Much has been made recently of the anonymous Op/Ed that appeared in the NYT, purportedly authored by someone in the current administration. I’ve got a few thoughts, and will possibly add more later.
I’ll start with the obvious. It’s anonymous, unsourced, unverified, piece of opinion. By definition, we have no way to judge the veracity of the piece or the credibility of either the piece or the author. Unlike a hard news story, which requires things like sources and facts, this is an opinion. Yet it’s being treated as some sort of holy writ.
As a general rule, my respect for someone increases proportionally with the amount of risk they take or courage they show. In this case the author is either scared that they’ll lose their job, or narcissistic enough to think that they have the power to fix the situation. Neither option fills me with confidence. In most situations, rational people give less credence to anonymous complaints.
While I am sympathetic to the general premise that Trump may suffer from some sort or degree of mental illness or loss of capacity related to his age, one anonymous opinion piece is not justification to invoke the 25th amendment. At this point deposing a president based on one person’s anonymous opinion seems more like some banana republic coup than anything else.
I have to note the hypocrisy (for lack of a better term) of those who use this as a cudgel against Trump, while ignoring the clearly expressed fact that the writer wants to further many of his policies. Policies with which these folx disagree.
Again, I’ve said for quite some time that Trump is amoral and that this is one of the reasons why I couldn’t support or vote for him. However, in a society with no objective standards of morality, by what standard does someone (with no objective moral standard) judge amorality to be objectively bad? Darwinian theory is amoral. Utilitarian philosophy is amoral. Once again, I’m struck by a society which denies objective truth and objective morality, being critical of Trump for violating the standards they deny exist.
Gotta work, more later.
75 comments:
For the most part, I've abandoned hope of communicating with you. You're either a blind or a deliberate shill for worst parts of the modern "conservative" "evangelical" movements with little demonstrated ability (or possibly, desire) to understand the actual points being raised by "the other side..." So, this is not for you, but just in case others read your blog...
At this point deposing a president based on one person’s anonymous opinion
At this point, it becomes pretty clear that you are just an apologist for probably the worst president in our history. It's NOT as if this editorial is out of the blue... ONE PERSON'S AMAZING CLAIMS about an otherwise decent fella/administration.
It has been clear from the beginning that Trump is unfit for office. He lies/makes false claims at an incredible rate and does not seem to understand or care about decency, reason and democracy.
Mental health professionals who usually keep their opinions on politicians to themselves are noting that it's rather obvious that this man is operating with some sort of significant mental health problem(s).
Military and Intelligence officers who usually keep their opinions on politicians to themselves are speaking out against the very serious problems of this man and his administration.
MANY moral and rational conservatives are speaking out against this man as one who is morally and emotionally and temperamentally unfit for office.
Then there are the investigations, the books, the first and second hand accounts of deep dysfunction in this administration.
The level of evidence against the basic fitness of this man is historically unprecedented.
So, for you to pretend (or simply are so blindly partisan that you can't see) that this is ONE PERSON speaking out of the blue against the fitness of this administration... well, that speaks to a level of unfitness on your part to be a spokesperson for reason or morality, at least as it relates to your continued defense of the indefensible.
Also this utterly irrational nonsense...
in a society with no objective standards of morality, by what standard does someone (with no objective moral standard) judge amorality to be objectively bad?
1. YOU have no objectively provable moral standards. Nor do I. No one does.
2. That we can't prove objectively that our moral values are objectively "right," does not mean that you or I don't rightly hold them.
3. It is utter nonsense for you to try to demonize folk like me who simply recognize the reality that we can't objectively "prove" our morals are objectively "right," when you can't either... AND YET, you pretend (by writing comments like this) that you DO hold some "objective moral standards."
You don't. If you did, then you could prove them. You can't. You never have and, so far as I can recall, you have never even tried, in spite of being called out on your hypocrisy on this point.
What you DO have are YOUR OPINIONS on what God thinks about various ideas, and that YOUR OPINIONS are based upon YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of biblical text, without a shred of data that says either the biblical text IS THE ONE SOURCE for objective moral values or that your personal human interpretations about those texts are THE ONE SOURCE for objective moral values.
You fail on this basic moral and rational front and continue to do so. So, at least have the decency to admit the reality that you can't prove objectively your human hunches about morality are THE ONE TRUE SOURCE of morality. Show that much effort in any kind of rational morality and then you can begin to have some credibility.
You almost certainly won't do so. Why start now, right?
Dan,
Unlike you, I have and continue to attempt to communicate with you. Unlike you, I allow your comments. Yet, when you choose to focus on one small part of my post, while ignoring the rest. Then to take that part and extrapolate it into flights of fantasy informed more by your prejudices than by fact, I’m truly at a loss for words. It seems reasonably clear that if you were interested in communication, that you wouldn’t start by misrepresenting others words.
Ultimately the problem you have is a combination of an obsessive need to be right ( while denying the existence of objective right), and a tendency to make claims you can’t prove.
I’d ask you for proof, but I have no hope you would acknowledge the question or provide proof. In much the same way you’ve been running and hiding from questions, hypotheticals, and requests for you to demonstrate the right way to respond to those on your side.
The fact that you feel the need to continually respond, to put forth excuses why you aren’t going to respond is strange.
As to your “points”. It seems strange to give such unquestioning credence to psychological practitioners who are willing to make diagnoses without going to the trouble of any actual interaction with the person being diagnosed.
Maybe you missed the part where I actually said that I’m sympathetic to the notion that Trump has mental or age related cognitive issues. More likely you just chose to ignore that in favor of ad hom attacks and misrepresentation.
Clearly if one reads what you write and allow your groupie to write at your blog, you’ve abandoned any pretense of civility.
Since you’ve apparently chosen to ignore everything I’ve written for the past 3+ years, I’ll reiterate. Trump’s unfitness for office tomorrow is the reason why I didn’t vote for him.
Hillary’s unfitness for office was why I didn’t vote for her.
The unhinged, antics of the democrats in the senate, are why I won’t be voting for them in the next election. But, you clearly accept the lies told by Booker and Harris, and She Guevara as appropriate, or at least not worthy of comment.
Thank you, once again, for providing such an excellent demonstration of my basic point.
You clearly admit you have no standard by which to objectively judge anyone else. Yet, you continue to judge others as if you do.
As usual, when you can’t make a positive case for your position, you engage in attacks.
And once again, you offer a false moral equivalency between the Pervert and all other presidents. Trump is uniquely unfit for office, which is why you have all these unique circumstances of people across the board, INCLUDING HIS OWN PEOPLE WHO WANT HIM TO SUCCEED actively working against his basic ineptitude and unfitness. By saying, "yeh, trump ain't great, but neither was clinton or obama..." then you are, in effect, defending him, making the suggestion that he's merely not as good as you'd like, as opposed to a train wreck.
Continue to defend the indefensible and making excuses as to why you're doing it is part of the problem.
Trump ain't the problem. It's the perverts like Marshall who actively defend his perversions and deviants like you who downplay the awfulness of the situation.
I clearly admit that YOU DO NOT HAVE AN objective morality, one that you can prove, any more than I do. YOU continue to ignore reality or perhaps, you're just delusional. Again, you're beyond hope until such time as you begin to TRY to make your case for an "objectively demonstrable morality" and, upon realizing that YOU can't do it, admit as much.
Pretend to your morality all day long, if you want. Just let the Pharisees know how it works out for you.
Indeed. Talk about unhinged and unfit, Dan and his ilk continue to berate Trump as if he's indeed unfit, while ignoring the many beneficial policies he's implemented and seeks to implement. And while, sure, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this guy is mental, those who have actually examined him for such things disagree. Until an actual professional does more than diagnose from afar, I'll have to accept the findings of those who have actually examined him and found him in good health, mentally and physically.
And again, talk about unhinged and unfit...in this case that fits Dan to a "T" as he continues to accept as fact what is only mentioned. An opinion that disparages Trump (or any other center-right individual) is all the "proof" that Dan needs. The mere suggestion of negativity is gospel truth, especially when disregarding any and all that stands as evidence to the contrary.
Still further, talk about unhinged, Dan and his kind continue to ignore the evidence of wrongdoing, unfitness and deceit by the previous administration, to say nothing of the entire party of that administration. Obama, who claimed that low GDP is the new normal, now insists that it was his policies that have brought about our current 4+%. According to the Dans of the leftist world, we should be in a never ending recession right now.
Trump was a gift to the unhinged liars like Dan and the center-left universe. His crudeness, past sexual dalliances, in articulate manner and self-promotion provide fodder enough for them to rationalize their pants-wetting response to the rejection of their socialist, America-destroying candidates (Bernie, Hillary, etc.). Now, they over-hype Trump's low character, when they ignore at the same time the low character f their party, to pretend he is worse than he is. They count his "lies" and pretend there are actually over 4,000 different examples, 99% of which are harmless, even if they're annoying even to his supporters. At the same time, they ignore, forgive or actually support the real and damaging lies told by their own preferred politicians.
Dan has no standing. He, too, is a purveyor of lies and distortion. He is a coward for his unwillingness to back up his positions told as if they were obvious and self-evident, and also a coward for refusing to admit that no such evidence even exists.
Unfit for office? Compared to whom? The last guy? Nonsense and partisan bullsh*t. The current shape of this country tells a far different story. At least so far.
And with all that said, here's the funniest part:
"For the most part, I've abandoned hope of communicating with you."
The hubris and unjustified condescension of this remark is astounding, though unsurprising. So many people have blocked Dan due to his pathetic and childish manner, not to mention the falseness of his positions, and he now dares to suggest there's a problem with anyone else. How incredibly Trump-like (based on his assessment of the man). Perhaps that's why he hates Trump so much. They are both low character birds of a feather.
Interesting how far from reality you are willing to go to advance your narrative.
The fact is that I haven’t offered a “moral equivalency” between Trump and anyone.
The fact is that I haven’t defended Trump.
The fact is that you have no objective basis to make pronouncements about anyone’s morality, but you continue to do so.
The fact is that you simply announcing that I have an “objective morality” doesn’t make the statement true in any sense. The fact that you disagree with me about the objective basis for morality doesn’t mean that you are objectively correct.
What’s interesting is that you’re the one making moral judgments about people you’ve never met, yet because I’m willing to offer some degree of grace and objectivity you call me a Pharisee.
When all you have are ad hom attacks...
Speaking of unfit for office, I notice that Dan hasn’t spoken to the unfitness for office of either of the DFL poster children. She Guevara and Pocahontas.
The fact is that you simply announcing that I have an “objective morality” doesn’t make the statement true in any sense.
Then prove it, you deviant, unbalanced sack of shit. STOP saying, "Oh oh oh, well, I can 'prove' my objective moral rules are real and objective..." Don't be a fucking child. STOP saying you can prove it and just fucking prove it.
Your Pharisee like arrogance is just annoying and, frankly, an embarrassment to the church. I'm TIRED of moral cretins like you fellas pretending to have some rational morality when you have NOTHING. You have NO objectively proven morality. You don't. That is a lie from the depths of hell.
Now, IF you can prove it, you vomitus mass of excrement, THEN PROVE IT.
Man up or at least have the basic decency to admit you can't do it.
You can't. You won't. You never have.
You two are lost causes to me. God have mercy on the hypocritical defenders of actual perverts and deviants and their amazing arrogance in the face of their great moral and rational failings.
So, instead of providing proof of your claim, you unleash a torrent of vitriol and hate.
Once again, if all you have is hate, vitriol, and ad hom, I guess you’ve given up embracing grace.
But, despite your uncouth, uncivil, response, I’ll make you a proposal. If you will provide the proof that morality is subjective, acknowledge that a subjective moral code doesn’t give you a basis to declare anyone or any behavior as immoral, and outline what it would take to demonstrate objective morality, I’ll consider doing what you so uncivilly demand.
But as long as you won’t acknowledge the problem with your position, I see no reason to encourage your boorish Trump like behavior.
If there is no objective standard of morality, then the very concept of “moral failings” is irrational. Certainly in the sense of Pharisicially applying your personal, subjective moral standards to others.
At the risk of repeating myself, the person making vile, vitriolic, judgements of others based on prejudice, calling those espousing a more measured and graceful approach Pharisees is comical at best.
It's not hate, not for you. I'm sure you're a lovely fella who has just been a bit blinded by his partisanship and love of his human traditions. There's nothing innately wrong with that, that's true for all of us to some degree or another.
But, I DO hate what fundamentalist TYPES do to the faith and to reason when they go the route of the Pharisees, making claims that they can't support and rarely even try to support, as in your case. And when they do it in an arrogant, "God is on our side, so we can't be wrong..." sort of way, it's just off putting and dangerous. I hate THAT, as well.
So, to be clear: I hate presumption, arrogance, irrational and false claims... not people. Not you.
So, let me know the day that you ever try to prove your alleged "objective morality," and I will be the first in line to learn at your feet. IF you can do it.
But you can't. So, let me know the day that you are ready to recognize that reality, as I have done.
There is only peace in accepting reality and abandoning prejudices and false claims.
If the level of vitriol, boorishness, and general vileness you spew is indicative of how you treat people you don’t hate, that’s just a sad commentary on your lack of grace.
As long as you’re not willing to attempt to prove any of the claims you’ve made, it’s clearly absurd that you’d make demands of anyone. But, as long as you continue to simply make unproven pronouncements as if that makes them true and try to assert that a subjective morality results on objective immorality, it’s pointless to waste any time.
Hell if you were even consistent in denouncing lies and prejudice, it’d be a start.
But, you’ve gone through your stages of commenting and it’s the stage when you disappear leaving questions unanswered, hypotheticals ignored, and fail to give examples of what you demand of others.
You’ll ride off into the sunset, leaving behind hate, vitriol, and ad hom attacks, on those your prejudiced against, and silence about those on your side.
“Kavanaugh will immediately make half the population sub-human baby vessels and then put limitations on both love and clean air but other than that I’m doing great.”
The silence from those who decry lies in politics in the face of idiocy like this, says so much more than the hate fueled vitriol.
Of course, if Trump is mentality impaired enough to be seriously discussing the 25th amendment, then the whole “Trump is evil incarnate” narrative goes away.
"And once again, you offer a false moral equivalency between the Pervert and all other presidents."
There's no false equivalency, Danny-boy. There's only your false regard for him versus other politicians you support and have supported. This is incredibly true given you prefer to focus solely on character issues, hanging your hat on past horndog behaviors and a subjective count of alleged lies. We don't dismiss his adulteries and other sexually immoral behaviors, but we do not see any of that happening now, nor at any time since he won the election, so that's pretty much a non-issue.
His lies are inconsequential, despite the alleged number of them of which no one has anything akin to an objective or accurate count. But you, lacking any substantive negative evidence since his election hang your hat on that, while never having made a single chastising comment for the far, far more serious lies told by those you support, to say nothing of the far, far more serious lies you tell continually yourself.
Your derangement is so obvious that you quickly latch onto anything negative said about him regardless of whether or not can be proven to be true, attributing credibility to that which has been shown to be lacking in that regard, because it's enough for you that an allegation has been made...its mere utterance serves as proof for you in your hateful and perverse mind. That's so incredibly shameful, even for a fake Christian like you. Here's another blatant and purposeful lie:
"By saying, "yeh, trump ain't great, but neither was clinton or obama..." then you are, in effect, defending him, making the suggestion that he's merely not as good as you'd like, as opposed to a train wreck."
Neither Craig nor myself have played this game. We've constantly acknowledged his flaws, but also acknowledge that you totally ignore those of your favored politicians and presidents as if they're not guilty of any...when the plain truth is theirs are far more harmful to the American public than are the insignificant bloviating and past indiscretions of Trump. Indeed, you protect your favored by never EVER calling them on their crimes. As far as "making the suggestion that he's merely not as good as you'd like, as opposed to a train wreck", I make no mere suggestion, but state emphatically...because it's so blatantly true and honest people acknowledge it...he's far better than I ever expected he would be. He isn't a "train wreck" at all, despite the fact that his manner is frustrating. I'm just adult enough to see beyond his frustrating manner.
But you...Trump's past and his crude manner are the low hanging fruit you need to pretend he's worse than he is. You've got to have something because to compare his track record as president for the less than two years he's been operating, he has by light years surpassed your boy Obama who was touted as "the smartest man in the room" while never accomplishing anything that has helped the nation. This drives you nuts, so you harp on the insignificant in your deranged desperation.
Here's another lie, also worse than any Trump has told:
"It's the perverts like Marshall who actively defend his perversions and deviants like you who downplay the awfulness of the situation."
First, I'm not a pervert. This is just something you like to say because you are incapable of finding true fault in any of my positions. So, in typical lefty fashion, you attack me personally. You indict your own low character in the process.
Secondly, I don't actively defend Trump's "perversions" at all. Never have. Like so many, his sexually immoral history was main reason I disregarded him in the primaries...as I've said so many times. But as one who cares about the United States, I had to do my part to prevent a far worse person from becoming president and further driving our nation toward perdition. YOU, on the other hand, Dan, openly support perversion but try to play up Trump's immorality to deflect attention from your own and the immorality you champion. Talk about a perv!
Third, there's no "awfulness" to play down. None that should lead adults to ignore all the great things he's accomplished for us in such a short time.
"I clearly admit that YOU DO NOT HAVE AN objective morality, one that you can prove, any more than I do."
We do have an objective morality. It's the will of God as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. You reject Scripture's teachings because you find God's will so inconvenient. Thus, you're not delusional. You're just a rank liar.
"Then prove it, you deviant, unbalanced sack of shit." This is Dan's morality. Constantly deleting on-topic, relevant comments at his blog for the flimsiest of reasons, but freely acting in a manner for which he'd attack Trump. Then he goes on to drop f-bombs, because that's how one embraces grace. What a fake!
"God have mercy on the hypocritical defenders of actual perverts and deviants" ...such as those who defend homosexuals.
"If the level of vitriol, boorishness, and general vileness you spew is indicative of how you treat people you don’t hate, that’s just a sad commentary on your lack of grace."
Really. With grace embracing people like that, who needs enemies?
And just because I love the irony...and Dan loves irony, too...I want to again point out how Dan likes to rant about Trump's lying and thus can't be believed, while at the same time Dan totally believes all the things Trump has said about his behavior with women. He doesn't believe all the good things Trump says about himself, but he totally takes as gospel all the immoral things Trump's said about himself. That's our Danny!
It's strange that we see this uncritical acceptance of the women who accuse Trump or other conservatives, but not when they accuse those on the left. Personally, I tend to believe all of the women, no matter who they accuse, until something demonstrates that they aren't worthy of belief.
It's strange that we see this uncritical acceptance of the women who accuse Trump or other conservatives, but not when they accuse those on the left.
Not so strange, at all.
The Left has historically been all about supporting/siding with and alongside women in championing their rights and defense.
The Left has historically been actively, specifically opposed to any and all sexism and sexual harassment.
The Left, in short, has been a movement driven by and made up of women and their allies.
We have a history of being good guys in the fight against oppression and harassment.
And so, when one of the "good guys" appears to - or HAS - harassed or oppressed women, it's shocking, hard to believe, counter to their known character.
The same can't be said, sadly, about conservatives.
When conservative values have for decades been actively hostile towards women's rights and women's concerns...
When conservatives regularly question whether a woman was "really raped..." or if she sort of owns some part of the blame herself for rape or harassment because "she dressed like a slut..."
When conservatives behave hostile towards women, patriarchal, condescending, etc... it gets noticed and thus, is believable that, "Oh, yeah, that does't surprise me at all he's a pervert... look at his value system..."
I GET that it's strange TO YOU that people are more surprised when progressive types are accused of sexism, but that's probably because you don't get that people, by and large, see conservative values as hostile towards/dismissive of women and their concerns.
But maybe that recognition could help open your eyes and your mind to some of the depravity that's inherent in modern conservatism.
Which is why it’s strange that the left only uncritically believes women who accuse people on the right, while keeping silent when it’s folx on their own side.
But thanks for dodging and deflecting.
Which is why it’s strange that the left only uncritically believes women who accuse people on the right
1. It's NOT uncritical. It's recognizing the very real history of progressive people vs more conservative people.
2. We do not "only believe" women accusing people on the right. Reality and all that.
But clearly, the reality of the many men on the Left who have fallen in the Me Too movement's ascendance gives lie to the notion that we only believe women who accuse those on the right.
Again, I get that you don't understand it, but I'm offering an explanation to try to help.
Hence your silence regarding Kieth Ellison, the legion of women the Clintons harassed, and the jumping on the Franken bandwagon so late.
Perhaps your problem is that you insist on judging people as members of groups, and in gross generalizations and based on your prejudices, instead of treating people as individuals.
Simply reading your comments makes that clear. Why are you afraid to uncritically accept Karen Monaghan?
Could it be the same reason you’re silent when She Guevara, Kamala Harris, and others tell blatant lies?
Your not offering explanations, you’re offering blanket excuses based on your biased idealized visions of groups.
Quickly, while I have a bit of time:
I don't "believe" anyone so much as await supporting evidence and testimony that proves the veracity of the charge. It is not uncommon that men will be accused simply to extort money from the accused. It is not uncommon that women will engage in sexual behavior and then later use that in their attempt to extort the accused, either out of regret for having engaged, or because it was their plan all along. Thus, I don't care so what any given woman is accusing her "alleged" assailant has done, as much as I would if she brought along damning evidence that validates or confirms her allegation.
Later, I'll return to shred Dan's mythical understanding of what the left does or doesn't do with regard to defending the oppressed.
I agree that it’s ultimately about evidence, and it’s telling when multiple people make similar accusations, but when folx uncritically accept any accusation about their enemies while ignoring or excusing accusations against their friends..,
"We have a history of being good guys in the fight against oppression and harassment."
If this is actually true, which I doubt. How does one explain the increasing trend of threats of rape, murder, and other violent acts against people like Dana Loesch and Denise McAllister? If simply expressing ones opinion on social media is a legitimate reason to threaten them, how could the above possibly be true?
“As an older woman, I should never condone physical violence..... But Dana Loesch needs the shit beat out of her. By her husband. On video.“
Just one more example of how the tolerant left respects women.
I’m sorry Dan, I accidentally deleted your comment. If you re submit it, I’ll post it.
From what little I read, and t seemed like you were trotting out the same old canard you usually do. “When liberals do X, they’re the tiny fringe, so they don’t count.”
While that may have been somewhat true at some point, any reasonably unbiased look at social media, universities, and the angry rioting mobs that pop up more and more regularly makes it hard to believe.
But, even if you’re right, your silence when it’s your groupie, or those on your side makes you just as supportive and culpable as you like to paint those who don’t hate Trump. If you were serious about being consistent, you’d address this. But instead you ignore and excuse.
“If twats had cunts, you'd be the stink on the taint. You're a nightmare.“
Just one more example of the tolerant, open minded, woman respecting, American left. Oh, did I mention vulgar, boorish, uncouth, misogynistic, vile, abnormal, and unacceptable.
“I hate black people like this, I really hope you die of unnatural causes,”
This is how the tolerant, inclusive American left treats a young black conservative.
What I said is that rational people don't blame ALL the right on the very real violent speech found by some claiming to be conservatives in various online sites and elsewhere.
Likewise, rational people don't blame all the Left for the violent comments posted by a tiny minority.
And yes, it is a tiny minority, on both sides. I have seen no data to suggest that violence from the Left is increasing or that it has reached the much larger levels as violence on the Right.
https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising
I could also cite quotes from random anonymous conservatives that are espousing violence. It's not an indictment of all on the Right. Rational people recognize this.
What IS happening is that some on the Right are deliberately collecting these isolated violent speech from those on the Left and are spreading it as yet another bit of fear mongering about the "threat" posed by liberals.
It's bullshit and I would advise you not to swallow it.
From the site I referenced...
"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.
He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.
"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.
Another source about ACTUAL violence being done, and it's mostly from the Right, not the Left. I don't care much about your anecdotal nonsense, no doubt gleaned from some Right Wing fear mongering source. I care about the data, and the data warns us about RIGHT wing violence, not Left...
In the real world, since the end of the Vietnam era, the overwhelming majority of serious political violence—not counting vandalism or punches thrown at protests, but violence with lethal intent—has come from the fringes of the right.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/
Meanwhile, I received thousands of insults and threats. Beginning mere minutes after my appearance, I was deluged with emails and instant messages calling me a “fucking liberal idiot,” “pussy snowflake,” “ignorant and hypocritical cunt,” “fucking Nazi,” and “Jew fag.” Strangers threatened to break my legs, scalp me, and make me “eat a bullet.” One wished, in all-caps, “Hopefully you get robbed and killed by an illegal immigrant that was deported five times and he leaves you to bleed to death slowly so you have time [to] realize how fucking stupid you were all along.”
Like that, and on and on. This has been going on in Right Wing comments for years. Are you not aware of it on your own side?
(As an aside, I didn't bother posting a link because I'm following your lead, in citing violent speech from some unnamed source. I assume you're okay with it, since that's the tack you're taking.)
For my part, I am aware of it on BOTH sides. I have never once blamed all conservatives for their comrades who speak thusly. Because I'm reasonable and don't blame the whole for the actions of a few.
I never once asked conservatives "Why aren't you condemning these online violent comments that are scattered everywhere on the internets...? Why don't you condemn these unknown, unnamed nobodies?" Because I'm dealing with those in positions of power (like our current president who keeps comforting and lending aid to actual fucking Nazis and racists), not anonymous nobodies, just spewing vitriol.
Three comments, all aimed at pointing out how “the right” is worse than “the left”,. Yet absolutely zero condemnation of the specific instances iv pointed out.
One more instance of your silence speaking louder than your abundance of words.
If you even cared to look, I’d simply say go to the twitter feeds of Dana Loesch and CJ Pearson to see what your ignoring.
I’ve allowed you free reign to comment here (unlike you), I’ve allowed you to ignore multitudes of questions, hypothecals, and instances where I’ve asked you to demonstrate how you’d deal with things. I’m not even asking that you deal with any of that.
I am asking that, if you are going to make claims of fact, then provide proof.
FYI, adding expletives doesn’t hide the lack of proof.
I can’t help but notice your crusade against those in power conviently ignores those in positions of power on the left.
It seems clear that you really don’t understand my point.
You go take n and on about how “the left” respects, honors, cherished, and in all possible ways treats wonen better than “the right”, yet ignore evidence that your premise isn’t true. Then, instead of saying anything remotely negative about those on your side, you continue to simply blame “the right”.
It’s much more about you, your inconsistency and hypocrisy, than anything else.
Care in point. We have one woman who claims that Kavanaugh tried to assault her in high school, who conveniently decides to bring this up now. Who apparently must be believed without question while 65 women say the opposite. Do we have to simultaneously believe all of these women without question and do we weight the two sides evenly?
It seems you don't understand my points.
1. I have NEVER condoned violent behavior. I have always condemned it. Left, right, whatever.
2. NONE of us condemn every single instance publicly. You have not taken the time to address the millions of hateful and violent comments of conservative commenters, and I have not condemned every single instance of liberal commenters behaving badly.
3. IN SPITE of the reality that you've never condemned all conservatives who've commented violently, I don't assume you support their vile and violent language. This is because I'm not an idiot.
4. The point remains valid: The Left is NOT pro-violence or violent speech. Such behavior runs contrary to liberal values.
5. Of course.
6. The point remains valid: Data shows that violence by extremes on the Left and the Right are tiny minorities, not representative of the whole of either the Left or the Right.
7. The point remains valid: DATA shows that violence by those on the fringes is MORE of a problem by those on the Right, than on the Left.
8. I'm more concerned about actual violence WHEREVER it comes from and the data shows that there is more of a threat of violence by the Extreme Right than by either the extreme Left or Immigrants.
9. Thus, there is no hypocrisy on my part, since I've never condoned those on the left who DO speak abusively/violently AND I've never condemned you for not condemning the outliers on the Right, either. Perfectly consistent.
10. You, on the other hand, with no data, just references to incidents with no citations, are suggesting that this is a problem unique to the Left and that we on the Left are condoning it, which is just a lie from the pits of hell.
But given that you are either not understanding me, repeatedly, or just trying to troll me, I think I've made myself as clear as I can.
Got it, it boils down to your remaining silent when specific instances of behaviors that you condemn in others, are pointed out by those on your side.
You continually expect me to take responsibility for statements made by others, and claim that because I don’t spew vitriol at every single thing Trump does, I support him. But you can’t even take the time to say one negative thing when specific instances are pointed out to you.
Thanks for making my point. You hold yourself to a lower standard than you hold others to.
Yes, that's right. You read my words correctly and perfectly understood the reality of reality. I DO go around saying that ALL conservatives are responsible for the violence of a few and responsible for speaking out against unknown trolls on blogs who say obnoxious things. That is EXACTLY what I said.
Except for reality, that's right on.
I expect conservatives to stand up against those who'd support an historically awful conservative president, JUST LIKE I would if Trump were a Democrat president. Because he is historically awful and clearly unfit for president in a way that is unique to any other presidents before. Not that you'll understand that because understanding what I'm saying is just not a strong suit of yours.
Good luck.
After you spent multiple comments laying out what “the left” allegedly stands for, and multiple instances of how “the right” doesn’t stand for the same things, you’re now trying to parse your way out of what you’ve said.
The fact that even now, in the face of specific evidence that contradicts your statements about “the left”, you still can’t bring yourself to specifically criticize those on your side. Just like you can’t come to grips with the fact that you’ve chosen to ignore my point.
I think one of your problems is that when you make blanket statements about an entire group of people (“The Left”), you probably don’t really mean “The Left”. You probably mean “Those on “The Left” who hold these beliefs, or something like that. But when you say specifically “The Left” (and capitalize the term), you probably don’t realize how foolish you sound when you have to say that you really didn’t mean “The Left”, you meant something else. The fact that you cast everything in terms of group, not individuals, makes it difficult for you to back off of your seeeping generalizations.
Perhaps backing away from sweeping generalizations about groups, more precise language, and being critical of specific acts of those on your side might be helpful.
Basically the double standard you’ve adopted by letting your groupie get away with things you’ve unleashed your vitriol at Art and I about, and your unwillingness to call out folx on your side, compromise what little credibility you have.
Of course it doesn’t help when you engage in the same things you criticize in others.
“I appreciate you finally, belatedly, sort of engaging in some mild criticism of your groupie. But I fail to see how your deleting 200% of your groupie’s comments.”
I guess at some point, your editorial poluciy becomes so much like Twitter it the NYT, that you have to make a halfhearted attempt to appear balanced.
I’m sure your groupie is just as up in arms about the tolerant, liberal, black folk calling a teenaged black conservative a “_________ nigger”, and I’m sure you fully support Twitter for allowing it.
A couple of problems I see here:
1. Craig posted quotes from someone's tweets or blog comments or emails (doesn't say which). In other words, they represent actual messages sent to or about a person. Conversely, Dan posts what a person claims was said about or sent to that person. That's a huge distinction. Michelle Malkin has posted dozens of hateful, crude and threatening messages she's received, simply re-posting them. We've seen numerous lefties claim they were threatened or verbally abused. Dan tries to equate the two as equal types of evidence to support similar claims from two perspectives.
And yes, it would have helped greatly to have links to the actual sources of the quotes posted by both. Dan pretends it's a tactic employed by Craig in order to avoid doing so himself. It's been my opinion that he and feo don't source their quotes because it would be easier to see that they don't support their positions like they try to pretend they do. An actual link would disabuse me of this opinion.
2. Dan cites clearly left-wing sources as "data" to back his assertion that right-wing violence is more prevalent than is left-wing. There are some problems with this that should be obvious even to him (were he an honest person):
a) Dan uses a left-wing source. How can this be unbiased when the question is which side of the ideological divide is more violent? A law-enforcement entity (the FBI, for example) would be a better source if they track such things.
b) Lefties typical falsely label too many criminal acts as right-wing. If a white guy murders a black guy and claims to be a racist or is proven to be part of a racist group (like the Klan, for example), the left is quick to label him a "right-wing extremist", as if racists are typically right-wing. An abortionist is murdered for being an abortionist and immediately the left labels the killer a "right-wing extremist".
c) Lefties take great liberties with deciding how one qualifies as right-wing. Oppose homosexuality? Right-winger. Oppose abortion? Right-winger. Oppose ILLEGAL immigration? Right-winger. What's more, the left will purposely muddy distinctions, such as immigration versus ILLEGAL immigration, and to oppose the latter, one certainly opposes all forms of the former as well.
Said more succinctly, one can't trust a lefty...like Dan...to accurately attribute actions based on ideology because they're too hateful of true conservatism to be honest.
I just saw Dan's token admonishment of feo. Note how the tone is still different when he speaks directly to him as opposed to me. Note also the laughable disdain for "impugning" character...after he falsely charges you with attacking members of his family. This from the guy who accuses me of defending rapists and sexual perverts, or the sexual misbehavior of Donald Trump simply because I acknowledge Trump is doing a good job as president. But I'm "impugning" the character of others.
Of course, I have pointed out where the the comments I’ve posted can be found. The fact that Dan is not motivated enough to look, is out of my control.
To be fair, many people on Twitter and other social media do (like Dan’s groupie) actively try to hide their identity. That doesn’t diminish the vileness of their comments nor the fact that they are leftists.
Craig, I'm half-convinced you're a Russian troll. What IS your last name? Can you prove who you are, even in a private email?
Can you prove that you work with folk in Haiti? Point to news articles about your work? A photo of yourself?
You have no links to your real identify on this blog, you go by one name that we don't know if it's real or not, and you complain about anonymous people.
I'm more than half-way convinced. Give me something to make me believe you're for real.
What kind of drugs are you on? While I don’t actively broadcast my full name, it’s not hidden by any means. I’m certainly not actively trying to be anonymous and hide behind that anonymity to make vicious, vile, false attacks on people.
Ah, the lengths you’ll go to to avoid actual engagement in significant ways. Especially when you demand things.
Aaaaand, he dodges. The man who is castigating others for being anonymous is, himself anonymous. And more and more, I'm inclined to think your last name is Spam McTrollbutt.
Actually no dodge at all, except by you. My point is not how freely people share their true identities online. It’s how people, like your groupie, actually go to great lengths to hide their identities and use that anonymity to shield vile behavior.
But anything at all to move the conversation away from your silence in the face of specific examples of abnormal, unacceptable behavior on your side of the spectrum, and your stubborn refusal to actually answer questions,deal with hypotheticals, and inconsistency in how you deal with people.
Well done, you’re not quite at the level of your groupie (he knows what he needs to do, yet refuses to do it, while blaming everybody but himself), it’s still an excellent example of diversion. Both in the brazen way you intentionally choose to misrepresent me, and in the stubborn ignoring of things you’d prefer not to deal with.
I also must congratulate you on your inability to control your childish little vulgarities.
Maybe you should just stop telling people you take Christ seriously. You clearly haven’t mastered the “Love your enemies” or “embraced grace”.
Whatever you say, comrade. Say hi to Vladimir and the 400 lb man typing away in his bed.
How predictable, Dan can’t deal with questions, hypotheticals or requests that he demonstrate the behavior he demands from others, so he resorts to making crap up.
Next, we’ll see the fake anger.
That's pretty funny...Dan pretending you're hiding behind anonymity. Even in my case, where I use a nom de plume, my profile contains my real name. (As to that, when I first began my foray into the blogosphere, it seemed that pen names were the rage. I've simply continued using mine for the sake of ease. Yet my real name was never hidden.)
But clearly, Dan has proven he doesn’t need anonymity to speak falsely and hide behind distortion and petulance. His cowardice is out in the open for all to see. If he was in baseball, he'd play for the Dodgers.
I’m going to leave this, as a one time exception, to make a point.
This is an absurd, blindly partisan comparison.
With Franken we had a sober, adult, celebrity, repeatedly engaging in lewd behavior which was both documented and corroborated. Of course we also had the left defending and excusing his behavior until it became absurd.
With Kavanaugh, we have one alleged instance of a teenager drunkenly groping another teenager. We don’t know exactly, where or when, there is no pattern of behavior, and there is no corroboration.
But, even if we’re in a world where we believe the women without question (which we’re clearly not), are we really suggesting that one instance of drunken behavior by a teenager (unproven), is enough to counterbalance the rest of ones life? Are we really going to uncritically accept the word of one person (who isn’t exactly free of an agenda) against the overwhelming testimony of someone’s life?
If this was such a serious and credible accusation, why have the DFL been sitting on it?
Nice try though. It’s such an original thought, I’m surprised no one has dealt with this anywhere else.
Of course I notice that you ignore Keith Ellison. Way more credible allegations and yet, silence.
Apparently the whole one time exception thing didn’t quite sink in.
But yes, Franken sexually assaulted multiple women, was stupid enough to do it with proof, and was defended by the left. So far with Kavanaugh we have one vague accusation with no details, no evidence, and witnesses who don’t back up the accuser. It is ironic, that a person being nominated for the Supreme Court, call would be denied due process, and convicted in the court of public opinion with virtually zero evidence.
Yes, Keith Ellison is not up for the Supreme Court. But the allegations against him are much more severe, much more well documented, and much more recent. The fact that you can’t even come out and acknowledge double standard is laughable.
Either the standard is, absolutely zero hints or allegations of any impropriety at any point in someone’s life, or it’s not. You want one standard for your guys, and another for your enemies.
I’ve indulged this diversion, but now we’re done.
The fact that Mr. “I whine a lot about my comments not showing up” , deleted himself.
The gist of his missing comment is, “You guys complained about Franken, why not Kavanaugh?”.
One last thought.
Feinstein sat on these allegations for months, doing nothing.
Grassley, has attempted to do more investigation in the past week, than Feinstein did in months.
Yet, now she won’t testify. Even after being given multiple non public options.
"I think it's important to be prudent, to not jump to any conclusion, and take allegations seriously, as they should be," Martin said.
DFL Chairman Ken Martin said the above. If only the same standard was being applied in the Kavanaugh situation.
Yes, all of the people who have announced that they uncritically he leave the accuser, are waiting patiently for an investigation. Because it’s perfectly OK for Ellion to continue his quest, (with the wholehearted support of his party) but Kavanaugh should be disqualified. After all of this, you’re still left with the problem that there is literally nothing to investigate. There’s no evidence, The witness has already undermined of the accusations, the accuser has been to Vegas and inconsistent, dared doesn’t actually seem to be anything to investigate other than one witness Who’s entire testimony is already known, and 2 people who tell a different story.
Clearly the concept of treating things equally hasn’t sunk it.
Either all abuse (sexual, physical, domestic) is equally unacceptable and all the accused are treated the same, and all the accusers are believed without question or it’s the opposite.
In this case, we have a situation about which we know virtually nothing for certain, no evidence, nothing. Yet some folks have no problem terming that as “attempted rape”, while laughing off actual sexual assault as no big deal.
If y’all want to be consistent in how you treat both sides, that’d be great. If not, don’t expect people to take you seriously.
“She passed a lie detector”
You mean an unreliable, inadmissible in court lie detector. Let’s just decide that if someone passes a polygraph, that we just believe everything they say.
Now we’re hearing that there are 5 “witnesses”, 4 deny the accusation, one won’t make an official statement. No one knows exactly when or where the alleged act took place.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to be investigated.
What’s interesting is the claim about “right wing death threats”, when y’all have been silent in the face of months of left wing death threats to various conservatives (and to their children). Once again it’s only worth mentioning when it’s not your side.
Of course if the FBI investigates nothing, then you still have nothing. Of course when the FBI reaches the rational conclusion that there isn’t any evidence, y’all aren’t going to accept it and come up with something else.
If only I was talking about left wing death threats to those with secret service protection, but I’m not and you clearly couldn’t care less.
Haven’t heard this latest rumor. It sounds suspiciously like what Clinton did (but he got a pass from y’all until long after he lost relevance) I guess we’ll see. Of course, it doesn’t matter, y’all are going to destroy anyone who gets nominated. Y’all revel in it, regardless of the truth of the accusations, it’s all about destroying your enemies.
I do love be that the message being sent is “We’ll sit on these accusations for years. We’re perfectly content with someone accused of these behaviors on the Federal bench. We’ll ignore them for lesser confirmation hearings. But we’ll save them for when it’s most effective for out purposes, even if it means the victims wait years for “justice”.”
Of course we now find out that threats of violence have been made against Kavanaugh’s children. Excellent plan, threaten violence against young woman to protest alleged violence against young women.
"The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period! Period."
I guess this isn’t true anymore.
Your argument is with Joe Biden, not me.
Yes, let’s uncritically accept the word of an adult women who went to at least 10 alcohol fueled group sex parties with minors and didn’t think this rampant sexual assault was worth mentioning to the police at the time. Of course her story can’t be confirmed, but let’s believe her uncritically. Let’s also ignore her “lawyer” ignoring multiple attempts to arrange her testimony before the judiciary committee.
Too bad you won’t believe Ellison’s accuser so uncritically.
I have to note that, at this point, my issue isn’t defending Kabanaugh, so much as it is watching those who hate Trump grab onto any “accusation” no matter how flimsy in order to protect abortion.
It’s all about the double standard.
"I have to note that, at this point, my issue isn’t defending Kabanaugh, so much as it is watching those who hate Trump grab onto any “accusation” no matter how flimsy in order to protect abortion."
Well, that's it in a nutshell, Craig, be it regarding Trump specifically or anyone in any way aligned with him...or even the GOP. It's standard operating procedure for the Dems and lefties like feo and Dan. Ignore any benefits from the right, regardless of how beneficial, and focus on any negatives, regardless of how trivial, irrelevant or even whether or not it's true. No shame, no integrity, no honor...just an evil desire to attain and maintain power. May God have mercy on us for the harm they've done thus far.
Look, if even one credible accusation existed, that had some actual evidence and contemporaneous documentation, I’d call for Kavanaugh to step aside, like I did with Moore. But that’s not what we have here.
What’s interesting is that in the course of the ongoing investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, the actual people who assaulted Ford may have been found. We now have two people who say (in much more detail than any of the accusers, apparently) they they believe that it wasn’t Kavanaugh.
I just heard the senator from HI being critical of people who “pre judge” the outcome of the hearings.
Yet didn’t we hear from numerous democrat senators that they were planning not to support Trump’s nominee no matter who it was?
Double standard much?
There was some deranged rambling in the moderation box, that I didn’t wade through.
Either prejudging is always good or always bad, pick one or the other.
Post a Comment