preach are true doesn't absolve you from telling lies. This, again, is particularly true if you fail to support your "truth" with actual facts and evidence. You tend to satisfy yourself with "Nyuh uh" while demanding hard data from your opponents.
"You seem to be suggesting that people engage in deliberate lies on a regular basis..."
Craig can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the clear implication is that YOU engage in deliberate lies on a regular basis. You do so through a variety of tactics, such as equivocation, avoidance, hyperbole, exaggeration and the use of extremely biased and slanted sources...to say nothing of your woefully self-serving interpretations of Scripture. And then there's this laugher:
"I'd be willing to bet that, like me, you have never deliberately lied in a blog post/comment..."
No. Not like you at all.
Do you recognize the irony of making false claims - claims that you can't support with anything beyond, "Well, I THINK IT IS SO, so it must be so..." - as you accuse me of making false claims? A claim that you simply can't support and which is, in fact, in the real world, not true?
By all means, show me I'm mistaken. POINT to an actual lie I've told and support the claim that it's a lie with data and I will be much better off. I can apologize and repent. But these baseless, unsupported false charges don't help anyone and they only embarrass you and your side (or should).
~Dan
The Trump story. I have not seen where you've repented of the lie that he stated he grabs women by the crotch. I've corrected you on this multiple times. I haven't seen you make that claim explicitly recently, but merely ceasing to tell the lie isn't the same a recanting.
The issue surrounding God's position on homosexual behavior. Lev 18:22 could not be more clear, yet you pretend there is some caveat that Scripture itself doesn't provide. As such, to pretend that God would, could or does allow for the behavior in any context at all, including something that seeks to resemble a marriage, is a lie willfully told.
We've used Scripture to defend the fact that it remains an abomination regardless of the context in which it takes place. You've used nothing but whimsy and wishful thinking to pretend you have a basis for denying the truth.
On other issues, such as abortion, you run with the cheap rationalizations that "we can't know", as if there is any real logic behind your choice to support what you do as true. The abortion issue is a great example as you pretend we can't know that the unborn are people equally as deserving of the right to life as any person who is lucky enough to be allowed to exit the womb in one piece with its heart still beating. That's a clear and blatant lie that defenders of baby murder pretend is nothing more than pretending there's any ambiguity simply due to the age, size and location of the person for whom you have no regard.
So those are three lies that come immediately to mind that are lies without question, except to the dishonest.
Again, you may well try to respond with your usual weak-sauce responses..."I don't buy it"..."that's just your opinion"...or some such other BS, but BS it all is.
..and there you have it. You're associating DISAGREEING WITH MARSHALL with telling a lie. "IF someone disagrees with me and my wisdom, then the ONLY possible explanation is that they're lying..."
No, Marshall, merely citing some instances where you and I disagree is NOT proof of lying. Your claim remains false. You're making false claims to charge me of lying. Do you not recognize how crazy hypocritical that is?
On Trump, HE SAID he grabs women by the pussy ("They let you grab them by the pussy if you're famous like me," or words to that effect). HE SAID he ogles naked women/teenagers. I'm judging him by his own words and by the evidence surrounding him. Women have testified that, Yes, what he says he does, he does. If HE says he's a sexual pervert/assailant and women testify that it's true, on what basis would we doubt the man?
Are you honestly suggesting that Trump is not a sexual deviant? Be serious. IF this was a democrat, you all would have already had him in jail and if it was a black democrat, your type would no doubt have already lynched him... or at least they would have 50 years ago.
You lose credibility when you make false claims to say I'm making false claims. You lose credibility when you denounce liberals for adult affairs but defend a man who as much as admits sexually assaulting women. And when you base it on the evidence he provided "THEY LET YOU grab their pussies," you are trusting an admitted sexual pervert with a history of abuse say that it was okay because "they LET me do it..."
Man, what sort of deviant defends a deviant?
Regardless of all that, that I disagree with your opinion is not evidence that I am lying.
Sometimes, Marshall, people disagree with you. You'll have to grow up and get over it.
I'll try this one more time.
Dan,
As to your first two claims, you've done both.
As to your other, I'm a sinner (just like Paul) saved by God's grace, I've told lies and most likely I will again. I'm not proud enough to make any sorts of claims using words like never and always. They usually end up being false.
Art,
I realize the temptation of low hanging fruit, but I've tried several times to steer Dan towards the topic of the post. You continuing to follow him down rabbit holes isn't going to help that.
As I've learned, even copy/pasting Dan's actual words won't be enough data for him (he once accused me of slander when I quoted him) to budge on this.
There are enough posts where Dan could have chosen to comment with something substantive, but he's chosen this digression instead.
I get it Craig, but I'll respond to it just one more time and be done with it here.
Dan,
You lie once again:
"On Trump, HE SAID he grabs women by the pussy ("They let you grab them by the pussy if you're famous like me," or words to that effect)"
You even indict yourself with your loose and inaccurate paraphrase. He NEVER said that he grabs women by the crotch. He didn't even say they'd ACTUALLY let you grab them that way. He was being hyperbolic with regard to just how far some women seem willing to go when dealing with rich celebs like him. It's similar to his goofy statement about how he could shoot someone and not lose supporters. Does he really believe that? I fully doubt it, but it does give one a sense of the loyalty of supporters. In the same way, his comments about what women might let him do gives one a sense of just how fawning some women become in the presence of men like him.
But YOU insist on pretending he actually acts that way. YOU want to pretend that because he speaks about his response to attractive women that he's going to force himself on women. There have been no confirmations that he engages in such behavior to the extent that you CHOOSE to believe because you don't like him.
As to other instances mentioned, I say again that if you fail to provide evidence that contradicts with what I have put forth, then your position is false and continued preaching of that position is lying. To simply say you disagree with my interpretations is meaningless without actual "hard data" that you demand of me and which is then provided.
Then you lie again when you say,
"You lose credibility when you denounce liberals for adult affairs but defend a man who as much as admits sexually assaulting women."
I don't defend Trump's salacious character at all. I defend against specific distortions of the facts you are so eager to put forth as true. Pretending there is no distinction here is itself false, whether or not you're doing THAT on purpose.
Many people disagree with me, Dan. Craig does about voting for Trump, as does Stan. Stan and I disagree on a number of things with regard to Scriptural interpretations. He has something substantive to back up his positions. You don't, and what you regard as "different opinion" on such things as homosexuality is based on a total rejection and disregard for the clear teachings of Scripture on sexual immorality...not on any substantive and Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
As to the Democratic Party dying, I would prefer that it doesn't, and I'm not so sure that its current state of dysfunction is a sign that it is. Don't forget, half the nation who voted chose Hillary. They're certainly spinning their wheels right now, but one seriously wrong move by Trump and they're back in the saddle simply due to the fact that the left doesn't need anything but a mistake by the other side to fire up their baseless base. You can't forget that the left doesn't need facts and track record to bang the drum for their candidates. They only need to have a center-right candidate to oppose.
I will say, however, that should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Masterpiece Bakery, a hue and cry will go up from the immoral left. Will it be enough to sustain them until the midterms? We'll see.
I agree that death is probably an overstatement, but just over a year ago certain people pronounced the GOP dead and yet we've just seen win after win and the dems are declining. The biggest issue is the lack of a strong bench, look at the last to candidates to lose in special elections, neither of them was worthy. The cupboard for 2020 doesn't appear particularly loaded either. And the fact that to call their congressional leadership geriatric would be a compliment.
I think the author I linked makes a good case. I just don't think the entrenched far left establishment will pay attention anytime soon.
To the point of the post, as I've oft noted and still say the data maintains, the demographics are against the GOP. If you have half or less of the women, practically no African Americans, practically no LGBTQ - or their allies! - supporters, a distinctly small proportion of the Latino vote and (and this is critical) an ever decreasing number of young people who support your party in the US... in a nation where white men are aging into a minority - then the odds are not in your favor. The demographics are just increasingly against the GOP, at least as things stand now.
That they are doing so well is partially due to gerrymandering and a lack of turnout amongst progressives or those turned off by modern conservatism/the ugly Trump wing of the wacko, degenerate party opposed to basic human values. But that can't last much longer. Or so says the data...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/11/data-shows-a-downward-demographic-spiral-for-republicans/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-2016-election/528519/
Certainly, the Dems need to do a better job of showing themselves to be honest, above board and, you know, basically dedicated to progressive values like responsibility, human rights, human decency, conservation, living within our means, rights for the poor and marginalized, etc, and less connected to back-room/Clintonesque politics, but sooner or later, the angry old white guys will be too small a margin to win elections any more and, short of the GOP making a change in the right direction, reaching out to those they currently spurn, they just can't keep up. Gerrymandering and stupid Democrats will only get you so far.
As to the continued repeated false claims suggesting that I have lied, well, they remain butt-ugly and ignorantly stupid false claims. Claims that neither of you can support, so, since the charge is not a serious or supported one, I'll let it go. But you should know, that those sort of false claims (and in the supposed defense of Truth!) exposes your side as ignorant hypocrites lacking in basic human values/decency and that will ultimately cost you, as well.
Don't rely on me. Ask a reasonable minded African American, woman, young person, gay person or even a reasonable-minded conservative (I know they exist, in spite of the Trumpian twist of the day) to look at the words we've said and the charges you all make, they'll tell you that you're not presenting yourself well.
~Dan
"...but just over a year ago certain people pronounced the GOP dead..."
Yeah. One of 'em visits here often. But that just underscores my statement about how little is needed by the Dem base to get excited.
I also meant to add in my last comment, that we actually need the Democrats, just as we need hard times to appreciate the good times. If they remain where they are, or maybe even a bit more degraded, that would be just fine as they'd represent what we wish to avoid becoming as a nation. It's good to see it up close rather than look to Venezuela, N. Korea or other foreign nations run by total lefties.
And, before you protest, data about gerrymandering...
http://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/politics/redistricting-helped-republicans-hold-onto-congress.html
Here's what I hope:
That the Dems (or even progressive Republicans or rational Green Party folk) will present themselves as the Party of Rational, Responsible Leadership.
That they will advocate for Prison Reform because it saves money and lives and reduces recidivism.
That they will advocate for an end to the War on Drugs because it is grotesquely Big Gov't intrusion into human rights and just a giant and incredibly stupid and debilitating money pit.
That they will give up the language they use around "Gun Control," and just seek reasonable solutions to our violence problems (which might include some reasonable licensing ideas... but they just need to give up the phrase and mindset of "Gun Control" and "Guns are our problem!" - it's counterproductive.
That they will remain strong advocates for human rights for all, gay, straight, religious, pagan, Christian, Jew, Muslim.
That they will re-establish themselves as the Party of Free Speech and strain out some of the outliers who identify as liberal but who appear to be anti-free speech.
That they become the party of Responsible Gov't, paying our bills as we go (which NEITHER party is, currently)
That they focus on jobs creation, small business support, good health care (that works) and generally looking out for the marginalized.
That they get out of/become exceptionally wary of accepting money from big moneyed interests/corporations (which would put them at a distinct disadvantage, I realize)
...and generally establish themselves as the Adults in the nation (honest, transparent, hard-working, decent but fallible fellow citizens) who are just seeking to represent the people and run the country responsibly.
~Dan
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/02/did-gop-gerrymander-its-way-controlling-us-house
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-08/why-democrats-can-t-blame-gerrymandering
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/09/09/why-liberals-cling-to-the-gerrymandering-myth-n1889410
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/dont-blame-gerrymandering/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cmon-tom-perez-stop-blaming-gerrymandering/article/2620685
"That the Dems (or even progressive Republicans or rational Green Party folk) will present themselves as the Party of Rational, Responsible Leadership."
That ship has sailed, it seems. More importantly, presentation is meaningless. Actually being rational and responsible has so much more value and benefit to the nation.
"That they will advocate for Prison Reform..."
...will be pointless if they do not include the cessation of prisoner coddling. Prison should be hard. It should not be a hotel for the leaders of criminal organizations. It should not be a training ground for improved criminal skills.
I know you favor spending my money to provide schooling for inmates. But without having their future wages garnished to pay for this second education that law abiding citizens don't require, you're simply adding to their debt to society and that is the worst example of "unjust" any honest, rational and responsible person can imagine. The state (that is, the people) paid for everyone's initial education through most of high school at the least. Then it paid for the criminal's arrest and incarceration. Now you want to pay to educate him again. When does he ever get around to paying his debt? When does he ever get around to experiencing punishment for breaking the law? How does this reflect upon the people victimized by his criminal activity?
Another lefty notion of the kind with which rational, responsible people are fed up.
"Ending the War on Drugs"
There is no gov't intrusion involved in prohibiting that which leads to all manner of burden on society. Drugs does that, either by the law enforcement aspects or the addiction/health care aspects. Rational, responsible leadership would be promoting rational and responsible citizenship which necessarily discourages drug abuses, not enabling of it. This is another example of Dan enabling bad behavior.
"Gun Control"
This is indeed gov't intrusion as the 2nd Amendment protects my right to arm myself. The type and power of the weapon I choose is of no concern to the gov't. What is of gov't concern is taking no action that would require my using my weapons to defend myself against them. In the meantime, crime control is more important than gun control and where the focus of gov't needs to be. Again, responsible citizenship is what should be promoted, as well as policies that lead to economic expansion which reduces poverty by providing opportunities for good employment.
"Human rights"
This has been corrupted by irrational and irresponsible leftist ideology for far too long. I don't see that changing, and indeed, it appears as if the left intends to double down.
"Free Speech"
Denied by some (if not most) of the very people for whom you believe "civil rights" protections are needed.
"the party of Responsible Gov't"
Another ship that has long sailed away. The Dems thrive on spending the people's money in order to bribe supporters. While we on the right have our own spenders, they are not supported by center-right voters because that's not what conservative economics is all about. You want responsible gov't, you need to move way right. You won't, because you want to spend other people's money, too.
I'm almost done with your list and I realize that you want to be conservative. You're just not smart enough to understand that the party you support simply isn't capable of delivering on any of that stuff. Never have (not for the last 50 years, anyway).
It's no wonder the Dems are losing ground. They fail in every category you've listed.
Wow, Dan is actually advocating a party that runs on ideas, not simply opposing Trump. Yet, the actual democrat party shows absolutely no inclination to do so.
I agre that a multi party system needs multiple strong parties, but as both authors point out the democrats currently have major problems.
Personally I'm not sure that a coalition of minorities, who's interests often conflict is a good long term strategy.
Regarding gerrymandering, sure it happens, but to imply that it's something that only happens on one side is ridiculous. Further, the fact that the vast majority of state legislatures are controlled by the GOP demonstrates the scope of the democrats problems.
Personally I'm not sure that a coalition of minorities, who's interests often conflict is a good long term strategy.
Well, that is at least one strength the Dems at least generally have: We/they recognize the great value of diversity.
This does explain a lot, though.
Tell me, Craig, when the angry conservative white guy is only a 30% or even 20% portion of the population, do you think they should still be making the calls? Do you think we need an apartheid type system, with the smart white guys doing all the heavy lifting?
And I never said that gerrymandering only happens on one side. Dems certainly do it, too, and they shouldn't. It's wrong regardless. But as the data shows, the GOP has done it more/more effectively. That helps explain their wins, even though their base is dwindling.
Personally I'm not sure that a coalition of minorities, who's interests often conflict is a good long term strategy.
I would say that generally, I don't think most decent human's interests are in conflict with other decent humans.
We want to be able to choose where we live,
to have safe, decent working opportunities,
to have safe, decent neighborhoods, free from threats such as violence or pollution,
to not have others decide moral matters for us (at least so long as it doesn't cause harm to others)
to be able to make decisions for ourselves (again, at least so long as it doesn't cause harm to others)
to be able to worship or not, as we see fit
in short, we want to be free and yet not have people cause harm to us or others. This is in all of our common interests.
We don't want gov't telling us what we can or can't eat (or ingest)
AND
We don't want a drunk/impaired driver being a threat.
We want good jobs
AND
We don't want jobs which result in pollution threatening our air and land and water.
We want to be able to marry who we wish
AND
Not be forced to marry anyone we don't wish to marry.
The great value of having decisions made from the ground up, by our rich, diverse population helps ensure that human liberties are respected and that dangerous threats are realized. That works for all types of people.
My point has nothing to do with "diversity" as much as it does with conflicting political interests. A coalition only works as long as political interests coincide.
Since I've not advocated any sort of racial or apartheid type system of governance, nor have I suggested any system beyond our current representative republic, it seems strange that you would even raise that as an issue.
Case in point regarding conflicting political interests on the left. Environmentalists and unions have certain aspects of their interests that are in conflict, at some point the DFL can't keep both groups happy. Whose interests win? What's more influential to the party, the environment or the tens of millions of union dollars being funneled into party coffers?
FYI, when I used the term minorities I wasn't using it in strictly racial terms. Although ther is a racial element. My point is that unions are a minority in a political sense as are environmentalists. Further, the interests of African immigrant blacks, don't always align with American born blacks. I hope that clears things up.
You do understand the distinction between a political party and a government, don't you? In the case of a party you have an entity that is taking donations based on its promise to do things in the interests of particular constituency groups. Yet in some cases these interests conflict, yet the party still takes the cash.
"Well, that is at least one strength the Dems at least generally have: We/they recognize the great value of diversity. "
Not that you've ever been able to demonstrate or prove. No. It is nothing more than an empty assertion that there is "great value" in diversity.
Real diversity, as in diversity of opinion, has no real connection to ethnicity or nationality to any extent that cannot arise also out of a single group. Diversity of ideas does not require multiple groups, as what divides us into different classifications rarely is more than a superficial difference of no importance. Those differences, that the left regards as necessary in some way, are not as important as what is common across the various national and ethnic peoples.
"Tell me, Craig, when the angry conservative white guy is only a 30% or even 20% portion of the population, do you think they should still be making the calls?"
First off, to the extent that conservative white guys are angry at all, it is only due to idiotic notions, such as "great value in diversity", that foolish lefties put forth and wisdom. Wasting time on that which has no real value at all makes any rational person angry.
Secondly, as race has no value either, it makes no difference as to who is "making the calls" if the calls being made are good calls. The question Dan poses is what cements the divide in this nation in the suggestion that one's race, rather than one's ideas matter at all. Thus, the following remark is stupid as well:
"Do you think we need an apartheid type system, with the smart white guys doing all the heavy lifting?"
If the decision makers are all white, that alone does not indicate either an apartheid system or even a desire for one. But if the white guys are the smart ones, they WILL be doing the heavy lifting because smart guys don't leave such to the idiots. More importantly, wise people don't care what race the smart guys are. Only Dems do.
Here's another example of idiotic thought that is but another reason the Dem Party is committing suicide:
"We want to be able to marry who we wish
AND
Not be forced to marry anyone we don't wish to marry."
There was never any pressure put on anyone to marry or not marry whomever one wishes, if by "marry" one means "two people committing their lives exclusively to each other". In that sense, no law prevented any two or more people, even of any so-called "sexual orientation" from "marrying" by that understanding. No law forced anyone to marry against their will someone one didn't choose to marry. No license by the state was required for two people to commit to each other. The license meant that the state...the people of a state...recognized the union legally for the benefit it had to the state to do so. There is no benefit to the state to recognize any but the one man/one woman relationship as a marriage. That does not mean two or more people can't agree to live lives committed to each other.
That the left pretends this distinction doesn't exist or isn't meaningful pisses off rational people...and being forced to join in that pretense pisses them off even more. With this fact in mind, the following line is idiotic:
"The great value of having decisions made from the ground up, by our rich, diverse population helps ensure that human liberties are respected and that dangerous threats are realized"
Because the decision to ignore reality and instead pretend the traditional and real definition of marriage must be rejected in favor of what a cockamamie notion of "diversity" has judged is better, human liberties are ignored and dismissed as "bigotry" and "hate". Rational people are not fooled by this BS, and thus the Dem party loses what little credibility and integrity it might once have had.
Yes, Craig, I do understand the difference between a party and a gov't. What of it?
My point remains: The Dems, for all their faults, DO value diversity and recognize the beauty and wisdom and strength of making the effort to pull disparate groups together under one umbrella, finding common ground where possible. I would not belong to a party that was predominantly one race or that left out/acted in opposition to significant groups like racial minorities, gay folk, religious minorities, young folk, environmentalists, feminists, etc.
And, as the studies demonstrate, this is why the GOP is likely only going to decrease in the years to come. You can't be the party of only old white guys forever, when old white guys are dying off faster than they're coming on board.
So, I repeat: when the angry conservative white guy is only a 30% or even 20% portion of the population, do you think they should still be making the calls? Or do you think that the Republic is better served if it listens to the voices of all folks, not just one (increasingly) minority voice?
Marshall has given his answer, ill-advised and wrongheaded and anti-human liberty/free republic as it is. How about you?
~Dan
"The Dems, for all their faults, DO value diversity and recognize the beauty and wisdom and strength of making the effort to pull disparate groups together under one umbrella, finding common ground where possible."
There you go lying again, or you're simply incredibly stupid. The Dem Party makes a habit of dividing people to play them against each other. Rich against poor, black against white, citizen against illegal alien, male against female. There is no "pulling of disparate groups together", especially since the Obama years began.
"I would not belong to a party that was predominantly one race or that left out/acted in opposition to significant groups like racial minorities, gay folk, religious minorities, young folk, environmentalists, feminists, etc."
This isn't mere stupidity as much as blatant lying to imply that the GOP acts in this way. It isn't even a party that is predominantly anything but Constitution loving people who do NOT divide by race, religion or ethnicity. That's just crap propaganda from leftists who have no real set of principles of governance or social behavior.
As to groups like "gay" folk, environmentalists, feminists...these are divisive groups seeking their own agenda fulfillment without regard to the impact on others of those agendas.
My answer was not "ill-advised" or you would have provided "hard data" to refute it. You can't without citing more leftist lies from their heavily slanted sites. There is nothing "wrongheaded" about anything I've said, without first pretending bad behavior isn't bad at all.
The conservative faction of this nation listens to anyone. YOU prefer to believe that rejecting leftist crapola...constantly proven to be detrimental as evidenced of its failures whenever implemented...constitutes "not listening". The facts are clear despite your childish refusal to listen yourself: The Dems have no ideas that improve society in any way.
Dan,
I responded to your ridiculous "angry white guy" question, but I'll go further. I don't think any minority should be unilaterally making decisions, and the scenario you've conjured up isn't the case now.
As Art pointed out, you claim that the DFL is a party of "diversity", yet it's one that focuses on superficial things like skin color while excluding those who don't toe the party line on every issue.
Your comments also ignore the fact that if you look at the actual leadership of the DFL, it's older and whiter than the GOP. Just because you make assertions about the composition of the parties, doesn't mean those assertions are true.
I find your hope that you all will be riding the rising tide of history, more than a bit presumptuous and that it ignores the recent string of (crushing) defeats the DFL has suffered.
I have to wonder if it would be better to have the 5-6% of the population who ate young, black and radical be the ones making decisions.
Or would it be better to stop focusing on superficial divisions and more on commonality.
For a party that claims diversity, that slate of old rich white folks they ran for POTUS last time might call that into question.
For all of the positive platitudes, I can't think of anyone in the DFL that has done much besides bash Trump and obstruct, for the past year or so. So far that hasn't worked much, but it could.
If you have a pervert liar leader with literally NO experience and who appears to be dumb as a rock in addition to being pretty evil, obstructing and bashing is appropriate and the best thing one could do. As compared to what the GOP/conservatives did with a decent (indeed, compared to Trump, saintly!) president like Obama.
Sorry, conservative complaints of obstructionism are just laughable.
There was a time that conservatives would have applauded obstructing an evil idiot.
To the point of demographics, the point remains, the data does not bode well for conservatives. I would just point out that the more conservatives embrace a pervert idiot, the more they'll drive moral, reasonable people away from their party.
Time will tell, but looking at existing data is rational, too.
I'm just saying that I would not belong to a party that practically excluded whole races of people (and I don't think that's superficial, ask your "minority" friends about it) or gay folk and their allies or environmentalists, or, increasingly, scientists! That just seems long term dumb.
Of course now your faced with a conundrum, if your hunches about Trump are objectively true, then you have to acknowledge that the DFL as a party was unable to offer a better candidate to run against him.
Of course, you do belong to a party that excludes people who hold certain views and values. You also belong to a party that spent 8 years whining about obstruction, and now your endorsing the very behavior you decried.
Even if Trump is "evil" (a statement you can't objectively prove), how does that prevent or exclude the DFL from working with him on certain policies that they can agree with. Or are you suggesting that everything that an "evil" person engages in is "evil".
Democrats do not "exclude people who hold certain views and values..." so much as they have views and values and, if you don't share those, you tend to not want to be part. That is, we don't exclude anyone who opposes abortion (I was a pro-life Green Party/Democrat for several years, after all) but those anti-abortion advocates refuse to associate with the Dems.
You appear to be speaking about views on ideas. Yes, the Democrats tend to be slightly less pro-war, tend to support abortion rights, marriage equality, feminist values, inclusiveness, values that matter to black and latino citizens, etc... we DO hold these planks in our (for now, I'll use "our" when speaking of Dems, as I'm a de facto Democrat... noting that I actually lean much more towards the Green Party... it's just not a substantive party) platforms, but we don't exclude groups of people. We have black folk, gay folk, latinos, young folk, women, white men, Christians, Muslims, Jewish folk, pagans, etc, etc, in our ranks in significant numbers. We VALUE (at our best times - there are certainly too many times we don't live up to our best) the input from all these groups, we tend to actively seek out input from all these groups.
As opposed to the Marshall wing of the conservative movement, which is completely fine with old rich white guys making the decisions, we are not comfortable with that, nor should we be. So, no, we don't exclude people so much as people self-select out. Now, we are not tolerant towards intolerance and abusive behaviors. But that's only rational. So, if you want to be part of the Dems AND you want to speak abusively of gay or transgender folk (for instance) that behavior is not tolerated.
But there's a difference between not tolerating intolerable behavior and excluding groups of people.
As the GOP post mortem noted, the GOP really needs to begin to open up communications with people you all have, for decades, demonized at worst and dismissed at best. They need to seek out common ground with all these groups that are within the Democrat Party, even rational GOP types recognize this reality. You can't be the party of the angry old white guy for much longer, the demographics just don't work in your favor.
That's my point, one which the data supports and you all are not dealing with.
As to Trump, we are saying that he is a significantly different creature than any other GOP leader in recent years (with maybe the exception of Sarah Palin... but even her, not to the degree of Trump). You all will always likely disagree with Democrat planks and the Dems will disagree with GOP planks, but Trump is different. Trump is a casual liar to levels that are truly spectacularly unprecedented. Dangerous levels. He demonizes the press like a dictator. Dangerously so. He appears truly without any moral bearing. Dangerously so. He appears clearly ignorant of what it means to be a president. Dangerously so.
It goes without saying that we disagree with much of Trump policy (although we'd gladly - but warily - support him if and when he ever decided on a rational, moral policy), but the point with Trump is that he is singularly awful as a national leader. We disagreed with Bush, but I never said he was evil. We disagreed with Clinton, Obama and Reagan, but never thought that they, themselves were evil.
Trump, in his lying, in his ignorance, in his ostentatious perversions and abuses is a level of unfit that I think rises to a level of justifying the term "evil."
Do you truly not think this is a bad, bad man? On what basis?
Dan
if your hunches about Trump are objectively true, then you have to acknowledge that the DFL as a party was unable to offer a better candidate to run against him.
I give the man this credit: He is an expert manipulator of fools and people without strong moral and rational compasses. He is a genius at being a conman and at fanning flames of fear to further his causes. That so many people could be fooled (and, yes, find the Democrat candidate a worse choice) speaks badly of us as a people.
Do you disagree?
Sorry, to burst your bubble but there is ample evidence that the DFL does exclude those who are pro-life.
Of course, the GOP does not actually exclude any of the groups you mentioned, there are active GOP affinity groups for black, Hispanic, and gay conservatives.
As you might have noticed, I've not supported Trump and have consistently raise objections regarding his character, for you to suggest otherwise is at best disingenuous and worst a lie.
In all of your justification of Trump hatred, you managed to ignore my actual point. As I said, IF Trump is "evil" and as totally degenerate as you opine, then that must mean that the DFL was unable to put forth a candidate unable to defeat the equivalent of Satan. As the article points out, the DFL bench is so thin that all they have is nudist banjo players and Clinton.
IF Trump is "evil" and as totally degenerate as you opine, then that must mean that the DFL was unable to put forth a candidate unable to defeat the equivalent of Satan.
Indeed, both the Dems AND THE GOP were unable to stop this juggernaut of hatred, perversity, lies and ignorance. It is a profoundly sad reflection that so many people could be fooled by him and/or think that somehow, Clinton (and ALL the GOP candidates) were worse options.
I've already addressed this. Perhaps you missed it?
As to excluding "pro-life," as I stated, I was a pro-life Democrat for several years. I was not excluded. You are objectively wrong. Now, will the Dems support a pro-life candidate? No, I'm sure not. But that's not the same as excluding them from the party.
And yes, of course, the GOP has not actively excluded anyone by name, but their rhetoric and policies towards black folk has resulted in a near total abandonment of that party. Much to the GOP's shame (and this, in spite of the fact that the Dems have only done marginally better by them!). Their rhetoric and policies towards gay folk and their allies has resulted in monumental abandonment of the party in those circles. Much to the GOP's shame. Their rhetoric and policies and their embrace of a buffoon like Trump encourage more and more young people and Latinos and Muslims and progressive (even moderate) Christians to leave the party.
My point remains: You can't exclude (de facto exclude) vast swaths of US communities and expect to keep winning. You're ignoring that. Do you recognize that reality?
Also, you keep referring to my "Trump hatred," I hate evil, awful, lying perverted acts and those who engage in them as leaders. This is only rational.
Do you disagree? Are you saying you LIKE this perverted lying con man?
Lord have mercy.
As an aside, why do you keep referring to the Dems as the DFL? The Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party, as they are known in Minnesota? Not that I object, I've just not heard that term used to refer to Dems nationally. It's not quite accurate for national Dems, is it?
DFL is habit.
You realize that how you were treated years ago, doesn't reflect current reality don't you.
The GOP problem with Trump was at least partially due to the large number of candidates dividing the primary vote. In the case of the DFL, y'all has the opportunity to winnow the smaller number of primary candidates to one who could beat this "evil" guy. Yet y'all couldn't manage that. Thus the continued question, how bad was Clinton that she couldn't beat the equivalent of Satan?
Once again, I've been consistently and clearly vocal about how I feel about Trump. The fact that you choose to ignore this is not my problem. Of course, my pointing out the reality of the DFL failure doesn't mean I have changed my position on Trump.
When I refer to your Trump hatred, my point is that given your inability to objectively prove that any human is "evil", your opinion about Trump isn't necessarily a rational basis for your vitriol.
Thus the continued question, how bad was Clinton that she couldn't beat the equivalent of Satan?
Thus the continued answer: It is a sad commentary upon our population that people (i.e., CONSERVATIVES) could find Trump an acceptable alternative.
Clinton wasn't great, but this should have been no contest. Hell, that slimey little Cruz should have been able to beat Trump, and yet he couldn't. So Clinton not winning the electoral college is only part of the problem.
The rest of the problem lies primarily in the sad soul of so many primarily white, primarily male, primarily old, primarily evangelicals.
And, in the failings with the electoral college.
It IS a problem that the Dems couldn't beat a scumbag idiot, but the problem lies in the people who were able to dismiss morality and intelligence to vote for him.
If you don't like "evil," ignore it. I happen to think that fat old self-important pricks who assault women and laugh about it, who lie casually to get what they want, who don't appear to hold to ANY morals beyond "I'll get mines and to hell with everyone else" is rightly called evil. It IS an opinion and not provable. I'm asking if you don't agree with that opinion?
That you talk out of both sides of your mouth on this ("I don't like Trump," but then continue to defend him when he is called bad, evil or a fucking prick idiot) makes it appear that you DO support him, at least to some degree.
All that it takes for evil to win is for good people to stand by and do nothing.
Join the right team, Craig.
Are you kidding me? That the man is a lying sack of shit who is actively working to destroy basic American/human values and who is a moral monster who laughs about abusing women isn't a rational basis for vitriol? What is?
My dear Lord, have mercy.
Note how Dan prefers to frame his comments with references to Trump's character as opposed to his policies specifically. This is the common strategy for leftists (I don't care if its Dem or Green party, or communist parties, they are all the same with respect to how they attack center-right candidates or policies, and they are all the same with respect to what they promote). Where a Republican talks about protecting American, the left refers to it as isolationist or muslim-hatred. Where a Republican talks about promoting economic growth, the left decries him as favoring the rich over the poor. It's all rhetoric purposely meant to appeal to the stupid on an emotional level. It's worked perfectly with Dan.
As if that wasn't enough, Dan continues to portray Trump as evil, but a baby killing, sexual immorality promoting people like Obama to be "decent". The hypocrisy is strong in this one. And his own evil in preferring to demonize is stronger still.
This is the common strategy for leftists...
Where a Republican talks about protecting American, the left refers to it as isolationist or muslim-hatred. Where a Republican talks about promoting economic growth, the left decries him as favoring the rich over the poor. It's all rhetoric purposely meant to appeal to the stupid on an emotional level.
The hypocritical irony of the Anti-Obama at all costs crowd is staggering. It's like you don't even recognize what you've done for eight years.
Contrariwise, when I criticize Trump's anti-Muslim strategies, it's precisely because it is contrary to our American values that I do so, not by way of criticizing his character. When I criticize Trump as a fucking liar, it is because he is a fucking stupid-as-hell liar. He lies casually and stupidly and regularly. To the degree that no one can or should take him seriously. He is making the US out to be a laughingstock. Just ask the rest of the world. He is a moron, or portrays one well. He is almost certainly mentally ill and needs help.
Again, if Trump were a Democrat, OR if Obama had done even ONE idiotic thing of the literal thousands that Trump has, you all would have strung him up, or at least wanted to. Damn, you all tried to impeach him for nothing... can you imagine what you all would have done if he had talked about grabbing white women by the pussy?
The irony is indeed thick.
I have to note that Dan still can't/won't do the following:
A. Demonstrate the Trumo is objectively "evil".
B. Acknowledge that if Trump is truely as horrible as Dan believes him to be, that Clinton must have been worse. Or at least less appealing.
C. Understand that it's possible to acknowledge and comment on the flaws and failures of the DFL, without endorsing Trump. Furthermore, that it's possible to objectively assess Trump's policies and to support some of them, but not to support Trump personally.
It's interesting that Dan hasn't been able to rouse enough outrage to declare that Muslim Terrorists are "evil", or that the board in Europe that killed an innocent baby by denying him access to healthcare is "evil", or even that Bill Clinton committing sexual battery (forcing a woman to grab your junk is sexual battery) was "evil"; but he's going to lump Trump in with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Guevara (you know the murder that all the cool liberal kids wear on t shirts). Seriously, doesn't that simply devalue the concept of evil?
Hell, now Dan's reduced to making fun of his weight, what are we in junior high now?
I know this is difficult to understand, but even with all of the problems I have with Trump, I have to acknowledge the fact that he is POTUS, and I can't change that reality. All I can do (just like I did with both Clinton and P-BO) is to respect the office and support policies I agree with and oppose those I don't.
It's kind of amusing that in a thread about the DFL failures since Trump's election we forced to endure childish name calling rather than ration discussion of the DFL problems.
If Dan is correct, then the DFL should have cleared up is these special elections and we would not have seen SCOTUS back Trump 9-0. But instead we see GOP gains across the board.
It's got to be tough when reality and your narrative clash.
A. Demonstrate the Trumo is objectively "evil".
I've said quite clearly that, given that judgments of "evil" are not provable, that I can't. Nor can you. But reasonable people recognize it when they see it. Any person could make an isolated mistake. But Trump mocks the disabled, lies daily and stupidly, revels in his ignorance and does nothing to change it nor respect those who are informed, admits to sexual assault and ogling naked teen age girls as a badge of his privilege as a rich, powerful guy... Reasonable people across the board recognize that this is awful, ugly, immoral as hell, perverted behavior... all reasonable synonyms of evil. Conservatives admit it. Are you defending his perversity?
If not, why not simply agree with me that he presents himself in an evil, awful, grossly immoral (choose your term) manner?
B. Acknowledge that if Trump is truely as horrible as Dan believes him to be, that Clinton must have been worse. Or at least less appealing.
I HAVE acknowledged that Trump managed to beat (electorally) Clinton AND all the GOP candidates. That does NOT mean that Clinton is worse. Do you understand that your conclusion is a ridiculous leap?
I have also noted that Trump was able to use lies and fear mongering and xenophobic/racially charged language to appeal to a too large group of people who would buy into that excrement. THAT is a negative charge against too many conservatives.
Will you admit that?
If not, I give up on you. You truly would defend Lucifer himself.
C. Understand that it's possible to acknowledge and comment on the flaws and failures of the DFL, without endorsing Trump. Furthermore, that it's possible to objectively assess Trump's policies and to support some of them, but not to support Trump personally.
Of course I understand that. You know how you can tell I understand it? BY THE WAY I ACKNOWLEDGE AND COMMENT ON THE FAILINGS OF THE DEMS. Perhaps this is just another case of you reading my words and not understanding what I've said.
I'm not asking you to NOT support those actions Trump takes that you agree with. As I said, I WOULD TOO, if he did anything that wasn't as immoral as hell or stupid as shit. I'm asking you to join rational and moral conservatives in condemning this man as beyond the pale and as not fit for office.
If you can't do that, you're part of the problem.
All that takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
even that Bill Clinton committing sexual battery (forcing a woman to grab your junk is sexual battery) was "evil";
By all means, prove that he was and I will call it evil. Sexual battery is evil. We don't have a tape of Bill Clinton laughing about assaulting women, we do have that with Trump.
Your problem is that you all want to condemn liberals as awful for things that YOU THINK maybe they did, but don't know, but won't acknowledge that Trump is evil for what he laughingly admits, has a history and witnesses to, and then dismisses as "locker room talk."
Perhaps you're just tripping up over the word, Evil. Maybe you're fine with admitting that Trump is a sexual DEVIANT, that he is an AWFUL man insofar as his own repeated admissions of oppressing/ogling/manhandling women, that he is a DANGEROUS LIAR in his frequency and stupidity and casual-ness of his lies...
Maybe you're fine with Awful, Deviant, Dangerous Liar... you just want to hold on to "evil" as something even worse. That's fine. It's a judgment call on the words used to describe his gross immorality. The problem too many conservatives are having is that they seem to not even want to admit to "gross immorality" or "awful," or his otherwise utter unfitness for the job.
What word WOULD you use? Or do you just think that Trump is not spectacularly awful in his stupidity, ignorance, perversity and immorality? That he's pretty much the same as Obama or Clinton or Reagan?
If so, well, that's part of the problem conservatives have and why the demographics are only going to continue to work against you.
You still haven't admitted that problem.
It's a data problem you're having, refusing to acknowledge the data.
Which, ironically, only further isolates the GOP.
I've never defended his character, why would I start now. I notice that you've just done that thing where you subtly change what you're saying because you realize you've gone too far, but won't admit it. By your standards,which you apply to everyone else, making claims you can't prove with data is wrong. Yet you make excuses when you do it.
Just because you cling to the "Trump lied", fantasy doesn't mean that Clinton wasn't a horrible candidate. It also ignores the crappy candidate that have been trotted out in subsequent elections.
I realize that subtlety isn't your thing, but I'll try this one more time.
Acknowledging the reality that Trump legally win the last election and respecting that reality isn't defending him. Pointing out the ongoing failures of the DFL isn't defending him. Being extensively critical and consistently not supporting Trump isn't defending him. Pointing our your irrational graceless hatred isn't defending him.
So, since I'm not defending Trump, I guess that whole Lucifer thing is one more false claim.
No you don't have a tape of Clinton admitting it, you just have the testimony of the woman he did it to. But that's not enough for you to condemn Clinton as evil, no the double standard is stronger than ever.
Of course the fact that you think that every single thing Trump has done is "immoral as hell and stupid as shit", is a reasonable and rational position to take simply highlights your lack of grace and hatred.
As I pointed out, putting Trump in the same league as mass murderers, diminishes the notion of evil. The fact that those on your side think it's cool to use those who are truly evil is heros to be worn on t shirts makes me wonder if y'all even understand the concept.
But even beyond that, to make the leap from describing someone's acts as evil, to suggesting that that person is intrinsically and totally evil, is unsupported by reality and data.
I've consistently and repeatedly criticized Trump for his moral failings, yet because I won't join your irrational hatred that somehow eliminates the facts of the situation.
If you want to abandon grace for hatred, if you don't want to follow the example of Jesus in dealing with a government that was much more evil, that's up to you. Just don't expect me to go down in the mud with you.
"Irrational hatred?" For calling out repeated stupid lies? For condemning an unrepentant sexual predator? For condemning gross ignorance and xenophobia?
There was a time when good conservatives could have joined me in this (and indeed, I'm sure there are some out there who do... just not seeing it here).
If you decide you'd like to engage in a a conversation, by all means, let me know. You could do this by actually addressing the repeated questions I've asked, instead of side stepping them.
Yes, when you stoop to attacks based on physical attributes and unprovable blanket charges it veers into irrational.
It's difficult to answer your volume of questions from my phone, so I usually just reply in general, so chill out.
I'm not answering any that are based on false premises or duplicates.
"...do you generally or even occasionally lie on comments at blogs?"
No, but I'm a sinful human saved by God's grace. I have lied, and most probably will again. I find making blanket statements using terms like "never" and "always" to regularly be demonstrated to be false or falsified.
"Who would do that?"
Don't know, but I'd be shocked if no one has.
"Do you?"
Not that I can recall, but I can't say that I never have/never will with 100% certainty.
"Are you suggesting I am?"
Are you suggesting that you've never ever done this? I'm suggesting that you have.
"Are you suggesting that sometimes you DO lie? Or, like me, do you just not lie - ever! - in the context of these type of blog discussions?"
I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying flat out that as a fallible, sinful human, I've lied in the past and most likely will in the future. You're the one making the claim against human nature, not me.
"Is that the case?"
Given your imprecise use of terminology, I'm not sure what you mean. However, I agree with Jesus as well as the remainder of scripture that humans as sinful by nature, and that we regularly sin.
"Tell me, Craig, when the angry conservative white guy is only a 30% or even 20% portion of the population, do you think they should still be making the calls?"
Never, ever even said anything that remotely supports the premise of the question. Especially given the fact that we don't have that sort of system now.
"Do you think we need an apartheid type system, with the smart white guys doing all the heavy lifting?"
Nope, but color me offended.
"Yes, Craig, I do understand the difference between a party and a gov't. What of it?"
Because my post is regarding the state of the parties in the real world, your responses are aimed at governing and Trump. Neither of those things is on topic.
As an aside, it's interesting that you make all of these lofty claims about what the DFL is/should be, but when you look at the last 8 years you realize that very little of those things were actually practiced. Especially during the period when the DFL had total control of all three branches of government.
"So, I repeat: when the angry conservative white guy is only a 30% or even 20% portion of the population, do you think they should still be making the calls?"
For the third time, we don't have a situation where this is the case currently. It certainly hasn't been so for the last 8 years. In a representative republic, the duly elected representatives of the people make the calls, the duly elected president approves those calls, and the duly appointed supreme court judges those calls. Age and skin color aren't even factors.
"Or do you think that the Republic is better served if it listens to the voices of all folks, not just one (increasingly) minority voice?"
Not sure what you mean. If you mean accede to the "No justice, no peace" crowd whenever they throw a tantrum, then no. (before you accuse me of racism, I've written about this multiple times. Demanding a predetermined outcome before and without all of the evidence and process is by definition not justice. Further, trying to intimidate people or institutions to ignore facts and reality on threat of violence is not justice.) If you mean that people should be able to elect representatives that will advance their views in the representative system we have, then yes.
"Marshall has given his answer, ill-advised and wrongheaded and anti-human liberty/free republic as it is. How about you?"
Despite the condescending false premise, I've now answered twice.
"Sorry, conservative complaints of obstructionism are just laughable"
I'm not complaining, I expect the minority party to obstruct to some degree. I'm pointing out the rank hypocrisy of spending the last six years complaining about obstructionism, them promptly and proudly engaging in the very behavior you whined about.
"Do you truly not think this is a bad, bad man?"
Do you truely not comprehend that I've been saying that Trump is a "bad, bad man" for months?
"On what basis?"
Do you truly not see that this is a ridiculous question based on a completely false premise?
"Do you disagree?"
Do I agree that the DFL couldn't find a candidate who wasn't a worse candidate, yes. To the rest of your hunches, to some degree.
"Perhaps you missed it?"
Or perhaps, you can't differentiate between a 17 person primary and a 2 person general.
"Now, will the Dems support a pro-life candidate?"
Wow, talk about being closed minded single issue voters. Again, use the Google, there are plenty of examples of pro life folks being actively excluded from the DFL.
"It's not quite accurate for national Dems, is it?"
Not technically, but it's a handy abbreviation and It's what I hear most often.
"I happen to think that fat old self-important pricks who assault women and laugh about it, who lie casually to get what they want, who don't appear to hold to ANY morals beyond "I'll get mines and to hell with everyone else" is rightly called evil. It IS an opinion and not provable. I'm asking if you don't agree with that opinion?"
I agree that committing sexual battery on anyone and laughing (or making jokes about it, or singing/rapping about it) is reprehensible no matter who does it. Unfortunately, you've chosen to focus on one person you don't like while ignoring/excusing the equivalent behavior in those you do
"Are you kidding me? That the man is a lying sack of shit who is actively working to destroy basic American/human values and who is a moral monster who laughs about
abusing women isn't a rational basis for vitriol? What is?"
If this statement could be proven to be 100% factual, you might have a point. Given that it can't, then it's just irrational.
"Are you defending his perversity?"
No, pointing out the flaws in your ranting, isn't defending anything. You could usually tell by the lack of actual defense.
"If not, why not simply agree with me that he presents himself in an evil, awful, grossly immoral (choose your term) manner?"
I've been critical of trump for months. Just because I choose less hatred and vitriol doesn't vitiate the facts. Or perhaps, I'm more willing to approach with grace.
"Will you admit that?"
You mean again? I've pointed out that a 17 person primary is significantly different than a 2 person general. Oh, FYI, there is only one way to win a presidential election. That's through the electoral college. The fact that it worked as designed seems like it shouldn't be a problem. Of course it does give you an excuse as to why Clinton lost.
" You know how you can tell I understand it?"
Yet, if you understood it you wouldn't continue to accuse me (falsely) of defending Trump.
"What word WOULD you use?"
Instead of asking, why not just look at the words I HAVE used.
"Or do you just think that Trump is not spectacularly awful in his stupidity, ignorance, perversity and immorality?"
Again, I've been pointing out his failings for months.
"That he's pretty much the same as Obama or Clinton or Reagan?"
No. I believe that for Clinton to engage in the various sexual harassment and batteries that he did while actually in office is significantly worse. I believe that Clinton LYING UNDER OATH was worse. I believe that Hilary actively attacking the women Bill physically committed battery on is worse.
But none of that matters. I'm not trying to excuse anything Trump has done or might have done, I am pointing out that making excuses for Clinton (or the Kennedys, or Roosevelt), while attacking Trump is hypocritical. I'm not and never have suggested that Trump is virtuous, to the contrary you've suggested that both Clintons are virtuous.
"For calling out repeated stupid lies?"
What specific "repeated stupid lies" have you called out?
"For condemning an unrepentant sexual predator?"
Can you state with 100% factual certainty, backed up with irrefutable evidence, that Trump has;
a) actually engaged in sexually predatory behavior
b) never, ever expressed remorse or repentance?
"For condemning gross ignorance and xenophobia?"
Again, 100% incontrovertible proof please.
"We don't want gov't telling us what we can or can't eat (or ingest)"
Except when DFL mayors enact laws to prevent exactly this.
"You could do this by actually addressing the repeated questions I've asked, instead of side stepping them."
Done.
Dan,
You are correct, that the root of our disagreement is you use of the word "evil". There are two reasons why I have a problem with your use of the term.
1. Your repeated insistence that Trump is an "evil person". This is clearly a judgement on the very essence of a human being, it's not a comment on a person's acts but but on a person's essence. Unless you posses powers that the rest of us don't, you just don't have the standing to make this claim.
2. You could rationally make the claim that some of Trump's actions are "evil", but to do so you would have to establish some sort of objective measurement of "evil". Clearly, this is the some problem you have when you assert that something or someone is "immoral".
3. To lump Trump (or his actions) in with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Duvalier, Manson, Guevara, and Islamic terrorists, only acts to diminish the truly evil acts that humans are capable of. Of course when you see DFL'ers (liberals in general) treating people like Che and Lenin as heros and walking around with Mao caps with red stars on the front it certainly raises questions about their ability to identify evil at all.
4. I agree that evil exists, but to cheapen the concept by applying it in such a nakedly partisan fashion doesn't help anyone or anything.
I guess, you'll be calling all 9 SCOTUS judges "evil", "racist' and "xenophobic" now also.
I guess Trump wanting to help Charlie Gard avoid his certain sentence of death is one of those evil acts committed by an evil man.
The fact that the child is being denied treatment isn't evil, the fact the the DFL wants the health care system that is denying the treatment isn't evil.
It's just Trump who is evil.
Thanks for the answers. Sorry that it seems you still don't get it, but thanks for the answers.
The point people like me are making is that Trump is an anomaly, a freak of US history.
We've always disagreed about the politics, with the Left disagreeing more or less with many ideas of the Right and vice versa. Read and understand:
I'm not speaking of mere disagreement with policy ideas.
I'm speaking of the casual lies that make a man a freak of history and wholly unfit for the office.
I'm speaking of his amorality, his almost certain mental illness that makes him unfit for the office.
I'm speaking of his attacks on American ideals (trying mightily to demonize his enemies and the press, to make them the literal Enemy). This is not normal and it can not stand. The man plays with fire.
I'm glad to hear that you think he is a bad, bad man, but you do not appear to think that he is uniquely so, in our history. He is not fit for office and is a danger to our nation.
I guess the fact that you've chosen to acknowledge reality is a step in the right direction.
But really, so what if Trump is uniquely bad? Do you think ranting and calling him names will help? He's the legal, official president for the next 3 plus years.
Apparently the DFL response is to run more crappy candidates to maintain the GOP majority.
Two things are clear.
1. That by casting Trump as uniquely and historically bad, evil, and incompetent, you (collectively) normalize the use of any tactics to stop the evil. If Trump is truly evil, then wouldn't extreme measures be justified to stop the evil?
2. As your earlier comment about Cruz demonstrates, you (collectively) would be virtually just as nasty to anyone else who would have beaten Hilary. I've actually heard people seriously suggest that Pence would be worse than Trump.
But all of this gets to the heart of my post which you've chosen to ignore. The DFL in its current state significantly increases the chances of Trump getting a second term.
Clearly impeachment is a pipe dream, and that still doesn't help even if it were realistic. Blind hope that the children of today will do what you think they should as they grow up seems a pretty fragile hope to cling to.
The fact is that the GOP is currently not dying and if we see improvements in the economy and other positive moves the next two elections could be replays of the past 5.
But you've acknowledged one reality, maybe more are coming.
Although you acknowledging that fact that I've answered your questions is a positive development, the fact that you've chosen not to respond to any of them makes me wonder if your actually interested in the answers, of if asking the questions is just a tactic to divert the conversation.
I have to say that if you had mustered up even a fraction of this outrage at Clinton or Weiner over acts they committed while in office you'd have a ton more credibility.
I'm still trying to determine the difference between the lies that Trump tells, those that Obama has told, those that Hillary and other Dem candidate consistently told, and those that Dan tells in this very thread. How does Trump's lies, assuming they could be proven to be lies (not speaking one way or the other here), make him more evil than the other liars just listed?
How could Trump's alleged sexually predatory nature make him more evil than the willingness of the others listed in their staunch support for both sexual immorality and the murder of the unborn?
While these points stand out above all others that could be listed along side them, it seems clear that Dan has a problem with some behaviors he insists makes Trump evil, while personally embracing, promoting/supporting clearly evil practices himself. That's one helluva plank Dan's got stuck in each of his eyes!
You are right, of course. I've stayed away from pointing out specifics in hopes of focusing on the DFL failures.
Let me try this last thing, Marshall:
Obama lied (it could be argued) when he said "you can keep your doctor." It was an untruth, for whatever reason.
That's one.
I'm quite sure there are others. A dozen or more, I bet.
Trump has lied hundreds of times over the course of this last ~18 months. He has lied/made false claims daily, or at least multiple times each and every week. He has hundreds of lies that are easily documented.
Do you truly not recognize the difference?
If one can not trust ANYTHING a man says because he makes up shit on a daily/regular basis, HOW can he lead? How can he be counted on to be president?
This is a completely unique and dangerous thing in US history. Hell, I am a huge skeptic of ALL presidents and politicians, but there simply is not a comparison point between every other president and this idiot. Don't believe me? Ask a historian. ANY historian, I bet.
Do neither of you recognize the difference? If not, that's part of the problem why this man could win enough votes to get an electoral win.
Dan, in the past you've excused politicians lying because you "expect" it. You've managed to ignore the fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury, which seems more serious that fake tweets. But all of a sudden this one guy, who you coincidentally despise, has now crossed the line into "excessive" lying. Convienent change of heart.
I have to say that I can't believe you don't understand the election system in this country. In the case of presidential elections, there is no other kind of victory other than electoral.
Dan relies on this notion of "hundreds" of lies told by Trump. Two problems here:
1. As Dan uses for his own defense, does he ever stop to allow for the possibility that Trump doesn't knowingly tell lies?
2. How many of these alleged hundreds of lies are in any way significant...especially when compared to the types of lies told by either Barry or Hillary?
#2 is more significant than #1 (especially since Dan will no doubt provide a distinction that he'll no doubt feel is important) since rather than indicate a constituency buffaloed by Trump, it most likely means that those of us who voted for him know the difference. Yeah...we all wish he wouldn't shoot his mouth off as the typical politician wouldn't, but we know that the biggest problem of him doing so is the cheap and especially low hanging fruit it is for people like Dan. That's when we see some real dishonesty.
Of course, the obvious problem is the lack of data to demonstrate that there are actually more than 200 lies.
Which means knowing the statement was false in intentionally saying it.
The data is there in multiple places, Craig. Are you suggesting you seriously don't recognize that this president has a lying problem?
As to "lying," when it comes to this president, I have no idea if his intentions are to lie or if he's just making false claims from ignorance or arrogance or indifference. I suspect that he doesn't always recognize truth and facts for what they are, and thus, in a sense, it's not a lie, just a false claim. But clearly, he has made dozens/hundreds of document false claims.
I don't care if you call them lies or false claims. But I'm glad to admit it, too.
Marshall, IF a president/candidate lies (makes false claims, there is no difference, in this case) on a very regular basis, hundreds of times in the span of about a year, callously stupid lies, serious lies, deadly lies, damnable lies over and over again, in spite of corrections, that is a serious problem!
Do you seriously not recognize this? That is what I'm asking both of you.
Yes, all politicians lie/make false claims/stretch truths/spin on occasion, sometimes even about serious shit (see Reagan/Bush/Bush and lies about war crimes), but they generally will stand corrected when confronted with data. This president does not appear to give a damn about facts or being corrected.
Do you seriously not recognize this/recognize the difference between this president and every other leader in our history?
That is the question that is on your heads.
No, I'm pretty sure I pointed out this failing months ago as one of many.
The questions on your head are, can you actually prove your actual claims? Simply restating them is not proof. Calling misstatements lies is not proof. And, can you explain your active excusing and minimizing of other candidates lies on any basis other than partisanship.
I hate to repeat myself, but you just can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that my pointing out the lies of other presidents and your hypocrisy does not mean that I am defending or excusing Trump.
Let's try it this way. Your acceptance of lies by politicians is very subjective and tends toward partisan divisions.
My view is that lying is wrong no matter who does it and whether or not the lie is stupid. (Has their been a stupider lie than Hilary's lie about her number of mobile devices to pander to a bunch of Apple zealots?)
I would say that on occasion it becomes necessary for politician to lie in order to protect ongoing intelligence or during wartime in order to mislead our enemies. I'm not suggesting that this is "right" just necessary. Although a Biblical case could be made along those lines.
To be brutally clear.
When Trump lies, it's wrong.
When P-BO lied it was wrong.
When Bill Clinton lied it was wrong and criminal.
When Bush 41 or 43 lied, it was wrong.
When Regan lied, it was wrong.
Ultimately the problem you have is your casual acceptance of lying as an appropriate part of the political process and your Trump centric high dudgeon doesn't square with your previous blase acceptance.
Good luck.
Craig, I'm done. You should know that nearly every time you say, "Your problem..." or "you are saying..." or "you believe..." that you are completely wrong.
If reality and truth matters to you.
Keep defending a fucking lying pervert if you want, a man who mocks the disabled, oppresses women, demonizes the press and all who challenge him and who appears to be suffering from severe mental disorders if you want. And when you suggest that he is not that unusual or different than all the others, you ARE defending him. You are normalizing a bad, bad, disgusting pig of a man.
Good luck with that. I hope your eyes open one day.
Dan's so gracious, isn't he? He really embraces it!
"Marshall, IF a president/candidate lies (makes false claims, there is no difference, in this case) on a very regular basis, hundreds of times in the span of about a year, callously stupid lies, serious lies, deadly lies, damnable lies over and over again, in spite of corrections, that is a serious problem!"
I'm really interested in those lies that are "deadly" or "damnable". And how does one quantify "damnable" exactly?
I've been trying to find lists of Trump's lies. There are quite a few from which to choose. Having a real hard time finding anything that could legitimately be labeled "deadly", though there are many falsehoods that he has spoken without a doubt. I would classify the line he said about Cruz's dad to be a candidate for the "damnable" classification.
In any case, so far, I'd say the lion's share of false claims by Trump are insignificant to the extent that it would have to take hundreds of them to rise to the seriousness of one "if you love your doctor" or "your sons died because of a video" or any number of whoppers told by either Obama or Clinton. THAT is significant.
Trump runs his mouth. He's a braggart and a self-promoter, no doubt. But has he dodged sniper fire lately? Has his mother died because of lack of insurance? So no, Trump isn't "usual". He is different in the types of false claims he makes and how many. But on the subject of lying alone, to pretend that the numbers of lies makes him worse than Obama or Clinton is bullshit. It doesn't. You only need it to be so.
But what can we say about Dan Trabue who continues to lie about Trump? Trump did NOT mock a disabled man's disability. I found the following and it is extremely relevant to the behavior Dan now exhibits. He can count himself among those the author cites:
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/
Here's another one referenced in the first:
http://takimag.com/article/top_10_trump_myths_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz4m3RnyHhQ
Both of these links make one point in common: the left, and Dan too, evidently, don't take the time to really look into the allegations about Trump. They're too busy hating like good Christians do. Indeed, they're too busy lying about Trump being a liar and then suggesting the worst about those who hold them accountable for their foul and evil behavior.
And I stead of providing data to prove his claims, and staying to defend his party, Dan runs away behind a smoke screen of lied and expletives. Clearly Dan's grace only extends to those who he agrees with and doesn't hate.
If Trump telling lies is bad, then is it bad to tell lies about Trump?
That's exactly my point. This is a guy who demands "hard data" for just about every point with which he disagrees. But he'll make claims and charges and expect us to...what?...look it all up ourselves as if there's no way we won't come to his favored conclusions?
Yet, despite his desire to portray us as embracing Trump's worst character flaws, while actually embracing the heinous pro-abort/pro-sexual immorality positions of his candidates and elected officials, he shows he is typical of the reasons why the Dems are losing ground. They're liars. Somehow he needs to believe that there is no way we can prefer one jerk over another without loving what makes our jerk the jerk he is. The guy's made some really good, strong moves for the benefit of our nation and the left, Dan included, make every effort to portray every move of Trump, as they routinely do with every center-right individual, as indicative of negative intent.
In my opinion, based on extensive experience with Dan, I suspect that he gets so attached to his positions that he just can't admit that he isn't right. He's content that labeling something "self evident", makes it unarguable. He's repeatedly failed to demonstrate things he's claimed are "demonstrable". He demands "data", but refused to supply any. He demands "data", then treats it as if it's proof. Yet, when all else hasn't worked, he throws up a smoke screen, blames everyone else, ratchets up the expletives, and disappears.
The simple fact that he insists that I "support" Trump (beyond my generic support for the office and for actions I think are good, which is how I treated P-BO and would have treated Clinton) is laughable.
I'm not sure what to make of what we see. The data is suggestive, but I can't say for sure. I do find the dichotomy regarding his demands for grace, while refusing or limiting who he extends it to troubling, but am unable to understand it.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/07/08/why-hate-trump-when-the-people-attacking-him-are-so-much-worse-n2352106?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
What,data! You must be kidding.
So now he posts another thread about his honesty. I'd love to make my argument, but I can't be sure if he cares enough to hear it, as apparently my comments do not appear to him in the way most others do, and there's no telling if my comments will actually ever be posted.
It's easier to misrepresent people when you moderate their comments.
I think that's part of why he doesn't comment much anywhere but his blog and Stan's. His because he can control things and Stan's because it gives him something to complain about.
Post a Comment