I just saw a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.
Personally, I suspect that this will be the final conclusion.
However the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results. I find this motion strange. That we’d accept some level of fraud in our elections as long as it doesn’t change the results, seems unacceptable.
I know it’s strange to some, but I value the integrity of the voting process, more than the outcome of a single election. I’ve seen enough claims from people who don’t seem to gain anything by lying, to make me think that there need to be investigations and that the guilty parties (including political parties) should be dealt with harshly. If not now, it’ll likely get worse going forward.
213 comments:
1 – 200 of 213 Newer› Newest»If you truly valued the voting process, you would be coming out against the fraud that Trump is attempting. He is undermining our election system with his stupidly stupidly ignorantly false claims that some half of the GOP believes. If you value the Integrity of the election, You would be speaking out against the half of the GOP who are believing these stupidly, stupidly, incredibly stupidly false claims.
Read this and understand, no one is saying that it is acceptable that voter fraud happens. Let me repeat that, then you repeat it to yourself and let it sink in.
No one is saying that voter fraud is acceptable.
You can't cite anybody who says that, because no one is saying that. People who commit voter fraud get in trouble when they get caught because it's not okay. When those Republicans try the various ways of cheating in election fraud - and they HAVE been caught - they get in trouble. Because no one thinks it's acceptable.
We're we're just grounding ourselves in the reality that there was no widespread voter fraud this time or in our recent history. When Trump makes that stupidly false claim, he is lying. He is undermining the election system. He is a attempting commit voter fraud with his false claims. But he's not doing it because he is so incredibly stupidly inept. He makes these empty claims that he can't support because they're false. They are false. There is no widespread voter fraud and when Trump lies about it, he is lying. If you value our election system, speak out against Trump's attacks. Speak out against the half of the GOP who believes these stupid false claims.
Lord have mercy.
Do you really think that you, of all people, telling me what I should do is productive?
I get that your hatred of Trump colors everything you say and do, but you mistake me for someone who will be swayed by your hatred.
Thanks for admitting that there was no fraud in 2016 though? I guess that’s something.
Well, I'm taking you at your word when you say you value the Integrity of the election process. So do I. So do most of us.
And THAT is why we're speaking out against Trump's stupidly false claims. Not because we hate Trump. That is a damned lie. We hate people telling lies. We hate people trying to undermine our election process. We hate the evil actions he's engaged in.
It has nothing to do with Trump the pathetic man. I feel sorry for him. He is a pathetic sick lost soul. Trump, the man, I pity. Not hate. But these attacks on our election system, the one that you said you value, should not stand. Decent people should unite and condemn these attacks. This disinformation that Trump spreads is an actual attempt at widespread voter fraud.
Take a stand with us. This is some common ground we should be able to find.
There's a huge difference between proving a claim and that claim being false because it is difficult to prove. By law, we must accept a claim is unproven, not necessarily false until it can be proven so. If the claims are false, then there is necessarily evidence to prove the election was fraud free or else no such claim of election integrity is believable. Allowing the allegations to be reviewed in courts, rather than dismissing them up front with no such scrutiny, would go a long way toward proving Trump's claims are false. The mere fact that Trump-haters are so adamant in preventing such scrutiny actually implies there's something to hide.
In the future, there should be a return to paper ballots submitted only on election day, with counting completed within a day or two. Only requested absentee ballots, with a provable reason why one cannot appear at the polling place, should be allowed, as they are the only forms of mail-in that are legitimate. Too lazy to go vote? You don't get to vote. It's that simple. Either voting is important to you or it isn't.
Also, registering to vote must take place no sooner than one month before election day...possibly two months...in order to insure that those who register can be confirmed as being eligible to vote in a given precinct. Voter rolls must be reviewed and updated no less frequently than every two years.
All the many ways that the election process has been corrupted, under the guise of giving everyone the chance to vote, has done nothing more than make the process less secure. Honest people can handle losing honestly. Dems can't handle losing by any means and thus have worked hard to make it easier to win by any means possible.
Dan's a total hater. With "Christians" like him, who needs atheists and pagans?
This is classic...
"I just saw a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.
Personally, I suspect that this will be the final conclusion."
It's like someone saying...
"My son's pre-K basketball team is playing the LA Lakers tomorrow.
Personally, I think that the odds are good that my kid's team won't win..."
Some comments are so tremendously outstandingly stupid that you just don't need to say them. The ONLY reason to say nonsense like this is because you're trying to aid Trump and his useful idiots in convincing the majority of the nation that LIKELY the election was stolen from Trump. That, or you're just dumb as a brick and not able to understand reality.
Craig, I'd ask you to think about what you're saying and weigh it, look at your words objectively...
However the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results.
Acceptable? To whom? Why do you think that Barr (and others) are saying "there was nothing like widespread election fraud happening" "implies" that they are saying "When it DOES happen, we're cool with it... we find that acceptable..."?
Who uses words like this? Do you think that means they/we turn a blind eye on those extremely rare occasions it does happen (like when Republicans have been caught at it several times)? Who is advocating that? No one, right?
ALL we are saying when we say, "There was nothing like widespread voter fraud in any states in at least recent memory. There were isolated incidents and those were wrong, but it's not like they changed the election results..." That is ALL we're saying, not that we find it acceptable when it happens.
Why would you find that implication there where none exists?
I find this motion strange.
That we’d accept some level of fraud in our elections
as long as it doesn’t change the results, seems unacceptable.
I know it’s strange to some, but I value the integrity of the voting process...
This sort of self-righteous smuggery is childish and beneath you. We ALL value the voting process. Can you accept that reality? YOU are not some special elite godly electoral virgin who, alone, sees the sinfulness of voter fraud.
We are COMPLAINING about voter fraud attempt when we see your idiot pervert president (the guy YOUR colleagues put in office) attempting to tamper with the election by falsely claiming "voter fraud" and then "Throw out those votes that went against me."
WHY are you not complaining about that ACTUAL overt and clear attempt at voter fraud? WHY do you find "implications" of what isn't there?
"We hate people telling lies."
Really? All people who tell lies? Equally?
"The ONLY reason to say nonsense like this is because you're trying to aid Trump and his useful idiots in convincing the majority of the nation that LIKELY the election was stolen from Trump. That, or you're just dumb as a brick and not able to understand reality."
Impressive bit of hubris there. I was unaware that you had the power to determine "the ONLY reason" for things. Unfortunately, I do see enough claims of voting irregularities that should be investigated. They may turn out to be false like the Russia hoax, they may not, but I support the search for the truth.
"Acceptable? To whom?"
To the writer(s) of the headline.
"Why do you think that Barr (and others) are saying "there was nothing like widespread election fraud happening" "implies" that they are saying "When it DOES happen, we're cool with it... we find that acceptable..."?"
Again, I was speaking ONLY of the headline and the headline writers. I've made the point repeatedly that headlines are frequently (intentionally or not) misleading regarding the contents of the story. The implication of the headline is what it is.
"Who uses words like this?"
Words in the English language, formed into sentences? People who speak in English.
"Do you think that means they/we turn a blind eye on those extremely rare occasions it does happen (like when Republicans have been caught at it several times)?"
I can't speak for "they/we" and their motivation.
"Who is advocating that? No one, right?"
Well, I'd argue that anyone suggesting that the claims of voter fraud not be investigated...
"Why would you find that implication there where none exists?"
Why would you claim to be speaking for some amorphous "we" when you clearly aren't?
Why would you assume that I'm speaking of anything more than the specific headline that I specifically referenced?
"This sort of self-righteous smuggery is childish and beneath you. We ALL value the voting process. Can you accept that reality?"
Again with the presumptuous "we ALL" attempt to impute some sort of superiority because of claiming to speak for this vague and unidentified "we ALL".
The reality is that some (who engage in voter fraud) do not value the integrity of the voting process. I'm suggesting that it's valuable to determine the extent, the perpetrators, and the solution, going forward.
"We are COMPLAINING about voter fraud attempt when we see your idiot pervert president (the guy YOUR colleagues put in office) attempting to tamper with the election by falsely claiming "voter fraud" and then "Throw out those votes that went against me.""
Well, you are trying to redefine voter fraud, and to misrepresent what POTUS has said, so there is that?
"WHY are you not complaining about that ACTUAL overt and clear attempt at voter fraud?"
Because, it's not.
"WHY do you find "implications" of what isn't there?"
Because that headline implies that some level of voter fraud exists, just not enough to overturn the results.
"YOU are not some special elite godly electoral virgin who, alone, sees the sinfulness of voter fraud."
thank goodness I never claimed to be.
Art,
I agree, and have written elsewhere, that we need to tighten the security of our voting process. I've pretty much everything you've mentioned, and some other things as well. It's interesting when folx say that election integrity is important, but argue against measure that would improve integrity, and support measures that could harm integrity.
You see, the problem is that Trump is issuing a stupidly false and damned lie. He says repeatedly and stupidly that the election was stolen, that he won, that there was widespread election fraud.
He has not a single bit of data to support that.
Let me say that again:
He has not a single piece of evidence to support that stupidly false claim. Do you understand that this is a damnably diabolically evil false claim that he's making???
Can you say that out loud and admit it to yourself?
Say it: Donald Trump is making a false, nonsense claim when he says that the election was stolen.
Say it clearly. Don't be an empty-headed sheep. Take a stand against actual election fraud, at least attempted election fraud.
What the hell is wrong with you two? Marshal, with his "just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen"" nonsense. What the hell? There's no data to prove it.
We don't have to treat all claims as if they are valid just because a claim was made.
IF there was data, we would all support you in proving it. Present the data. But there is no data to present so quit repeating that goddamn lie.
I mean, the claim COULD be made the Donald Trump vomited up a copy of himself and that cloned vomit-copy of trump is actually the guy in the office today. It is a soulless piece of vomit and not a human and so he should be removed from office... We could make that claim, but we don't have to treat that claim as if it has any validity at all. And we don't treat that claim as if it has any kind of validity all because there is no data to support it. Likewise for Trump's damned lies about this election.
To hell with this nonsense. You all are engaging in diabolical behavior. Stop it. Repent.
Craig... "WHY do you find "implications" of what isn't there?"
Because that headline implies that some level of voter fraud exists, just not enough to overturn the results."
But noting that some level of voter fraud exist, as it always as, but then it's not enough to affect elections is literally not the same thing as saying ".. and we're okay with that." Do you understand the difference?
You're reading something nefarious into a line that just isn't there in reality. That is the problem with so many of your claims. That is the problem with so many of Trump's claims. Stupidly false claims are stupidly false claims even if people actually say them out loud. Even if they ask the question, "...I wonder if this means..."
Craig... "WHY are you not complaining about that ACTUAL overt and clear attempt at voter fraud?"
Because, it's not."
IF Trump stupidly and falsely claims that the election was stolen - and he has -
And IF Trump then says, "therefore, we should discount this segment of votes for Biden.. " - and he has...
THEN, that is literally an attempt to steal the election. It literally is. So, don't tell us that you really care the integrity of elections. Show us. Take a stand against Trump's damned lies. And begin to do so by first admitting and saying out loud, these ARE lies that Trump is making.
Dan,
You might have noticed that I made a point of saying that I was only responding to the headline. The headline as written communicates the notion that the threshold for concern about election fraud is “changed the outcome”. I disagree with this notion.
Are you really going to bitch about that?
"He has not a single piece of evidence to support that stupidly false claim. Do you understand that this is a damnably diabolically evil false claim that he's making???"
"Can you say that out loud and admit it to yourself?"
Since I've never claimed otherwise, your questions are simply pointless. It's certainly false as far as we know. "Diabolically evil" seems like a bit of an emotionally driven overreaction.
"Say it: Donald Trump is making a false, nonsense claim when he says that the election was stolen.
Say it clearly. Don't be an empty-headed sheep. Take a stand against actual election fraud, at least attempted election fraud."
Do you not understand that you demanding that I do or say things is pointless and counter productive? Especially given your recent history of failing to ask questions and prove your claims? Further, complaining about the outcome of an election after that vote is completed, is literally not fraud by any rational definition.
"What the hell is wrong with you two?"
Nothing significant.
"We don't have to treat all claims as if they are valid just because a claim was made."
Interesting standard, are you suggesting that this is a universal standard that you plan to apply to all claims? It seems strange that you would seek to discourage investigation of claims of election irregularities.
"IF there was data, we would all support you in proving it."
You do realize that the point of investigating claims is to see if there is data there, don't you? But, as you've made clear, you don't think all claims should be investigated.
"But noting that some level of voter fraud exist, as it always as, but then it's not enough to affect elections is literally not the same thing as saying ".. and we're okay with that." Do you understand the difference?"
I guess you're ok with speaking for the writer of the headline and claiming to know what they intended. Again with you speaking for this undefined, anonymous, vague, "we" as if your hubris gets you credibility. Why not cut the crap and speak for yourself.
"You're reading something nefarious into a line that just isn't there in reality."
Just like you are reading something nefarious into Trump's actions and what I've written. But, it's only wrong for me. Got you.
As to your last comment. The problem with your misrepresentation, is that your casting it as if Trump is simply trying to get rid of random Biden votes. The reality is that IF fraudulent votes were cast (multiple votes, ineligible voters casting votes, etc), those votes SHOULD NOT be counted. That's why we have parameters for what constitutes a "legal" vote.
So, chill out. Stop the histrionics, and stop making demands.
Excellent example of a sore winner
Dan,
I've literally written two posts where my primary point is that maintaining election integrity is a good thing. Pointing out that we've now had two elections where the losers have complained about the integrity of the election process. I've made some suggestions that I think would work, and pointed out that a recent headline seemed to suggest that a certain amount of vote fraud is acceptable.
Your response to these two posts hasn't been that our primary goal for elections is that they are conducted with integrity, your primary response has been some form of "Trump is evil.", making demands, and being condescending. Pardon me if your response might lead me to conclude that you aren't particularly concerned about election integrity as long as your guy wins.
In all seriousness, your resistance to looking at potential ways to do elections in the future, is a bit puzzling.
1. YOUR post is labeled "Voter Fraud," as IF that were a serious problem affecting elections.
You agree, though, that there is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud effecting the election?
You agree, then, that Trump is making false claims and stupidly false claims that there WAS election fraud?
2. You then cited a headline reporting, factually, that Barr didn't find evidence of widespread voter fraud.
You agree, I suppose, that the headline was accurate and factual, yes?
You agree now, I hope, that the headline does not say a single thing about any election fraud being acceptable? You don't cite the story or the headline, but given what you've said, we have NO reason to think that either Barr nor the headline writer is saying that some degree of election fraud is acceptable?
3. This headline/report, too, was factual and never really in doubt EXCEPT that Trump was falsely spreading the rumor.
Agreed?
What is the point of this post, then? Are you suggesting that some vague and unnamed group of people DO think some election fraud is okay? Because that's what you are hinting at. Your words:
"the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results.
WHO do you think is implying this and based upon what? The headline literally does not say at it NOR does it imply it. At all.
Craig... Your response to these two posts hasn't been that our primary goal for elections is that they are conducted with integrity,
Bullshit. My response has been PRECISELY AND EXACTLY that our primary goal for elections is to conduct them with integrity. IN CONTRAST to the childish and stupidly false claims that are undermining confidence in elections of the people in your party.
That you don't understand that I am standing up for election security and integrity does not mean that I'm not.
Here's a simple and easy question: Do you SERIOUSLY think that a president going around the nation after losing an election and making false claims of massive voter fraud is NOT affecting the integrity of the election?
If you agree with me that of course it does, then we agree on fighting for election security. If you somehow don't agree with this basic reality, you have a problem understanding reality.
Which is it?
"1. YOUR post is labeled "Voter Fraud," as IF that were a serious problem affecting elections."
No, my post is labeled "Voter Fraud" because that was the term used in the headline that caught my eye. I guess you're not as good at this whole guessing people's thoughts and motives as you think.
"You agree, though, that there is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud effecting the election?"
I agree that this appears to be the case, although we really don't know because there are still investigations ongoing, and some claims will never be investigated.
"You agree, then, that Trump is making false claims and stupidly false claims that there WAS election fraud?"
No, I'm suggesting that Trump is making claims regarding the amount and effect ov voter fraud. I believe that he is making them in ways that are stupid and undermine his claims.
"You agree, I suppose, that the headline was accurate and factual, yes?"
Given the vagueness of the term "widespread" is problematic, I suspect that the headline is "accurate" without telling the whole story. Of course, my issue all along was with what was left out of the headline.
"You agree now, I hope, that the headline does not say a single thing about any election fraud being acceptable?"
I never said that it said anything of the sort, only that it gave that impression. Maybe you should stop trying to guess about what people are saying, you suck at it.
"You don't cite the story or the headline, but given what you've said, we have NO reason to think that either Barr nor the headline writer is saying that some degree of election fraud is acceptable?""
No I didn't, because it really didn't matter that much to my point, and I had no idea that you would respond in this unhinged manner.
I'm not going to make any assumptions about the thought process of the headline writers, you can guess if you want, but if you can't produce evidence to back up your guesses, then you guess is worthless.
"Agreed?"
Sure, if you choose to ignore all of the other people who've raised questions, provided video, looked at the statistical probabilities, provided sworn statements, and the like. If you ignore everyone except Trump, then it makes sense to reach that conclusion. The difference is that I'm not paying much attention to Trump's tweets, because they're usually ridiculous.
"What is the point of this post, then?"
Does it really matter? Will you believe me and shut up if I tell you that the point of the post is that headlines are frequently designed to convey an impression that is not always backed up by (or sometimes contradicted by) the body of the story. That, and that the integrity of out election is more important than the outcome. That's it. Those are the points. All the rest is just shit you made up.
"Are you suggesting that some vague and unnamed group of people DO think some election fraud is okay?"
I wasn't, but now that you mention it, I do suspect that it makes complete sense that there are people who are actively engaged in election fraud, and who do think that some is OK as long as their guy wins. I also suspect that there are some folx who are vociferous when their guy loses, and ambivalent when their guy wins.
"WHO do you think is implying this and based upon what?"
"The headline literally does not say at it NOR does it imply it. At all."
Please prove that the second claim is objectively factual. Clearly, your biases lead you to a conclusion that isn't factual in any way.
Even in my impression, is simply my opinion, who cares. For years you've used the "it's my opinion" trope to avoid proving things you stated as if your were making a claim of fact. Of course this is based on my opinions and impressions, if you thought otherwise it just shows your idiocy.
"Do you SERIOUSLY think that a president going around the nation after losing an election and making false claims of massive voter fraud is NOT affecting the integrity of the election?"
No. The only thing that should undermine the integrity of the elections is finding out how much voter fraud there was and who benefited from it. The bitching from Hillary, and Stacy Abrams absurd claims weren't enough, nor are Trumps tweets.
"Which is it?"
Well, since you seem to views the situation through your "Trump is evil", partisan glasses, I really have no idea.
What I do know is that both Art in this post, and I in my earlier post have suggested specific, concrete, things that we believe would improve election integrity. What I also know is that you've suggested nothing specific or concrete. Nor have you addressed those suggestions. I've heard a lot of Trump is "evil", "diabolical", lying, etc. I've heard you obsess over the past, yet stay silent on the future. I've heard you suggest that not all claims should be investigated, yet offer nothing regarding a standard to determine which claims should. I've heard you, elsewhere, say that all claims of things like "racism" or "sexism" should be taken seriously, yet somehow you selectively apply that standard.
Personally, I think that you're incapable of simply accepting the presumed results graciously, and that you're determined to make the next two years hell for anyone who didn't live up to your standard of Trump hatred and vitriol.
Dan...
"You agree, though, that there is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud effecting the election?"
Craig...
"I agree that this appears to be the case, although we really don't know because there are still investigations ongoing, and some claims will never be investigated."
This is the point that you're not getting. There literally is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. It's not the case that doesn't appear that way. There IS no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Period. By the KNOWN DATA, there is no case for widespread voter fraud.
If I say, "Well, so far, there doesn't APPEAR to be sufficient data that shows all conservatives molest puppies..." the implication is that MAYBE the evidence exists that shows this slander is true. The fact is, RIGHT NOW, there is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud nor that all conservatives are molesters.
Do you understand the difference?
Also you've made several reference to somebody claiming election fraud in 2016. It wasn't me, it wasn't Clinton. So I don't know who you're talking about. Indeed, Clinton conceded the day after the election because the results were in we had no reason to suspect widespread voter fraud. Cuz that's what being an adult and a rational citizen looks like.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/hillary-clinton-concedes-election-donald-trump-speech
Craig... "I in my earlier post have suggested specific, concrete, things that we believe would improve election integrity. What I also know is that you've suggested nothing specific or concrete."
This is astounding. I've been quite clear, as have all the experts, as have even Trump people, that there is no widespread voter fraud in the US. We don't have a problem with our system as it exists when it comes to voter fraud, because widespread voter fraud does not exist. Thus, my suggestion is not to change anything, because it's working.
The changes y'all are proposing would interfere with election systems that are in place and are already working without widespread voter fraud.
Also, I've made the clear and obvious suggestion that the President should not make stupidly false claims like this president has done. And that his supporters should not defend it when he does. That is a very concrete, very specific, very doable way to defend our elections.
And yet, that one simple little thing is more than either of y'all can manage. Don't talk about changing systems that are working until you can do the one thing that you can do right here right now.
More stupidly false claims...
"I've heard a lot of Trump is "evil", "diabolical", lying, etc. I've heard you obsess over the past, yet stay silent on the future. "
You've heard wrong. I've said quite clearly that making these stupidly false claims and trying deliberately to undermine the integrity of our election systems is diabolical and dangerous. It's the ACTIONS that he is engaging in and encouraging that are wrong.
AND, he us engaging in these actions right NOW, not in the past.
Join us on the side of truth and decency.
It seems to me when Barr says "to date", he's suggesting what happens tomorrow may indeed yield evidence of fraud enough to steal the election. Like the "enemy of the people" leftist media, Dan insists we view the very limited and context-free statement by Barr to mean the election outcome is beyond all shadow of a legitimate doubt. In other words, shut up and accept Biden's "win" without question.
Not gonna happen. Ever.
If Trump is speaking falsely, why not give his accusations a fair hearing (via his legal team in court)? Dan would have us believe Trump's reasonable opinion regarding fraud in this election is itself fraud merely because he insists his reasonable opinion is voiced. How that indicates a devotion to voter integrity on Dan's part is beyond me. He expresses that insistence while simultaneously denying a willingness to allow arguments to be heard. He's deleted my own initial attempts to provide what's been alleged without the slightest effort to argue whatever flaws he believes exist within them. Then he dares demand I provide more, satisfying himself that "Nyuh uh" totally proves any allegation false.
Craig... "Personally, I think that you're incapable of simply accepting the presumed results graciously..."
Says the guy who continues to defend the crybaby rich pervert boy who can't graciously concede that he lost in what he called in 2016, a landslide. Instead, he makes stupidly false claims that is believed by half the GOP and given a pass by people like you.
But WE need to learn how to win graciously. How many GOP folks who believe Trump's lies have you told to quit their whining? To quit believing stupidly false claims and being useful idiots?
Look, if Trump and half of the GOP were actually toddlers, I could be much more gracious in his whining about his loss and his stupidly false claims. But he's a grown man and his followers and defenders make up a good portion of our nation. Them whining like babies has consequences.
Craig... "I've heard you, elsewhere, say that all claims of things like "racism" or "sexism" should be taken seriously, yet somehow you selectively apply that standard."
Tell me that you're not being serious? Do you truly, truly, in your heart of hearts not understand the difference!? Let me explain it to you and I'll use small words.
Rape, sexual abuse, racism, attacks against women and black people... these ALL actually happen and happened. We have a very real and ugly history of all these things going on, continuing until today.
On the other hand, we do not have a problem with widespread election fraud.
It's the difference between a space unicorn and a horse. One is real and the other is made up.
That y'all don't understand the difference is part of the problem. I don't know. God bless your little hearts.
Open your eyes. Read. Educate yourselves. I don't know what else to tell you.
Lord, have mercy.
"Tell me that you're not being serious? Do you truly, truly, in your heart of hearts not understand the difference!?"
Yes, and yes.
"Rape, sexual abuse, racism, attacks against women and black people... these ALL actually happen and happened. We have a very real and ugly history of all these things going on, continuing until today."
Yes they do, yet we also are seeing frequent and high profile instances of false claims of all of these things. We're seeing innocent people's lives ruined because of a standard that claims that we must accept and believe all claims as being true, regardless of what the evidence might show. We're also seeing people cling to, and act as if, these false claims are true. So, that's quite an good standard you're advocating. Believe that certain claims are true, before and regardless of the evidence while not even bothering to investigate other claims to ascertain the evidence. It's almost like the truth and evidence of the claims are secondary to the narrative value.
Since "we don't have a problem with widespread election fraud", then why bother to investigate the claims. You clearly already know the answer, so why not just ignore those who claim differently?
Thanks for making my point.
"By the KNOWN DATA, there is no case for widespread voter fraud."
Well that's in then. Dan is familiar with all of the known data, and he's ruled. It doesn't matter that there is investigated data out there, or that less than "widespread" voter fraud exists. As long as all the data Dan knows about says that "widespread" voter fraud doesn't exist than case closed.
"So I don't know who you're talking about."
Really, you're unaware of the fact that there have been people publicly pushing the "Russia collusion hoax" since 2016 among other theories?
"Don't talk about changing systems that are working until you can do the one thing that you can do right here right now."
Ahhhhhhh, the "systems are working" so why bother to improve them trope. Not very creative or particularly effective. I guess that means the Electoral College is safe as well.
"Join us on the side of truth and decency."
Why would I join you on the side of something you deny exists? You've been quite clear in denying the existence of a singular, objective Truth, yet when it's convenient for you ...
The truth is that you have absolutely zero idea or data to suggest how much voter fraud was present, and you are clearly satisfied with the status quo.
"Says the guy who continues to defend the crybaby rich pervert boy who can't graciously concede that he lost in what he called in 2016, a landslide. Instead, he makes stupidly false claims that is believed by half the GOP and given a pass by people like you."
Given the fact that the above is false, I'm not sure you know which side contains the truth. Just one more example of making claims you can't prove and choosing lies over the truth.
"But WE need to learn how to win graciously."
No, YOU need to learn how to win graciously. Of course, there are multiple other things you need to learn how to do graciously as well.
"How many GOP folks who believe Trump's lies have you told to quit their whining? To quit believing stupidly false claims and being useful idiots?"
I don't keep score. I support free speech, even when it's stupid and wrong. Hell, I allow you and your lies pretty much free reign here. This notion of telling people not to believe "false claims" is fascinating from someone who denies the existence of a singular, objective Truth. One who makes, and allows those who make false claims free reign, and who fails to call out those on his side who make false claims. It's just that double standard coming through again.
Art,
It's entirely likely that you are correct regarding Barr's comments.
I think that if Trump would have focused on proving his claims in court, rather than on more ridiculous Tweets, that we wouldn't be having much of this conversation. While I agree that any and all reasonable claims should be investigated, and that there should be zero tolerance for voter fraud, I also agree that Trump is not helping his cause by his public statements. Like so often, if he'd just shut up things would be much better.
Dan,
One question.
Do you believe that Michael Brown said, "Hands up, don't shoot"?
Craig... "yet we also are seeing frequent and high profile instances of false claims of all of these things."
So, part of y'all's problem if y'all don't understand words well. But another part of the problem is y'all don't understand that number as well, either. While any false reports are always bad, we do not, as a matter of fact, have frequent reports of false rape charges. They are extremely rare.
Math. Words. Shit like that matters.
Craig... "Why would I join you on the side of something you deny exists?"
It's just so sad and pathetic that you don't understand the irony of you making this false claim supposedly to defend truth. As if you could defend truth with a stupidly false claim.
This is the problem with trumpism and modern conservatism. Claiming Allegiance to truth while gladly embracing not only false claims, but stupidly, ignorantly false claims.
To answer your last question about Michael Brown, I don't know what he said. There are conflicting reports. See how easy that is? I do know the brown is one of the many people who've been killed for being black by the police to justify these killings by saying they were afraid of the black man. I do know that this is a problem we have in United States. Do you recognize that?
Craig... "think that if Trump would have focused on proving his claims in court, rather than on more ridiculous Tweets..."
This is part of the problem. Trump HAS no evidence. He can get nowhere with this. He has empty claims and stupidly false claims. And yet, he doesn't say, I have concerns about how this vote went, could we investigate? He stupidly falsely claims that he won the election and the election had widespread voter fraud. There is NO data to support this claim, it is a stupidly false claim.
When his lawyers do get to court, they inevitably get kicked out of court because they have no data to support the claims.
We investigate claims when there is some data to support beginning an investigation. If someone says that aliens from Mars secretly came in and took over people's bodies and falsely voted for Biden, we do not investigate that claim, because it is stupidly ignorantly false. Because there is no data to support even beginning an investigation.
You have to have something other than I really want the results to be different to support an investigation. That's the problem with modern conservatism and trumpism. They're a bunch of emotionally fragile intellectually stunted cry babies who don't understand how to operate in an adult world.
Craig,
Which tweets do you find ridiculous? I don't pay attention to Trump's tweets, so I really don't know. I would wager there are none that have any real significance to whatever legal efforts are ongoing. How could they? He's not a lawyer and as such he's not handling the the proving of claims in court. That's the job of his legal team. I would hope than any involved with the legal aspects of the widespread fraud allegations, regardless of which side they're on, could easily ignore tweets in favor of focusing on the case, which is what professionals should be doing. I mean, if I can ignore them...
Art,
Virtually all of them. He's always sounded like an idiot on Twitter, this is no exception.
I just have to wonder if people like you all are willing participants in an attempted election fraud or just useful idiots.
Marshal... " He's not a lawyer and as such he's not handling the the proving of claims in court. That's the job of his legal team."
There ARE no claims of widespread election fraud by Trump's lawyers because THEY HAVE NO DATA to even make such stupidly false claims in a serious court of law.
"Trump and his allies’ public allegations stand in stark contrast to what his lawyers are actually claiming— bound by professional ethics rules—in election-related cases in court. In three separate lawsuits in Pennsylvania and cases in Arizona and Nevada, Trump’s lawyers have jettisoned sweeping claims of fraud, instead focusing on relatively small-bore complaints....
In a recent Pennsylvania federal case, Giuliani alleged “widespread, nationwide voter fraud” in his opening remarks. But under questioning from the judge, he retreated. “This is not a fraud case,” Giuliani later admitted. In the same case, Trump lawyer Linda Kearns said explicitly that she is “not proceeding” on allegations of fraud...
In a separate state case in Montgomery County, Pa., a judge asked Trump lawyer Jonathan S. Goldstein whether he was alleging fraud. “Your honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step,” Goldstein said. “And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the [Democratic National Committee] or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith.” The judge pressed Goldstein to answer the specific question: “Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?” To which Goldstein replied: “To my knowledge at present, no.”
++++++
TO MY KNOWLEDGE AT PRESENT, NO.
https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/
These lawyers actually defending Trump in front of adults are NOT making these stupidly false claims that Trump is making because they are stupidly false and adults can't get away with that in interactions with actual rational adults.
So Trump's own lawyers are not making such stupidly false claims because they recognize they're stupidly false and unsupportable. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there is no evidence because it's not a real world problem, any more than alien body snatchers having rigged the election.
Grow up, boys. Jesus Christ have mercy.
"While any false reports are always bad, we do not, as a matter of fact, have frequent reports of false rape charges. They are extremely rare."
Once more, a claim that you don't even attempt to prove. Of course, it doesn't matter, because my point remains that you have a double standard in terms of your presumptions about certain types of claims. Some, must be accepted as true virtually regardless, others must be accepted as false.
If you're going to make claims, then you'd probably want to prove one occasionally. I'm not the one claiming that there is no singular, objective, Truth and the multiple truths exist. If you think lying helps your cause, then you go for it.
"To answer your last question about Michael Brown, I don't know what he said."
Do you know that it's been demonstrated that he did not say, "Hands up, don't shoot" and yet there are still those who cling to that lie as if is the Truth?
"There are conflicting reports. See how easy that is?"
Really, conflicting reports that haven't been investigated? Are you suggesting that P-Bo and Holder and their DOJ investigations got it wrong? That P-BO and Holder are perpetuating racism?
"I do know the brown is one of the many people who've been killed for being black by the police to justify these killings by saying they were afraid of the black man. I do know that this is a problem we have in United States. Do you recognize that?"
i recognize that the DOJ under P-BO and Holder (two black men) disagrees with you, and that there is absolutely zero evidence that your claim is objectively true. As always, you are free to provide evidence to contradict the DOJ investigations and conclusions, or you are free to believe something contrary to those conclusions. Just acknowledge the reality that your beliefs fly in the face of the investigation results from the P-BO and Holder DOJ as well as every other governmental entity.
"This is part of the problem. Trump HAS no evidence."
That's quite an emphatic, specific, and definitive claim. Prove it.
"And yet, he doesn't say, I have concerns about how this vote went, could we investigate? He stupidly falsely claims that he won the election and the election had widespread voter fraud."
Somehow the fact that we are essentially in agreement on this has escaped you and your desire to falsely characterize me has blinded you to this reality.
Yet, the fact that trump has done a horrible job in communicating on this issue (even though he's moderated his tone and acknowledged that he's going to accept the EC results recently), doesn't prove that there was no voter fraud. It's almost like you are choosing to focus on "widespread" (however you define the term), and ignore anything not "widespread".
All I am doing is saying that we should follow the actual claims, made my people on the ground, check out the statistical anomalies, the places where votes exceeded registered voters, and the reports of multiple votes by people. To seek to eliminate those things regardless of how "widespread" they are. We should have zero tolerance for voting irregularities, yet you obsess over "widespread".
"When his lawyers do get to court, they inevitably get kicked out of court because they have no data to support the claims."
Yet, that's how our legal system works. Litigants get to present their case, and have it adjudicated. Our system isn't predicated on denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants.
"We investigate claims when there is some data to support beginning an investigation."
Yes, and I've seen multiple people across multiple states allege irregularities. I'm suggesting that those claims be investigated, not ignored.
"You have to have something other than I really want the results to be different to support an investigation."
Where have I ever suggested anything remotely close to your claim above? Proof, now!
"That's the problem with modern conservatism and trumpism. They're a bunch of emotionally fragile intellectually stunted cry babies who don't understand how to operate in an adult world."
That's the kind of gracious, fact filled, truthful, objective analysis we've come to expect from you. No ad homs, character assassinations, broad brushing, condescending, insult and vitriol laden attacks for you. Just loving your enemies and exuding the grace you prate about, but rarely exhibit.
Craig... "Yet, that's how our legal system works. Litigants get to present their case, and have it adjudicated. Our system isn't predicated on denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."
NO. That is NOT how our legal system works. Frivolous, pointless empty attempted lawsuits are a drag and a burden to our system, not part of it. They are an undermining of our system, not "how it works." Frivolous lawsuits are the antithesis of our legal system, even though they are technically legal. Much like Trump's abuse of our tax and bankruptcy systems. Predators use existing systems to take advantage of the innocent. They are a leech on society, not a valued part of making it better.
I have to say...Dan's comments here are among the most convoluted and petulant that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot! The thing about election fraud is that any allegations should be easily disposed of by evidence that voting was done in the proper manner. I haven't seen anyone provide anything like that, and certainly Dan hasn't.
Once again, the issue isn't whether or not there's been "widespread" voter/election fraud. Of course there has. The question is whether or not it's been "widespread" enough to result in the actual loser winning...in this case Joe Biden. More to the point and far more importantly, is whether or not it can be proven there's been enough to steal the election from Trump. We can go a step farther and note that the ultimate issue is whether or not a fair hearing of the charges takes place so that it can be determined one way or the other if the outcome of this election is legitimate. It's less likely with each of those steps considered.
I would ask this question as well, for the sake of this "discussion": Can fraud be widespread and still not result in an illegitimate winner? I suspect that Dan considers "widespread" being only that which results in an illegitimate winner. Said another way, if 10 million votes were all proven to be fraudulent, but Biden won anyway, would that mean the fraud wasn't "widespread"? Once again, Dan proves himself absurd.
Fraud, widespread or otherwise, is a word that can be defined in a number of ways, especially considering the last few presidential elections. Even going back to Bush/Gore, it seems foolish to have any attempt to discern "intent" on the part of a voter who couldn't seem to punch the ballot card properly. I don't know exactly how that process worked, but it seems strange to suggest that a voter couldn't examine his own ballot before submitting it, and if that was the case, I would count that in the same category as fraud, because the process itself...in a systemic way...denied the voter to express his choice perfectly.
In the same way, with any old style ballot where one must fill in little circles denoting the candidate of choice, it should be easy enough to specify what counts as a legitimate vote. If a circle isn't properly filled with ink...say, with an "X" as opposed to coloring within the lines...the ballot simply is rejected. That's on the voter, but those tallying must adhere to a strict and non-biased process for verifying a vote.
These days, it's the loosest it's ever been. Governors and state courts have ignored their states' constitutions and altered voting procedures, counting votes after they've arrived after the legal date, ignoring rules regarding signatures, "curing" and other such illegalities. Yet, they've been allowed. And this doesn't even get into things like dead voters, multiple voting, voting out of district, abuse of ballot harvesting and other varied and sundry methods of fraud.
I would add to that the efforts of the media to interfere with the election. We saw states that clearly were won by Trump not being "called" by networks even with 80% or more of the precincts or counties having reported, while in other cases with far less having reported, Biden was declared the winner simply because he was ahead at the time. This compels some voters to stay home, assuming there's no point...the race is effectively over...when it's quite possibly still likely to turn the race to the other guy.
The manner in which news outlets reported...or more to the point, chose not to report stories not favorable to Biden has been cited as having an effect on 17% of Biden voters...meaning, they would not have voted for Biden had they known there was a credible charge of sexual assault by Tara Reade...had they known of the Hunter Biden scandal and the Biden family play for pay scheme. The media is clearly the enemy of the people if it can...and chooses to...influence public opinion by manipulating what is or isn't reported depending upon how it reflects upon either Trump or Biden. The bias has been palpable and despite Dan's defense of their clear malfeasance, criminal in it's abuse of the public trust.
For quite awhile, the Democratic Party has done all it could to bastardize the voting process. "Motor voter" registration, mail-in voting, early voting, opposition to Voter ID, redistricting or "gerrymandering" (while claiming the GOP is a bigger problem in that regard), and of course, the incredibly criminal attempt to remove Trump over invented "Russian collusion", a phone call with the Ukrainian president and anything else they can pretend warrants impeachment. Lying is SOP for the Dems, as we've heard Biden continue to accuse Trump of saying there are good nazis, and the constant lie about Trump being a racist. The media has bee all too happy to perpetuate these and other lies as well. Dan is a perfect example of a lying lefty.
When all these things have been ongoing and for so long, "widespread" voter/election fraud is a given.
"NO. That is NOT how our legal system works. Frivolous, pointless empty attempted lawsuits are a drag and a burden to our system, not part of it.
1. Frivolous lawsuits are very much in the eye of the beholder.
2. The process of determining the merits of particular piece of litigation is part of the legal process.
3. Conversely, we don't deny people the chance to litigate a priori, without actually allowing them to present the basis for their claim.
"Much like Trump's abuse of our tax and bankruptcy systems."
It sounds like any use of the tax and bankruptcy laws you don't agree with is "abuse". I know it's pointless to ask you to prove this claim, so I'll just note that it's one more unproven clam in a long stream of unproven claims.
"NO. That is NOT how our legal system works."
Really, our legal system works by "denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."?
Where in the constitution is this enumerated? What section of US legal code mandates prejudging the litigants in an action?
The fact remains, that the obsession with "widespread" (a vague undefined term) is shared only by you and Trump and, as far as I'm concerned) you're both idiots on this point. Trump is focusing on "widespread" because it fits his narrative, and you are focusing on "widespread" because it fits your narrative. I'm trying to focus on the actual scope, and how to eliminate the problem going forward.
I guess that's too complicated.
Batshit crazy is as batshit crazy does...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5b5b7/trump-just-went-full-qanon-at-the-white-houseand-he-brought-charts?utm_source=vicenewsfacebook&fbclid=IwAR3q84YbyCgo7G0iIk8LDFiHl0LG1U68AxH8ToaQFGpKYR_Kuf1l82dZ8MU
"Batshit crazy is as batshit crazy does..."
And you should know...
Yes. I should know. Rational people are the ones who recognize crazy when they see it, not the crazy ones. It's part of the dementia of craziness that they can't see it themselves.
Open your eyes. See.
Of course you are. You are completely normal, rational, and sane in every way. Your ability to perceive reality is exceeded only by your groupie. If only your ability or willingness to prove your claims and answer questions was on par with your high level of rationality...
You see, the problem is, my claims ARE proven. As a matter of fact, there IS NO DATA to support claims of widespread voter fraud. I'm just observing reality. IF someone has data that disagrees with reality as I see it, ALL they have to do is provide data to support claims of widespread voter fraud. That's ALL Trump had to do. That's all his lawyers had to do. That's all his defenders had to do.
And yet, not a single one has even ever tried in any serious way to do so that I have seen. I'm not claiming to be omniscient, of course, but don't you think that IF there were hard data supporting claims of widespread voter fraud, that might have been picked up by some news or election authority group... someone other than "MAGAMAN STOP THE STEAL" presence on YouTube?
I mean, come on.
So yes, it's not an extreme or boastful claim to say the very minimal: I am rational and at least average in my observation skills and I show no signs of severe mental illness. So, noting that rational people understand when someone is acting crazy is just a reasonable observation. And, as someone who has worked a bit with people with thinking disorders, I have some experience in it. Nothing boastful about that. It's just reality.
I just watched video of what purports to be a small number of people pulling out suitcases full of ballots after they’ve cleared other people out of the room.
I’m not making any claims about the veracity of the footage, but this goes beyond Trump tweeting that he won.
I’d suggest that the situation needs to be investigated to determine if there was voter fraud, or if someone faked the video. Either way, it seems like knowing would be good, and consequences would be appropriate.
I do see the problem, I specifically ask you to prove specific claims you’ve made throughout the last 5-6 threads, you ignore those requests, don’t prove your claims, then falsely claim that you’ve done so.
Of course, I’ve pointed out your (and Trump’s) bullshit “widespread” fetish, yet you continue to hide behind that straw man.
Well done.
re: You allegedly waiting for me to "prove" something I've said:
The first request I can see from you in this thread is this:
"Please prove that the second claim is objectively factual. Clearly, your biases lead you to a conclusion that isn't factual in any way."
I had said that the headline (as you paraphrased it - you didn't give an exact quote and gave no link to whatever alleged headline you're speaking of) did not do what it "seemed like" to you.
Your quote: " a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election."
That is how YOU summarized this alleged headline. You then said about this alleged vague headline:
"the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results."
I merely noted that the alleged headline as you paraphrased it LITERALLY does not say anything about "some level of voter fraud" being "acceptable."
What do you want me to prove? It literally does not say that. I don't know why it would "SEEM" to you that it's saying this other thing. ALL it's saying, in your words, is reporting that Barr didn't think there "was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election..."
It literally doesn't say that or talk about the acceptability of some level of voter fraud.
I don't "prove" things that don't need to be proven. I'm just citing what it actually said (according to you).
So, that old dog just don't hunt. Give it up.
It's like this:
If there was a headline that said, "A man bit a dog today."
and I said, "It SEEMS to be saying that it's okay for men to bite dogs..."
I can say that, but the headline literally does not say that and gives no reason for it to SEEM like the headline writer is saying that. That would be literally reading something into the words that literally isn't there.
There's no "there" there. There's nothing to prove. It just doesn't say that.
The fact that you’ve ignored multiple requests that you prove your claims over multiple posts isn’t my problem. The fact that you’ve ignored multiple instances of you failing to prove your claims after I’ve asked isn’t my problem.
The fact that you just posted two comments without proving the claim I asked, isn’t my problem.
I guess we know who has problems reading. Or maybe just an inability to prove claims and answer questions.
The fact that you acknowledge choosing to ignore my request that you prove your claim doesn’t help you much. I guess you could argue that you just didn’t understand the plain meaning of the text.
10 seconds of scrolling got me to one more you ignored.
Idiot
By all means, Craig. Post a question that I ignored and didn't answer. I challenge you. It may exist, I don't know. But as I said, I spent a few minutes to find the first question where you asked me to support something and there was literally nothing to support. So, I'd be interested in knowing what it is you think I'm not answering.
Is it just more instances of you asking questions that have already been answered and you just didn't like the answer? Didn't understand the answer? Didn't understand that the question was asking me to prove reality when the onus is on you to disprove reality?
Go ahead. Make your day.
Also, do you realize the sheer volume of actual questions and points you've ignored? I literally just went to your first request for "support" and literally showed you how it WAS supported by reality and you didn't answer any questions or points raised by that bit of reality. You didn't acknowledge your own error in asking a question that was answered by reality. You didn't clarify what exactly it is you want me to answer when I'm merely pointing to reality.
But go ahead, cite a question I haven't answered.
Dan,
The fact that you literally demand that I do something in one comment, then fail to do what you demand of me in the next comment. The hypocrisy and double standard you exhibit is stunning.
You’ve been ignoring questions and failing to prove your claims for the last few threads, but please expect me to do what you won’t.
Your “support” is to take my request for you to prove your claim out of context, then you paraphrase what you said, which prompted my request. FYI, I asked for you to prove your claim, not support a paraphrase of your claim.
10 seconds, 2 unanswered questions. It really wasn’t that hard.
Really, our legal system works by "denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."?
Where in the constitution is this enumerated? What section of US legal code mandates prejudging the litigants in an action?
“ I know it's pointless to ask you to prove this claim, so I'll just note that it's one more unproven clam in a long stream of unproven claims.”
“ Where have I ever suggested anything remotely close to your claim above? Proof, now!“
Another 10 seconds and two places where I asked you to prove your claims.
Are you really trying to suggest that you’re too stupid to find what I found in 20 seconds?
Question 1: Really, our legal system works by "denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."?
Where in the constitution is this enumerated? What section of US legal code mandates prejudging the litigants in an action?
I LITERALLY did not say that our legal system works by denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants. Those are YOUR words, not mine.
Are you asking me to answer something I haven't said? Why?
Question 2: “ Where have I ever suggested anything remotely close to your claim above? Proof, now!“
You said this in response to me saying, ""You have to have something other than I really want the results to be different to support an investigation."
I said that in the context of Trump's words and actions. That quote was in the comment that led with "This is part of the problem. Trump HAS no evidence...." Thus, the quote is speaking about Trump. TRUMP has no evidence and so, to TRUMP I am saying, "You have to have something other than I really want the results to be different."
And that is precisely what Trump's claims boil down to. He doesn't LIKE the results. It's not that he has any evidence of widespread voter fraud (in spite of his claims). He just doesn't like the results so he wants an investigation/recounts because he doesn't like the results.
He's a big clown and nominally an adult. He can get over not getting what he wants. I know he's live his entire life with a silver spoon WAY up his ass, but he's not the king of all, he doesn't get to have investigations with no support.
THAT is what the quote in question is literally talking about. It's not about you.
SO THERE, you can see that I didn't answer those questions because they were nonsense questions dealing with things I literally did not say. IF you are having a hard time following, then the onus is on YOU to go back, read and read for understanding. Not me having to walk you through every little word I write.
Which gets back to the problem with your post. The headline LITERALLY did not say what it "seemed" to you to say. That's a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the headline.
Do you understand the example I gave where the headline reads "Man bites dog..."? That someone reads that and concludes, "Wow, it SEEMS like they're saying it's okay for men to eat dogs..." does not mean that their supposition is based on anything valid or the text in question.
Read for comprehension, man.
Excellent job of taking things out of context, paraphrasing, and twisting your words to provide excuses for not answering my questions.
You claimed I couldn’t find one you hadn’t answered, I found two that you admit you didn’t answer. Excellent job of twisting.
Forget it, Craig. He won't even define "widespread", but he'll hang his pointy hat on that word in saying no "widespread" fraud exists because ambiguity works for him. He doesn't have to have a spine when he wallows in ambiguity.
https://www.cbs46.com/news/raffensperger-investigates-stacey-abrams-new-georgia-project-other-voter-groups/article_a24706b4-34e9-11eb-a4b7-b70c6d13e3af.html
According to Dan, there's no reason to investigate unless there is evidence, I guess this means there is evidence.
"NOR does it imply it. At all"
Just to be clear. This is the "second claim" I asked you to prove. You haven't.
"I LITERALLY did not say that our legal system works by denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."
That's correct, you did not use those words, but let's look at the words you did use in context.
What I said, to correct your bizarre view of the legal system.
"Yet, that's how our legal system works. Litigants get to present their case, and have it adjudicated. Our system isn't predicated on denying access to the process because we prejudge the litigants."
You responded with.
"NO. That is NOT how our legal system works."
If my statement is wrong (a claim you haven't proven BTW), then what else would you be asserting than that our system is predicated on denying access...?
This is the problem we have when you simply announce that something is wrong (emphatically), but don't demonstrate the accuracy of your claim.
Art,
Both Dan and Trump are hung up on the vague term "widespread" for different reasons. Dan, because he revels in vagueness and undefined terms when it suits his purposes. Trump, because it's vague enough to imply something that may not be true, but can be justified even if he ultimately can't prove enough fraud to change the outcome.
My problem with the vague, undefined term "widespread" is that the level of "acceptable" voter fraud should be zero. We should investigate voter fraud regardless of the "spread". Unfortunately for conservatives, the left has always been better at it than us.
Dan,
I went back through this thread and I noticed MULTIPLE extended comments where I went through your comments and questions line by line and answered them, commented on them, or dealt with them. Your claim, "Also, do you realize the sheer volume of actual questions and points you've ignored?", is clearly not supported by the reality of the evidence in this thread. Just one more claim you can't prove.
Your excuse is that when you said (in a comment directed to me), "You have to have something other than I really want the results to be different.", that I should have been able to divine that fact that the word "You" was referring to Trump and not to me. That the word "You" meant a third party who isn't participating in this conversation.
But, the problem is on my end because I believed that "You", meant the person you were directly addressing.
Of course, you still can't prove objectively that your claim is True if we apply it to Trump. It's just one more of your bullshit opinions.
Art,
Here’s the deal with “widespread”. I’d argue that 100 fraudulent votes in every voting jurisdiction literally and accurately meets the definition of “widespread”. Yet, those votes would likely not affect any outcomes.
Craig... "I'd argue that 100 fraudulent votes..."
Well, just because you argue it does not mean it means a damned thing. When people today are expressing concern about widespread voting fraud, the concern being expressed is whether or not it comes anywhere NEAR close enough to be even be considered a threat to the validity of the election.
First of all, 100 votes in a voting jurisdiction of 10,000 voters does not mean a damned thing in terms of voter fraud being a concern as it relates to the results of the election.
Secondly, there IS NO DATA that supports a claim of 100 fraudulent votes in each voting district/area/precinct, whatever category. It's a made up number. There's no data anywhere that shows anything like widespread (meaning, affecting the vote or even coming close to it) voter/election fraud.
THAT'S the point.
IF someone had data that demonstrated 100 fraudulent votes in each district, THEN that data should be presented. It doesn't exist.
Craig... ""NOR does it imply it. At all"
Just to be clear. This is the "second claim" I asked you to prove. You haven't."
It LITERALLY does not say it. It does not HINT at it. If YOU want to try to make a case that a headline that says "Man says that no widespread fraud happened" is trying to IMPLY what it doesn't say... that it IMPLIES the additional thought, "And thus, we're not worried about small scale fraud and don't care that it happens," the ONUS IS ON YOU to provide some kind of support for making that sort of leap.
But this is the problem people like Trump and you two tend to have. You read something and THINK IN YOUR HEAD that it implies something that it doesn't say and then jump to the attack on this "implication" that you all have pulled out of your ass, not out of the words and that's just not a rational way to communicate.
Go ahead, give it a try. The headline, you say, said,
"that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election"
WHERE in that line do you find an "implication" that "... some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results."?
It doesn't say that. What words in that make YOU think it "implies" this extra and separate conclusion?
You can't do it because it's not there in the words. It's something you're making up out of whole rotted cloth.
Dan,
Before, I address this load of crap, I want to point out that you are doing an excellent job of making my point. As usual, I appreciate it when you give such an excellent example of something I'm talking about. Thank You.
"Widespread, found or distributed over a large area or number of people."
According to the definition, 100 fraudulent votes, spread over every voting jurisdiction in the US, is literally "widespread".
"Well, just because you argue it does not mean it means a damned thing."
1. I'm not claiming it does.
2. 100 votes per voting entity is literally "widespread""
3. It's a hypothetical you moron.
"When people today are expressing concern about widespread voting fraud, the concern being expressed is whether or not it comes anywhere NEAR close enough to be even be considered a threat to the validity of the election."
Which is exactly the point I'm making. That the term "widespread" is such a vague and elastic term, as used in this context, that it can mean whatever any given person wants it to mean. As usual, I'll note the presumptuous nature of you choosing to speak for "people today", as if you are somehow the spokesman for a large group of people.
"First of all, 100 votes in a voting jurisdiction of 10,000 voters does not mean a damned thing in terms of voter fraud being a concern as it relates to the results of the election."
1. That all depends on the numbers of votes, the percentage for each candidate, and who the votes were cast for.
2. It's still a hypothetical, idiot.
3. I literally made this point in my hypothetical.
4. Thank you for acknowledging that you don't find 100 fraudulent ballots out of every 10,000 to be "a concern".
"Secondly, there IS NO DATA that supports a claim of 100 fraudulent votes in each voting district/area/precinct, whatever category. It's a made up number. There's no data anywhere that shows anything like widespread (meaning, affecting the vote or even coming close to it) voter/election fraud."
1. It's still a hypothetical, you fool.
2. The point of the hypothetical is related to the vagueness of the word "widespread", try paying attention.
"THAT'S the point."
NO it's not, and it never was. The hubris of thinking that you can redefine my hypothetical and twist it to make a point it wasn't intended to make is impressive. But still stupid.
"IF someone had data that demonstrated 100 fraudulent votes in each district, THEN that data should be presented. It doesn't exist."
It's still a hypothetical, genius.
I'll note that while you argue for your claim, you don't prove it. Which just draws attention from the accumulation of unproven claims over the last 5-6 threads.
"WHERE in that line do you find an "implication" that "... some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results."?"
The implication lies in the word "enough". The implication is that while there is some voter fraud, it's not enough to change the outcome. Therefore, the headline implies that voter fraud isn't a problem if it doesn't change the outcome. I freely admit that implications are perceived differently by different people. That's why I referred to this as an implication, nothing more. What you appear to be trying to do is to speak to the intent of the headline writer for some reason. Unfortunately, you don't have access to the thoughts in their head(s) when they wrote the headline. Ergo, you literally can't prove your claim. You can, and have, expressed your hunches about it, but unfortunately, you made a claim that's impossible for you to prove. Instead of taking the sane route, and acknowledging that your claim overstepped your ability to prove it, and acknowledge that you meant something else. You take this route.
"It doesn't say that. What words in that make YOU think it "implies" this extra and separate conclusion?"
As I just said, you impatient twit, "enough to change the outcome".
If someone asks if you have enough sushi, the word enough assumes that you already have some sushi. No one uses the word "enough" when there is zero of something.
I know these semantic rat holes delight you in that it allows you to drive the focus away from other things, unfortunately it doesn't even accomplish that.
Dan's now spent some percentage of 70 comments trying to argue that my opinion about a headline is objectively wrong.
Is this what someone does when they are tolerant? Is this how to express grace? Is there anything to be learned from this behavior?
"Thank you for acknowledging that you don't find 100 fraudulent ballots out of every 10,000 to be "a concern"."
And there it is. I literally did not say that. I literally never suggested that. I literally do not think that. You read my words and you reach wrong conclusions. You need to just quit trying to interpret words and take people literally. Or take a remedial reading comprehension class or something.
Nothing to learn that we already didn't know. That's the sad truth of it.
It seems to me that "spread widely" is the defining characteristic of the word "widespread", though the definition you used involving numbers doesn't trouble me. I would say that one fraudulent vote in each of our fifty states would indicate widespread fraud just as much as would 1000 fraudulent votes in half that number of states. It's the multiple locations that makes it widespread more than the number of instances in each state. The number of instances just makes it worse.
We really can't know just how badly an election was impacted by fraud without a comprehensive investigation that examines each vote cast, as well as determining how many vote may have been blocked, destroyed or in some way eliminated from tallying. One fraudulent vote can throw an election if it meant that a tie was had and then a run-off or re-vote must take place. In such a case, winning by one vote was nullified by the one fraudulent vote.
I would like to add that I would very much enjoy any fraudulent vote cancelling out Dan's vote, since he doesn't much care about how many fraudulent votes there were, so long as he believes it didn't change the outcome...particularly an outcome he favors.
Personally, I never cheat to win. I find no satisfaction in doing so. I even question sketchy tax rules, for example, preferring to overpay rather than to be found to have failed to pay what I owe. As badly as I would grieve, I do not want Trump to win due to fraud of any kind. We can't fix the real problems that lead to such a disaster if we don't have legitimate results to analyze.
All cheating affects the outcome of elections, even if the outcome would be the same without the cheating having taken place. If we were to believe that a moron like Biden won by ten million votes rather than by the two votes that actually gave him the victory, we'd be led to believe there are far more stupid people in America than there really is, and we'd act accordingly. That's not a good thing. There's far less concern over 50% + 2 stupid people than 50% + 10,000,000...even as bad as 50% + 2 would be.
It's too bad one who claims to be a Christian...as Dan laughingly does...would not be concerned about cheating that doesn't result in a fraudulent win. The greater the concern, the less tolerance and then hopefully the greater vigilance against cheating. But we can see with the history of the Democrat party and their supporters...like Dan...that the various methods of loosening voting requirements proves that lack of concern, for that loosening invites the fraud they falsely accuse doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to compel their concern.
Also, I would argue that Trump's use of the term "widespread" is more than hyperbole, but a true belief that it's bad enough to affect this or any other election. To argue over the vagueness of a particular term is to mitigate the concern that everyone should have for the problem of fraud. That is, if it's hype, it's a justifiable use of hype to provoke in people the seriousness of the crime and what it means for the nation to continue in the current disregard due to the perceived degree of impact it might have. That is to say, it will only worsen if we don't give it that weight that "widespread" puts on it.
Dan: "First of all, 100 votes in a voting jurisdiction of 10,000 voters does not mean a damned thing in terms of voter fraud being a concern as it relates to the results of the election."
Dan: (responding to me responding to the above quote) "I literally did not say that."
You might not have meant what you said, but your words are there in all their glory.
This is where Dan and I differ. When I reference his words, I quote them. It's possible that I misunderstand them, or that Dan made poor choices in his words, but I don't "guess" about what he said, I don't paraphrase (without noting that I have), I simply copy paste the words.
In this case, I suspect he'll quibble because he threw in the bit about the "results of the election".
1. If he does so, it simply demonstrates that he didn't pay attention to my hypothetical where I addressed this point. That he felt the need to treat something he agrees with me about, by disagreeing.
2. The reality is that even one fraudulent vote effects the results of the election. It might not change the winner or loser, but it literally changes the results of the election.
3. If changing the results of the election from 4000 votes for Trump to 6000 for Biden, to 4001/5999 due to voter fraud doesn't "concern" Dan, then how can he say that he's so vehemently against voter fraud.
"We can't fix the real problems that lead to such a disaster if we don't have legitimate results to analyze."
My point exactly. If we don't know the true extent of the problem, and we aren't willing to accept some level of fraud as the cost of doing business (Dan, if you need this concept explained to you I'm happy to do so if it means you won't go off on a tangent), then we need a baseline from which to work. Who would have thought that counting votes as accurately as possible would lead to such panty twisting?
"Also, I would argue that Trump's use of the term "widespread" is more than hyperbole, but a true belief that it's bad enough to affect this or any other election. To argue over the vagueness of a particular term is to mitigate the concern that everyone should have for the problem of fraud."
You can argue that, and it might even be true. But I can't help but think that Trump coming out with details, specifics, and evidence, conveyed in a calm, serious, evenhanded manner would be infinitely more effective than his Twitter outbursts. Are people going to take "FRAUD!!!!!!!", "I WON THE ELECTION!!!!!!!" and whatever other all caps randomness Trump spews as seriously as a press conference with actual specific information and evidence?
I agree with the notion of investigating, I just think that Trump (as he does so often) has shot himself in the foot and harmed his own credibility by his actions.
"Are people going to take "FRAUD!!!!!!!", "I WON THE ELECTION!!!!!!!" and whatever other all caps randomness Trump spews as seriously as a press conference with actual specific information and evidence?"
Really...do you think it matters to the lefties and Trump-haters how Trump goes about expressing himself? Where is there evidence of that?
"I agree with the notion of investigating, I just think that Trump (as he does so often) has shot himself in the foot and harmed his own credibility by his actions."
But you're really judging his credibility by his words, not his actions. His actions have been fine for the most part, while his words...his manner of speech, the things he puts into his tweets...are far less important in the grand scheme of things. No one is served by making more of them than should be made. Don't forget, his initial attraction was the fact he wasn't a politician. He never should have been judged for not being one after being elected because of it. Eloquence is not as important as effective action. Obama's scripted speeches seemed eloquent to some, despite being empty rhetoric for the most part, and his actions were crap. Now we may have four years of Harris/Biden because of this absurd fixation.
No, I don’t think it matters to the Trump haters of the world. I do think it matters to the X% of the population who aren’t going to automatically assume Trump is evil and who might be persuaded by evidence presented in a serious manner.
I’m balancing the policies that I agree with, and his unhinged behavior on social media. Those things are less important to you because you’re 100% bought in and are willing to excuse those things. To those of us who aren’t kool aid drinkers, we see his actions as needlessly divisive.
Look at Dan for example. In the past he’s made attempts to disagree with civility and respect, now he’s chosen to pursue a more extreme and off putting course of action. I used to think that he and I could sit down, enjoy a beverage, and find some common ground. Now, why would I want to invest the time with someone who’s hurled the sort of vitriol at me that he has. Trump is choosing the way he presents himself, and right now he’s alienating people who otherwise might be supportive of his basic message.
Again, I don't read his tweets (I don't read any tweets that aren't highlighted at Michelle Malkin's site "Twitchy"---I've enough social media in my life as it is!), so I can't comment on whether or not his comments there are "unhinged". I seriously doubt that's either an appropriate or accurate description, nor an entirely objective one. If they're anything like comments he makes at his rallies...and I've only heard snippets of those...then my doubts are justified. But that's true not because I'm a "Koolaid drinker", but because I am, as I always have been, about who Trump is and what is or isn't important. Such objectivity has long convinced me Trump isn't the go-to guy for presenting evidence for much of anything. It's not at all his forte, and again, one can't attack a guy for that which drew support in the first place.
Recall the big stink about ingesting disinfectants to cure Covid? All he was doing was relating, in brief, actual science involving the use of certain disinfectants and light to cure disease, and how that's being looked at for potential treatments. Do you think he would have done a better job had he tried to give more detail? That's nuts. Instead he directed attention to professionals in attendance with him and all inquiries should have gone directly to them. But the haters and the rest who don't think highly of him at all chose a less mature response. I went and looked up the concepts and found he wasn't speaking stupidly at all, but only inarticulately.
Again, not his forte. He's a big picture guy and a doer. His intelligence isn't in the world of rhetoric and "speechifying". And all those at his rallies know this as well. All the "adoring crowds" are simply digging his stand-up act, knowing already he's proven to be working on their (and our) behalf.
So it's not a matter of excusing anything, but simply a matter of seeing how things are. The fact is that I don't excuse any of that. Indeed, I wish he was better at public speaking in a manner that doesn't lend itself to such unjust judgement.
As to being divisive....no. It was already present. He calls out those who've needed calling out and refuses to play on the terms of those who have been doing the actual dividing. He hasn't alienated anyone who hasn't already chosen to distance themselves from him. What you call alienation is really Trump pissing off the right people, some of whom shouldn't be if they weren't so judgemental regarding his unpolished style. We live in a time when that style is hardly worthy of concern given all that should be drawing our attention.
Yeah, he comes off like a schmuck to some people. I don't really care. All I know is that he's been an effective president and he is on the right side of most every issue of real concern. That has always been so starkly obvious to me that it's what drives me nuts about those who chose not to support him.
This election fraud issue is just the newest perfect example of this absurd schism among conservatives. As we see members of the party cave and pretend it's time for unity, the opposite is true because of just how far to the left the Dems have gone. Morons like Dan can pretend Trump is some kind of danger to our nation. God's clearly given him over to his corruption. But now is the time all of the party should be uniting behind Trump...not because he's the best thing since sliced bread...but because he's the best weapon against the socialist assholes who will destroy this country far more than we've already allowed them to do. I don't give a flying rat's ass about his tweets in light of that fact of life.
Art,
I completely understand that you don’t care that Trump looks like a petulant, whiny, child with no self control. I get that he can virtually do no wrong in your eyes. Unfortunately for you, there are people who don’t have that level of buy in, yet Trump needs those people too. Why intentionally piss off or turn off people who’s support will help you. It’s like the left who expects unity after 4 years of hurling vitriol. If this doesn’t go the way you want, Trump is going to be responsible for some of that because of the way he chooses to behave.
Unfortunately for the country, his actions and behavior might lose the senate as well as the presidency, then we’ll be screwed.
If Trump pulls the declaring for 2024 stunt, not only does he guarantee that he won’t win, he also guarantees 4 years of a DFL POTUS.
Craig... It’s like the left who expects unity after 4 years of hurling vitriol.
Um, you know that your president that your boys put in office has spent five years hurling vitriol at EVERYONE - including conservatives who disagreed with him - while the left has responded not to "hate Trump," but to disagree with his false claims and attacks when he made them... you know that, right?
If you have an insane man out in the street actually hurling vitriol, you don't say to those responding to his insanities with strong words that they are "hurling vitriol." You say, "Thanks."
Please. Your partisanship is blinding you.
I do agree with your last line, but will also note that the GOP is not likely to win in 2024 regardless of what Trump does. You can't win the nation with only some 40-45% of the nation's votes. Electoral college or not.
Trump and demographics have already cost the GOP Georgia and they're losing Texas. Your support or defense or failure to stand up against Trump "conservatism" has made you all even more damaged goods nationally.
"I completely understand that you don’t care that Trump looks like a petulant, whiny, child with no self control."
Really, Craig? Looks like what to whom? I completely understand that like Dan, his troll, Stan and David, you regard Trump as evil personified, incapable of being used by God to accomplish His plans as He might use Harris/Biden and great harm they're sure to cause. You refuse to look beyond his flaws, quirks, peculiarities and eccentricities and instead highlight the good work he's done for the nation. All that good work (and I'm prepared to once again provide the very large list of good works) is totally meaningless compared to his tweets. That makes perfect sense for every rational conservative. "Who cares what suffering will ensue? At least we won't have to deal with those insufferable tweets!" Jeez!
"I get that he can virtually do no wrong in your eyes."
Bullshit, Craig. It's not a question of pretending he can do no wrong, and you have absolutely no basis for trying to apply that lame crap to me.
"Unfortunately for you, there are people who don’t have that level of buy in, yet Trump needs those people too."
So it's Trump's fault that allegedly rational, objective people choose to focus on the clearly insignificant, rather than maturely set it aside in favor of his many great works as president.
Don't blame Trump for your unwillingness to set aside the meaningless. If we lose the senate...if the leftist assholes succeed in their evil...it'll be because those who should know better acted as if tweets and other meaningless crap has any tangible impact on anything.
It's ironic. You guys will claim you don't expect a president to be perfect, yet here you are focusing on insignificant imperfections.
Dan,
Of course you’re right, no one on the left has hurled vitriol at people on the right, least of all you. Hypocrite.
You’re naive, blind hope that 4 years of Biden is going to be a panacea is cute and touching.
Art,
I’m not focusing on imperfection, I’m focusing on intentional choices by Trump, that harm both Trump and the conservative movement.
This notion the people aren’t responsible for their actions is absurd, as is your Trump obsession.
You and Dan are two sides of the same coin on this. You both attack and deride anyone who doesn’t react the same way you do, while broad brushing and making broad assumptions about others.
I know Dan will likely never end his Jihad against conservatives, fortunately you can still dial things back.
There's clearly a lot of broad brushing going around; note "obsession". "Obsession" is a clearly inaccurate term for responding to comments unjustly critical toward Trump. To be so hung up on his manner after five years, when his manner is the least significant aspect of his presidency seems quite obsessive to me.
What you, Stan and David call attacks and derision is a hyperbolic response toward an objective assessment. I'm not at all "obsessed" with Trump, drinking Koolaid or any other such nonsense simply because I don't "obsess" over the insignificant. I accept Trump's flaws for what they are and nothing more. You guys can't see anything else and somehow that's on Trump? Give me a freakin break! Talk about "Dan-like"!
I know Dan will never end his jihad against Trump's character issues as if they're the destruction of us all. Fortunately you can cut the crap and highlight Trump's good work accomplished despite thise issues, rather than use them as an excuse to ignore those good works. Indeed, the worst aspect of his character flaws is how they're ill used by both sides of the divide at the expense of the nation as a whole.
I have no "jihad against conservatives" nor do I hate Trump, the pathetic man. I have no naive blind hope that Biden is a panacea - any more than I think getting ANY rational adult in to replace an inept corrupt perverted conman... but it sure is a million mile hike in the right direction.
Stupid false claims, while common now amongst modern Trump-style "conservatives," don't help you sound rational.
Meanwhile, Georgia officials are getting death threats. The Michigan Secretary of State has armed protesters surrounding her house over the weekend shouting about crazy conspiracy theories promoted by your president that your people put into office and continue to defend.
https://www.axios.com/armed-election-protest-michigan-secretary-of-state-940612cc-1d4c-450d-80f3-92b22ec2e928.html
But your time is definitely better spent making baseless and false claims about folks like me. Sure, worry about that splinter in the eye of another and ignore the log in your own collective eyes.
Oh, and lest you read but fail to understand, my calling out stupid false and unsupported claims by modern Trump-style "conservatives" is part of a jihad against conservatives: It's not. It's a stand against specific bad actions. Stupidly false claims are not a good thing. Those conservatives who embrace them or even ignore them are not doing a good thing.
It's denouncing a specific set of actions, not a group of people. As always, you have to keep in mind that I come from good conservatives and I am what I am today largely BECAUSE of the teachings of honest, good conservatives. I take a stand against stupidly false claim in part because that's what I learned from honest, good conservatives.
Open your eyes, fellas.
Art,
I see no reason to continue down this road. You clearly aren’t interested in how others think on this issue, and there’s no point in rehashing it. If you think it’s wise for Trump to alienate people who might support him, by choosing to engage in behaviors that are off putting, that’s fine. Just chill out with the shots at those of us who do choose to look at everything Trump does, and evaluate him based on all of his actions.
Dan,
Just like you missed my hypothetical earlier, and ignored the multiple times I pointed out your error. Just like you frequently hide behind claims of hyperbole to excuse things you say. You seem strangely unwilling to acknowledge that others might engage in hyperbole, sarcasm, or other figurative speech. Your quick jump to “false and unsupported claims”, would be amusing were you not so prone to engaged in “false and unsupported claims” of your own.
Of course, your use of terms like, “evil, diabolical, racist, etc”, couldn’t possibly be indicators of any hatred.
I understand your monomania regarding Trump, and your frequent use of vitriol, and false characterization when you refer to those who you broad brush.
In all seriousness, it’s hard to take you seriously when you allow all sorts of falsehoods protected status at your blog, and characterize others falsely and with such vitriol.
What you still fail to understand is that I am calling out lies. I speak strongly against lies. Stupidly false claims. Slander. Attacks. I've been announcing specific bad behaviors. This is rational, especially when it is coming on a daily basis from the president. And from those who defend him.
That is, I've never said any broad-brush attacks against all conservatives. It hasn't happened. Instead, I'm calling out specific bad behavior of specific people. Just like you do all the time. Why is it wrong for me and right for you?
To my notion, strong language against bad behavior - what you're calling vitriol - is rational. Do you think we should be silent in the face of such large stupidly false claims and attacks?
"I speak strongly against lies. Stupidly false claims. Slander. Attacks."
Yet strangely, you rarely speak out against these things when they happen among those you support.
I"'m calling out specific bad behavior of specific people."
Really? "modern Trump-style "conservatives," is a specific person? "those who defend him.", is less general, by not specific by any means.
"Just like you do all the time. Why is it wrong for me and right for you?"
It's not. Of course, when you don't actually call out specific people for specific actions, it's not really the same, is it?
"Stupidly false claims. Slander. Attacks."
You do realize that these aren't "specific acts", but a categories of acts.
"Do you think we should be silent in the face of such large stupidly false claims and attacks?"
1. I'll point out that you frequently remain silent on these sorts of acts when engaged in by those you support.
2. I'll point out that you've used the excuse that you don't speak out on every single thing that people do to justify your silence.
3. Not necessarily, I do think that your one sided stance, your vitriol, and your frequent use of the very tactics you claim to decry (lies, false claims, failing to support claims, slander, attacks, failing to respond to evidence that is contrary to your narrative) undermines any sort of credibility you might have in your outrage.
I'll point out one example. You claim to have a problem with "lies" and "Stupidly false claims", yet Biden has a decades long history of exactly this. Plagiarism, lying about his education, up through is recent campaign. Yet, you enthusiastically support this man with a decades long history of what you claim to be against. I know you'll come up with some excuse to justify your support of Biden, but the reality is that not once have I seen you mention your concern about his long and well documented history of lying. I'm so confident that you will use your considerable creative powers to justify your support of Biden (despite his track record), that I don't even want you to waste your time.
The difference between us is that I can, and do, call out specific instances of behavior on "my side" when I find them worthy of criticism. If you've been paying attention, Art is pissed at me for doing exactly that. I can, and do, call out those things without having to resort to vitriol (evil, diabolical, lies from the pit of hell) that you choose to trade in. I suspect that you think that the more vitriol you hurl, the more it makes you look righteous, or something.
Please, by all means, jump on people who transgress your subjective moral code. Just try to give the appearance of bipartisanship and holding all sides to the same standards. Given that you try to hold us to standards you don't hold yourself to, I doubt we'll see any of this.
Craig,
I would ask that you copy/paste whatever comments I've made that you consider "shots". Please include date and time so I can review the context in which they were found. In the meantime, I would argue that my continued comments on the issue clearly indicates my interest in your position and why you hold it. So far, I'm getting far more of the former than the latter. What you seem to fail to understand regarding my comments is that I also evaluate based on as much info as possible about the man. The difference seems to be that which divides me and others, which is the distribution of significance. For example, I see no way to weigh Trump's fiscal policies against his tweets. Don't get too hung up on the choice for the example here, because I fully doubt that you could do a plus/minus list that would provide anything that would result in more weight to the minus side than the plus (assuming you're listing all pluses and minuses---I concede either of us may unintentionally omit something on either side of the ledger). Then, fully confident you couldn't possibly conclude that his presidency is a net plus (and greatly so), to suppose it isn't "plus enough" to overwhelm a similar list based on Biden's +/- (a laughable thought if it weren't so freaking dangerous). I would challenge both Stan and David in this manner as well, should they see this here.
Now, if you really think his tweets and his manner of speech is more important than moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the best employment numbers since the 60's, a greater share of black support than any Republican since Nixon, brokering peace deals in the Middle East, an improved trade agreement to replace NAFTA, procuring the release of around fifty Americans held unjustly by foreign governments and I could go on and on with his good works, then I can't imagine how I could convince you of just how interested I am in learning how you measure such things.
The bottom line for me as a father and grandfather, as well as just a guy who loves his country, is what's in store for us should Trump lose his righteous fight to save his presidency from what to even 30% of Democrats (by one poll) is a stolen election. In my mind, it would be better if we had Harris/Biden imposed on us by theft and chicanery than to find that my fellow Americans are as stupid as Dan. That's not a shot. That's the way it is.
"What you still fail to understand is that I am calling out lies. I speak strongly against lies. Stupidly false claims. Slander. Attacks."
Unless they come from Biden or other Democrats...like himself. What a lying hypocrite!
"Meanwhile, Georgia officials are getting death threats."
While I would never condone death threats, I've seen (and posted the quotes) multiple folks on the left threatening child rape, death, and other things to conservatives over the last 4 years. Hell, when Trump (and now Guilianni) had COVID, I saw multiple people wishing death on them. I don't remember a peep from you when Cathy Griffen posed with Trump's severed head.
"The Michigan Secretary of State has armed protesters surrounding her house over the weekend shouting about crazy conspiracy theories promoted by your president that your people put into office and continue to defend."
Are these people burning, looting, killing, or endangering innocents? Have you not seen the news reports of left wing "protests" shouting for the last 6 months? Are you suggesting that it's somehow problematic for protester to shout things you don't agree with?
"Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson says "dozens" of armed protesters descended on her home Saturday night, using megaphones to disrupt what had been a quiet evening with her young son."
OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, according to NPR this protest you're so wound up about was "dozens" of people with bullhorns.
Virtually the exact same thing happened up here this summer, which I wrote about, and it didn't bother you. Of course it was leftists protesting a conservative, so you'd stay silent.
https://www.startribune.com/no-felony-charges-to-be-filed-against-house-dfl-candidate-who-spoke-at-hugo-protest/572143912/
It's probably not worth mentioning that none of the protests mentioned in the Axios article could be characterized as anything but peaceful.
Art,
I'm not going to dig through multiple comments, in multiple threads, at multiple blogs to satisfy your curiosity. If you want to go all Dan like, that's fine, but I've got too much work to do and a surgery coming up to dig through volumes of material.
I've been clear and repetitive regarding my position. I support much of what Trump has done from a policy standpoint, and I find it incomprehensible that even his haters can't acknowledge that he's done some good things. At the same time, I find that his demeanor, his social media presence, his lack of self control, and his casual relationship with the Truth, to have undermined his policy success. I further am convinced that his behavior is in large part responsible for this election outcome.
Conventional wisdom is that 40% of the voters will vote right, 40% left, and it's the 20% in the middle that is the deciding factor. It's Trump's (and his hard core supporters) cavalier approach to the 20% and how they see things that is so problematic.
At this point, his public comments are trivializing a serious issue (election integrity) and are turning away people who would have supported him in his efforts to find out what happened.
The fact that you can ignore Trump's childish, petulant, sometimes incoherent, outbursts, doesn't mean that those that can't are wrong to do so. What's interesting is that all to many people who sound just like you, are now encouraging GA conservatives not to vote GOP in the runoff.
Look, you and Dan can live in the past for all I care. The reality is that, absent a miracle, Trump is going to be a one term president, and we need to be looking to the future, not the past. The battle immediately in front of is is to keep control of the senate, so that we can avoid 2 years of Biden ramming his agenda through. I suspect that if we put as much effort into that as we are into fighting a battle that is likely to be lost anyway, we'd do well.
I'll close this topic by saying this. I'm confident that God knows who the next POTUS is. I'm confident that God will use the next POTUS to work His will. I'm confident that if God wanted Trump, then Trump would have won convincingly. Finally, I'm convinced that if God wants to expose enough voter fraud to change to apparent outcome, that He's more than capable of doing exactly that.
Please, let this go.
Craig continues his attack against the justice organization BLM group, but defending the same type of people who plotted to assassinate the governor of Michigan. Here's what the attorney general reported...
"As my four-year-old son and I were finishing up decorating the house for Christmas on Saturday night, and he was about to sit down to watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas,
dozens of armed individuals stood outside my home
shouting obscenities and
chanting into bullhorns in the dark of night."
According to the story I read, they were calling for her to come outside in the dark and face these armed and vile protesters.
This, in the context of Michigan, where rightwing zealot boys plotted to kidnap and assassinate the governor.
This, in the context of Trump spreading lies so much that some in Georgia are threatening harm to poll workers.
But yes, go ahead and pretend like your boys are doing peaceful protest.
But you should know that such vile obfuscation is damned for the threat on liberty that it is. We see these boys for the threat that they pose, even if your eyes are too blinded to see it. History will judge Trump and his defenders harshly. Even those like you who pretend to not really be a fan while at the same time downplaying and ignoring his actual threat to a free republic.
Dan starts with a lie, then quickly doubles down for a second lie.
Dan, is quick to criticize “dozens” of peaceful protesters, protesting around the home of the MI AG, while ignoring and excusing worse behavior in MN and across the country.
It’s not pretending, what buildings were burned? What stores were looted? What public property was destroyed? Compared to what we saw in Seattle, I think it’s safe to call these protests where no one was harmed and no damage was done peaceful.
Of course, then Dan closes with more lies.
All while not answering questions, and not dealing with a literal BLM protest engaging in worse behavior than the “dozens” in MI.
Of course, he has to act like the handful of rednecks who wanted to kidnap Whitney aren’t in jail, awaiting trial, and not being representative of any larger movement.
I guess the conspiracy theory is that when Trump leaves office in January that he’s going to dress up in Mossy Oak, grab an AR, and run off to the woods to plot the next civil war. Paranoia, isn’t healthy.
It's not pretending. There was a REAL attempt to assassinate the governor of this same state by armed militia boys like these. That's not fake news. It actually happened. Now, YOU want to give these armed protesters the benefit of the doubt that they aren't associated with the would be killers, but you do that based upon what?
How widespread are the militia boys who will do violence? We don't know, but we know they're real and out there. But go ahead and pretend like there's no threat of violence here. Go ahead and send your children out to face angry armed shouting protesters.
But to hell with you thinking that any of we adults are going to give such armed thugs the benefit of the doubt. We will NOT abide threats on the lives of our public servants for merely doing their job and to hell with the conservative types who STILL refuse to call out the conspiracy theorists and their attacks on a free election.
Craig... " Trump leaves office in January that he’s going to dress up in Mossy Oak, grab an AR, and run off to the woods to plot the next civil war."
Of course, if you have been paying attention to what our side is saying AT ALL, you would know how stupidly false this guess is (and I recognize this is your attempt at a snide joke, to try to portray US as conspiracy theorists while ignoring the actual conspiracy theorists who have taken over conservatism so thoroughly). Trump will NEVER associated with the good old militia boy types who are willing to be his soldiers. He does not like poor people. He's glad to exploit them if they're willing to believe his con, but he's not one of the people. He's a spoiled rich boy who has had stuff handed to him his whole life and come to believe that he's entitled to all that he gets/takes and that he should take what he can get.
He's an overt conman/user. Not a part of the gang of rabble.
He's a willing exploiter of those types, but not one of them.
You mean the real “attempt” that landed all the rednecks in jail? Since these peaceful protesters haven’t broken any laws as of yet, and haven’t attempted to kill or kidnap anyone, why would I make the irrational assumption that they were connected to the 5/6 people in jail? What evidence do you have that directly links them? Should they be jailed based on superficial similarities?
Based on innocent until proven guilty.
Actually LE has a pretty good idea of how many of these folks are out there, it’s a relatively small percentage of 330 million people.
Ahhhhhh, the goal post move. The fact is that these are peaceful protesters, clearly they have actually done nothing but exercise their 1st amendment rights. The fact that you have to input a “threat” of violence where none existed.
What the hell are you talking about? Sending children out to face peaceful protesters? Who is suggesting that anyone do that?
So armed “thugs” on the right must be put down for peacefully protesting, while armed thugs on the left don’t even get a mention from you. Hypocrite. You have to manufacture danger where none exists.
Good lord, are you so blinded by partisanship that you choose to ignore hyperbole or sarcasm.
Wow. Is this Dan's idea of finding common ground? If he can't set aside his clear personal animosity toward Trump, I don't see how any search for common ground can every truly take place. Objective, emotionless truth is key to such a thing. His hatred...which he poorly argues isn't present within him...belies any stated attempt to find common ground.
"How widespread are the militia boys who will do violence? We don't know..."
We do know how widespread are those on the left who are willing to kill and destroy. We've been witness to it all year long, and it goes back before that as well. One attempt at a kidnapping, and another demand to be heard is not even close to being as immediate a threat, even if we all agree to regard it as such. Folks weren't boarding up their businesses for fear of "militia boys", as you so like to call them in your false bravado. They were doing so to protect against YOUR kind.
"Trump will NEVER associated with the good old militia boy types who are willing to be his soldiers."
Here, Dan ignores the fact...presented to him already...that most militia groups oppose government intrusion of any kind and have no more love for Trump than they do any other politician. They act on their own perceptions of government overreach, and should they somehow resemble rhetoric of any politician is something honest rational people would write off to a matter of odds...at least without any hard data connecting them. Dan's not that into truth and facts.
"He does not like poor people."
Prove it. His fiscal policies alone belie that claim. That's far more true of you and "progressives" given the documented harm done by leftist fiscal policy.
"He's a spoiled rich boy who has had stuff handed to him his whole life and come to believe that he's entitled to all that he gets/takes and that he should take what he can get."
Hateful rhetoric you cannot prove if your life depended upon doing so. It's also ironic coming from someone who defends entitlements now on the books. In addition, you accuse him of "taking", as in "taking what he hasn't legitimately/legally earned". How about an example of such with actual proof to go along with it?
""As my four-year-old son and I were finishing up decorating the house for Christmas on Saturday night, and he was about to sit down to watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas,
dozens of armed individuals stood outside my home
shouting obscenities and
chanting into bullhorns in the dark of night.""
I recall a similar episode by lefties showing up at Tucker Carlson's house...a guy who isn't a politician involved with any election related law or fraud. I also seem to recall a routine of "doxing" right-leaning people, publicizing their personal information for the purpose of these very tactics. Dan will focus on the lawful carrying of legal firearms and ignore other weapons used by his favored "social justice warriors". Hypocrite indeed! While it is reasonable for a person to fear any crowd that shows up at one's door in such a fashion...and thus choose not to go out among them...it would have been interesting to see if this particular crowd would have stood down to listen to the AG respond to their complaints. Dan would have us believe they'd tar and feather the woman.
Craig,
"I'm not going to dig through multiple comments, in multiple threads, at multiple blogs to satisfy your curiosity."
That's fine. But more importantly is whether or not you've actually done this for your own self to any degree at all. I can't see it given the vast difference in importance of Trump's good works versus that of any of his tweets, rhetoric or manner. How could it be otherwise? My point is that it requires ignoring the good work in favor of rejecting him for the insignificant. You insist on defending that choice, it seems to me. That's where I'm having difficulties understanding, and thus my interest...which you claim doesn't exist...remains.
"At the same time, I find that his demeanor, his social media presence, his lack of self control, and his casual relationship with the Truth, to have undermined his policy success."
But that's on those who focus too strongly on his demeanor, his social media presence, his lack of self control, and his alleged casual relationship with the Truth rather than on his good work. Are people such robotic sheep they can't look beyond such superficial and insignificant crap? And to the extent that they'd be willing to allow a return to the harm that led to this guy's election in the first place? That's freaking insane!
"I further am convinced that his behavior is in large part responsible for this election outcome."
This is the very point with which I find problematic! Why should it? As much as I dislike most of the same things about him, it's simply not important when considering both his good work and the alternative should he fail in his quest to expose the cheating that occurred to give this moron Biden more votes than anyone else in history. Conversely, I'm convinced there's a real problem with that portion of the citizenry who try to pretend they're rational in using his quirks as a legitimate reason to withhold their support for his presidency. Again, that's freaking insane!
"The fact that you can ignore Trump's childish, petulant, sometimes incoherent, outbursts, doesn't mean that those that can't are wrong to do so."
Given the stakes...THE STAKES!...that's exactly what it means! It's been my point all along. But to say I "ignore" it is inaccurate...as I've repeated over and over. It's a matter of giving it far too much importance with those stakes in mind.
"I'll close this topic by saying this. I'm confident that God knows...etc...."
But somehow, you ignore that God's been using Trump...that the suffering of the victims of eight years of Obama resulted in God answering with Trump in 2016. In other words, God allowed Pharoah until He appointed the imperfect Moses...He allowed Saul until He appointed the imperfect David. You and Stan and David don't seem to consider that what is most certainly to follow could be God's punishment for rejecting Trump and the work he's done...that not enough people were thankful to God for ending that which Obama did to us. Why is that? Why is this not as likely as what you think God may do for us with a Harris/Biden win? It's why I leave God to do what God will do and concentrate on what I'm supposed to be doing as a believer. Trump is far more beneficial than detrimental...at least until a convincing argument can be made to support the latter. That argument hasn't been made by even his most vitriolic detractors...because no such argument is possible.
So now I'll let it go until the next wacky anti-Trump comment is made. All else will take place at my own blog, because I'm not at all done with this serious and dangerous breech of reason.
"I can't see it given the vast difference in importance of Trump's good works versus that of any of his tweets, rhetoric or manner."
The key to this is "I can't see". The problem is that you can't see the possibility that anyone can see things differently, without assuming the worst about them. You can't (like Dan) acknowledge that it's possible to support a president on certain policy positions, while not supporting or excusing everything else they do.
"But somehow, you ignore that God's been using Trump"
No, I acknowledge this. I also acknowledge that God can and will use Biden to accomplish His purposes for His glory. Unfortunately, you can't know what that looks like.
I agree, in theory, that Dan's ideas are areas where common ground can be found. But Dan, after years of vitriol, assuming that his milquetoast plea is too little to late.
I'll point out a couple of things. To celebrate that vaccine, without giving Trump and his administration appropriate credit for setting up an environment where the pharmaceutical companies had the opportunity to move quickly.
I'll also point out that the "financial package" he mentions was held up by the DFL (as per Pelosi and Sanders), while they now want to rush through a much smaller financial package because "Biden is president".
Given the massive increase of COVID cases across the globe, after mask mandates, makes me wonder what the "science" is that proves the effectiveness of masks at stopping the spread of COVID.
It's clear that Dan and his groupie, are not really interested in actual common ground. I guess we'll see.
Craig... Dan, after years of vitriol, assuming that his milquetoast plea is too little to late.
Yes, it IS a shame that we've had all these years of baseless, vile vitriol from Trump and his defenders. It's a shame we had eight years before Trump of attacks, opposition and vitriol towards Obama. But we are willing to set that aside and move forward.
The question is, will the Right be willing to give up the attacks and vitriol and move forward?
You confuse strong defense against attacks with actual unmerited vitriol. When we say that Trump is a corrupt liar it's because he has been corrupt and his lies are out of control and beyond the pale. It's because his attacks on the media are dangerous and baseless. That is, it's one thing to disagree with the media saying some outfits are too biased in one direction. It's an entirely different thing to broadbrush "the media" as fake news and an enemy of the people.
And when people defend the media from those virulent and dangerous attacks from Trump and his ilk, that is NOT vitriol. It's pushing back against lies and doing so strongly.
It's not like you all can attack relentlessly those on the left and then expect us to just take it without defending truth and liberty, and when we DO defend truth and liberty, you accuse US of vitriol.
That's just not rational, man.
But by all means, let's set that aside and step forward promising to do better on the vitriol and harsh language. What choice do we have?
And since Trump has been rightly voted out, why not let the GOP lead the way by showing a willingness to cooperate and quit demonizing?
"...the possibility that anyone can see things differently..."
...is, in my mind, a given. I take it for granted the possibility exists and is often likely. But to suggest it follows I assume the worst about the one seeing differently is a huge leap and without basis. Pressing the issue is just as much a matter of validating how I see the issue as questioning how the other sees it.
"You can't (like Dan) acknowledge that it's possible to support a president on certain policy positions, while not supporting or excusing everything else they do."
This is also baseless given I don't excuse Trump for the things you and Dan (and Stan and David) have given far too much importance and have stated as such repeatedly. Indeed, I could not have been more clear.
Relying on God sorting it all out does not enter into this at all. This would only work for you if the choice wasn't so stark...if the possibilities were equally bad or questionable. That's clearly not the case here. The choice before us was absolutely NOT six of one or half a dozen of the other.
Regarding Dan's laughable plea toward finding common ground, I would assert that even the areas of which he speaks are not really where the search for common ground must begin. Setting aside his lies, those areas are after the fact issues, which is just peachy for someone who falsely pretends no serious and widespread voting/election fraud/irregularities took place in this election. No. I will not agree to move beyond this grave disenfranchisement of American voters. I will accept it only if can be proven...not that no one could find evidence for which they choose not to look...but that this election was fairly run, and Trump fairly lost. THAT'S where "common ground" begins.
"The question is, will the Right be willing to give up the attacks and vitriol and move forward?"
Ahhhhhhh, the "It's only the right who must change" trope. The fact that you are unaware of the level of vitriol on the left tells me plenty about your desire for common ground. I've posted the quotes multiple times, and you always ignore them, but we've had 4+ years of people on the left telling conservatives that they hope their children are raped, calling women "cunts", and the like, all met with silence from folx like you.
"It's not like you all can attack relentlessly those on the left and then expect us to just take it without defending truth and liberty, and when we DO defend truth and liberty, you accuse US of vitriol. That's just not rational, man."
I can't recall how many times< I've pointed out exactly this and been told that "the other guys do it", doesn't excuse anything. Yet here we have "the other side does it" espoused as "rational".
The problem is that it's one more example of taking things that are said by individuals, and applying them to entire groups of people. It's simply more group identity politics, where the group is defined by others to be as broad as possible without regard to the actions of any individuals.
"But by all means, let's set that aside and step forward promising to do better on the vitriol and harsh language. What choice do we have?"
Well, since I rarely engage in vitriol, while you frequently do, I guess that's a question you'll have to ask yourself.
"And since Trump has been rightly voted out, why not let the GOP lead the way by showing a willingness to cooperate and quit demonizing?"
Interesting expectation. I find the notion of expecting others to do what you won't do strange and bizarre.
How about this as a start. I posted about two prominent liberal entertainers who responded to something done by a conservative black woman using obviously racist language and symbolism. How about you specifically, and unequivocally condemn the unquestionably racist words and actions of those on your side, just to show that you're serious?
Art,
I'm done with this back and forth about Trump. It's completely out of my hands and I believe that focusing on the future is virtually always better than the past. As we see lawsuit after lawsuit get denied, it's literally going to take a miracle for things to change. If it happens, it happens. I'll keep praying "Thy will be done.", not "My will be done.".
I will respond to the theology piece of this.
"Relying on God sorting it all out does not enter into this at all."
I'd argue that God sorting things out is the only thing that matters at all. If you seriously are suggesting that we as humans have the ability to thwart God's will, plan, and purpose, then this should be a completely different conversation. I'll contrast what you say with what Peter, James, and Paul write about our interaction with government, and I'll note that the government they were subject to was one of the most evil in history.
In all honesty, if given the choice between trusting the government for "sorting it out" or God, I'll take God any time.
"The choice before us was absolutely NOT six of one or half a dozen of the other."
1. The choice was between two old, rich, white guys who both have a decades long history of lying in order to make themselves look good. Beyond that, the much bigger issue in this election was control of the legislature. It virtually always is. The office of POTUS has limited powers (despite the trend to usurp powers started by P-BO, carried on by Trump, and that has Biden salivating), by design. I get that Trump is "preferable" to Biden from a "conservative" policy standpoint. But, a DFL controlled senate is what's going to enable all the horrors you predict. Unfortunately, there are too many who sound like you encouraging GA voters to hand the senate over to the DFL.
2. In the absence of someone equivalent to Hitler, the choice is always six of one, a half dozen of the other. Or near enough.
Look, this is a pointless waste of time. If you think that hectoring those of us who don't 100% agree with you on this is valuable, then you can do so at your blog. I see no reason to beat this dead horse any further.
Craig... "the "It's only the right who must change" trope."
Part of what needs to happen for us to come together as for people to begin to read for understanding, not for point of attack. If you will look at my words, I never said it is only the right who have misbehaved. I did not say it is only the right who must change. Of course there's been vitriol all around.
But much of the vitriol from the left has been a result of the outrageous, beyond the pale attacks on over half the citizenry, the media, Democrats... on the part of trump. We have reacted strongly to Trump because Trump is awful.
He's not like other politicians. His behavior is not acceptable. Attacks on the media, attacks on the election process, the daily multiple endless lies and complete disregard for facts and Truth. These terrible behaviors are what are provoking strong responses from liberals.
To come together, which we have to do, is important for the right to at least begin to acknowledge the real problems of trump. People like you need to help people like Marshall to understand it's not that we disagree with Trump because he's rude or sort of pushy. We disagree with the daily over the top lies and attacks. The corruption. The people like you fail to understand how awful Trump is and explain it to people like Marshal, well, it just becomes more difficult.
Craig... "Yet here we have "the other side does it" espoused as "rational"."
That's just the thing. We have Trump who is making these over-the-top stupidly false claims endlessly it has for 5 years now, we have him on the one side. There is no equivalent to Trump on the other side. Biden, Clinton, Harris, Etc, they are not out making daily false claims multiple times each and every day. We don't have them out there making stupidly false claims that the media is an enemy of the people or we need to figure out the results of the election in states where I lost. There is no equivalent to Trump. We react strongly to Trump because his behaviors are so unacceptable. You don't have a similar comprable person on the left. Not in power. Can you agree to that reality?
Come. Let's find common ground.
Craig... "posted about two prominent liberal entertainers who responded to something done by a conservative black woman using obviously racist language and symbolism."
Because you have this tendency to post vague unsighted words, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm guessing this is about your most recent post, but I have no idea what that's talking about.
But how about this, if some white person has referred to a black person using those words, they shouldn't have done it. It was wrong. See how easy it is?
Now, your turn. Trump has stupidly falsely claimed without end and for months that he will win or that he has won the election. That there was widespread voter fraud. Can you admit did this is a stupidly and dangerously false claim?
Just to show that you're serious?
As far as Dan's bland, milquetoast, areas for common ground, I can easily come up with places where where compromise could happen on virtually all of them. But, the fact that he's ignored that fact that Pelosi has held up a "relief" bill for months for partisan reasons, and doesn't seem to have a problem with that suggests that common ground really means "agree with me".
I suspect that the beginning of this current round of lack of compromise started when the house and senate rammed P-BO care through with virtually zero input from the minority, and without allowing the bill to be read until it was passed. When that's the starting position of one side, it's hard to find common ground. Further, if Dan was interested in common ground, you'd think he could give credit to the Trump administration for drawing down overseas troop commitments, not engaging in major military action, and for the criminal justice reforms Trump signed. All things that Dan has bitched about for years, yet no common ground.
I doubt he's as interested in true common ground (look how hard he fought when I tried to find some common ground with him a few months ago), as much as he is in trying to pretend like he hasn't spent the last four years engaging in the behaviors that he's engaged in. That he wants to pretend that he can get along with rational conservatives, as long as he gets to define rational. At some point, I'll (again) offer some thoughts on areas where we could possibly find common ground, and see if Dan actually can do so.
I did a little research and found that think you're talkin about someone named Noah Cyrus, who I've never heard of, who is a 20 year old who used that phrase. I also see that she "apologized on Thursday and promised never to use the term again. She claimed that she had no previous knowledge of the word's history before using it and thanked people for educating her."
So yes, this 20 year old was stupid to use this racist phrase. A point which she has acknowledged, claiming ignorance.
Now, to this... "How about you specifically, and unequivocally condemn the unquestionably racist words and actions of those on your side, just to show that you're serious?"
I can and have done so. Now do you see the apples and atom bombs comparison between some stupid 20 year old making a racist comment and the president of the United States who has lied multiple times everyday for years, who has lied about winning the election and has actively promoted distrust in the election process? I can easily condemn this twenty-year-old for the stupid phrase. Can you especially easily condemn Trump for his unrelenting attacks on facts and Truth? Can you acknowledge the chasm of difference between these two examples?
Please.
"But much of the vitriol from the left has been a result of the outrageous, beyond the pale attacks on over half the citizenry, the media, Democrats... on the part of trump. We have reacted strongly to Trump because Trump is awful."
I suspect that you (willfully or not) shield yourself from much of what happens on your side of the aisle, which allows you to believe things like this, regardless of reality.
"You don't have a similar comprable person on the left. Not in power. Can you agree to that reality?"
I'd agree that there might not be one person on the left who attracts such a response, but I'd argue that it's more than made up for by volume.
"But how about this, if some white person has referred to a black person using those words, they shouldn't have done it. It was wrong. See how easy it is?"
Don't you mean "see how easy it is" to make a bland, generalized, vague, statement after you've been called out?
"Now, your turn. Trump has stupidly falsely claimed without end and for months that he will win or that he has won the election. That there was widespread voter fraud. Can you admit did this is a stupidly and dangerously false claim?"
The claims, as hes' made them. have been wrong and he shouldn't have done it. However, the realty is that until the election is certified, and the legal challenges have run their course, it's more accurate to say that the election hasn't been officially decided. Again, I disagree with his choice of words, his tone, and his lack of self control. I always have and have said so. But, it's equally inaccurate for him to say that he's won, as it is for you to say he's lost. Given the fact that you can't actually point to any specific danger or harm, I think that your hyperbole is nearly as distressing as Trump's.
"Just to show that you're serious?"
I've literally said this since the election, without all the hyperbole and excess, if you can't acknowledge that reality, then how serious can you really be?
Really, I've only seen your bland, general, vague, "condemnation", and your excuses for her ignorance.
You claim that you haven't heard of her, perhaps you're aware that her family has been famous since the 90's. Perhaps you're aware that her sister is a pretty outspoken left winger. I find it hard to believe that any sentient human in the US (after the recent conversations on race) can credibly claim ignorance that the phrase "nappy ass hoe" isn't going to be offensive. Of course, you're still silent on Harry Styles response to the same thing. What you don;t seem (or want) to understand is that these people have massive amounts of influence. That's why they call them influencers.
Styles has 35,957, 776 followers on Twitter alone
Noah Cyrus has 630,000 on Twitter alone.
For you to act as if these are some obscure figures who no one pays attention to is simply absurd.
"I can easily condemn this twenty-year-old for the stupid phrase."
Then please do so, specifically and unequivocally, without offering bullshit excuses.
"Can you especially easily condemn Trump for his unrelenting attacks on facts and Truth? Can you acknowledge the chasm of difference between these two examples?"
I have, and I do. One difference is your silence on Cyrus, Styles, and other leftists when they exhibit racism or Antisemitism.
FYI, Cyrus wasn't so much educated as she was called out for her hypocrisy. Unfortunately, she wasn't called out from folx on your side of the ideological divide.
And this is part of the problem. I can clearly call out as wrong some nobody Entertainer or a relative of the near Tanner for the racist comment. One and done. But the leader of the Free World repeatedly attacks are election process with his stupidly false claims and you give the very most milquetoast, "oh... he shouldn't have done that. Oh my, it's not as good as it should have been." Come on!
When he claimed he won, it was a false claim. It was a stupid lie false claim. He did not win and he had no date has a show that he won. What he claimed repeatedly that the election was rigged, that the news was fake, that the election was stolen from him, these are all very serious very stupid false claims. But the best you can do is, I wish he hadn't said that, and you compare it to some twenty-year-old sort of famous person... there is no comparison. This is the problem.
We need to rally around facts. We need to treat leaders when they make false claims seriously.
As to liberals calling out Cyrus, I don't know what you spend your time reading, but I don't spend my time reading entertainment news. I've got more adult things to be concerned about. The leader of the Free World is attacking our election system. That's something to be taken seriously. If we had a normal leader and things were more calm, sure we could spend some time talking about a 20 year old quasi famous person. But now is not that time.
Craig.. Styles has 35,957, 776 followers on Twitter alone
Noah Cyrus has 630,000 on Twitter alone.
How many times have you called out racist entertainers on the right? Again, if we lived in a world where our politicians and leaders we're behaving themselves and acting like adults, I might be worried more about what entertainers have to say, or those attached entertainers. The problem is you're trying to elevate an Entertainer to the level of trump when one, you're not making any comments about racist entertainers on the right and two, they're entertainers.
"I can clearly call out as wrong some nobody Entertainer or a relative of the near Tanner for the racist comment."
You could, but you didn't. Enough said.
"One and done. But the leader of the Free World repeatedly attacks are election process with his stupidly false claims and you give the very most milquetoast, "oh... he shouldn't have done that. Oh my, it's not as good as it should have been." Come on!"
I literally used virtually the exact same words you did. If it's not good enough, then I guess the source was bad. Of course, I've consistently called out Trump for this kind of thing since 2015, so there's that.
"When he claimed he won, it was a false claim. It was a stupid lie false claim. He did not win and he had no date has a show that he won. What he claimed repeatedly that the election was rigged, that the news was fake, that the election was stolen from him, these are all very serious very stupid false claims. But the best you can do is, I wish he hadn't said that, and you compare it to some twenty-year-old sort of famous person... there is no comparison. This is the problem."
1. Stacey Abrahams still thinks she won the GA governors race from 2 years ago, silence. The entire media and DFL establishment has been making all sorts of claims about the 2016 election, and you've been silent. Double standard much. The comparison, is the you have one standard for Trump and another for anyone on the left,
"We need to rally around facts. We need to treat leaders when they make false claims seriously."
If by "leaders" you mean all leaders, then sure. Of course your insistence that there are "multiple truths" makes your claims that "false" is singular ind universal pretty untenable. But railing against falsehoods, while espousing multiple truths, has never seemed to bother you. Just like investigating to find out that the Russia crap was a lie didn't bother me, and investigating election irregularities this year doesn't bother me.
"As to liberals calling out Cyrus, I don't know what you spend your time reading, but I don't spend my time reading entertainment news."
Wow, a little "holier than thou" shot. I don't either, I do see a wide variety of social media and watch when these stories of liberal hypocrisy pop up. Or, if you're more comfortable with liberal ignorance and stupidity that's fine as well.
"I've got more adult things to be concerned about."
Then not only are you a hypocritical, holier than thou, liar, but you just admitted that racism isn't that important to you. I've always thought it was bizarre to intentionally be unaware of what's happening in the broader culture. Maybe that's why you don't understand how much influence these people have, and think that they're insignificant compared to a lame duck president. Maybe this intentional ignorance is your problem, not mine.
"The leader of the Free World is attacking our election system. That's something to be taken seriously. If we had a normal leader and things were more calm, sure we could spend some time talking about a 20 year old quasi famous person. But now is not that time."
Clearly, it's time to give two people with massive amounts of influence on our culture a pass on racism, because they're on your side.
"How many times have you called out racist entertainers on the right?"
I've never been shy about calling out things on the right. How many times have you specifically, called out specific individuals for specifics acts on the left? Not just the namby pamby "I don't like any...", but specifically and in detail? Racism, antisemitism, misogyny, sexual assault, ? Be specific.
"Again, if we lived in a world where our politicians and leaders we're behaving themselves and acting like adults, I might be worried more about what entertainers have to say, or those attached entertainers. The problem is you're trying to elevate an Entertainer to the level of trump when one, you're not making any comments about racist entertainers on the right and two, they're entertainers."
Yes, because the multi billion dollar entertainment industry (made up primarily of leftists) has so little influence on our culture that we can just brush it off as nothing to worry about. PornHub profiting on sexual abuse, "Well, if only Trump wasn't so nuts we could get outraged about 14 year old girls in hardcore sex videos.". If it wasn't for Trump we'd get worked up about a mainstream movie sexually exploiting girls, but "It's just entertainment.".
This sentiment is so incredibly naive, I have to wonder if it's not a choice to intentionally ignore what the (primarily leftist) entertainment industry is putting out there, so that you don't have to acknowledge the link between the decline of culture and your political philosophy.
Because 35 million people who follow someone who engages in racism, aren't a big deal. Who cares if 35 million people think it's OK to make monkey jokes about a black woman. Hell, monkey jokes are pretty mild compared to the documented way leftists treat black conservatives. But, it's just entertaining to see a massively popular influencer make monkey jokes about a black woman, it's ok as long as it's entertaining, right?
I'd have to go back and look, but I don't recall any comment from you when I posted on the 50 plus politicians who've put on black face, because they're only entertainment, right? It's unrealistic to expect leftist entertainers to be held to the same standard as anyone else. It's only entertainment, right?
Craig... "You could, but you didn't. Enough said."
Again, YOU HAVE NO CALLED OUT Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh for their nonsense, not on your blog. Does that mean you endorse their racism and lies?
You have a double standard and it shows.
You mostly ignore or downplay the leader of the free world when he lies daily and is corrupt as hell, and you don't say ANYTHING about the Limbaughs or Nugents of the Right.
But you want to criticize me for not pointing out some family member of a famous entertainer...?
Be consistent. By YOUR measure, then, are you going to criticize yourself for not taking on right leaning entertainers for their nonsense, racism or lies?
You can't have it both ways.
Lest you say you're not aware of Nugent's nonsense...
https://dems.ag/racist-ted-nugent-tom-leonard
Not that I'm criticizing you for not being aware of an entertainer's racism, even his repeated racism for which I don't believe he's apologized. I'm more concerned about the big fish like Trump and his gang of corrupt perverts.
"Again, YOU HAVE NO CALLED OUT Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh for their nonsense, not on your blog. Does that mean you endorse their racism and lies?"
So, instead of demonstrating that you are willing to do what you say you would do, you pull some random non specific, outsourced, unquoted, allegations of racism on the part of two entertainers. Apparently you think you can have it both ways, that you can ignore the racism of entertainers on the left because they're "only entertainers" and you don't pay attention to the culture you live in.
"You mostly ignore or downplay the leader of the free world when he lies daily and is corrupt as hell, and you don't say ANYTHING about the Limbaughs or Nugents of the Right."
Just more unproven claims. As far as Nugent, I think he's a pretty good guitar player, and I liked some of his music when I was younger. But, I haven't paid any attention to him in years. So sure, I have no problem with being critical of Nugent for racism. None at all. Interestingly, the link you provided did not contain even one actual quote (in context) of Nugent actually saying anything racist. So, if you provide me with one specific, in context, quote (with a link), of Nugent saying something racist, I'll gladly, specifically, unequivocally condemn it.
As for Rush, once again, you're full of vague, unsubstantiated, claims but no actual in context, quotes as proof. The tricky thing about Rush, is that much of his schtick is saying outrageous things, or illustrating absurdity by being absurd, that the context is important when assessing what he's said.
I'll note a few facts.
1. I haven't listened to Rush in years. While I agree in principle with many of his positions, I found his act to be tiresome, and I've found that political talk radio is simply corrosive to my attitude.
2. Rush's second in command is actually a black gentleman, I find it hard to believe that a black man would work for a racist for decades.
3. Rush has been, historically, very supportive of black conservatives both in politics and in radio. That doesn't seem to be consistent with someone who is a racist.
4. Keep in mind that many people on the left, wished Rush as slow. painful, death when he announced that he had cancer. Many on the left also engaged in personal attacks on him when he announced that he was going to rehab for prescription drug abuse. I generally don't respect those who use personal tragedy or struggle to score political points.
You are right that I am unlikely to get to excited about your claims of racism, when you can't actually point to one instance of actual racism between the two of them. Not one specific, in context, quote.
But it's an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you still haven't specifically condemned Cyrus (instead you've made excuses for her), nor have you condemned Styles for his monkeyshines.
Just like you ignored Omar's antisemitism (and Hillary's for that matter), among other leftists.
Clearly you could care less about racism, unless it helps you make a political point. You're so obsessed over a lame duck president flailing away. All "sound and fury, signifying nothing". (or whatever the exact quote is)
FYI, your link which didn't contain any actual in context, sourced, quotes or any other evidence of actual racism, is clearly from a partisan organization.
Also your keep referring to Styles. What did he say that was racist? I don't see anything. And again, it would be easier to take your concern about Racism from entertainers seriously if you called it out in the president and in right-wing entertainment. That you have to look to Liberal entertainers who appear to have said something one time and apologized for it does not make it appear that you care about racism, just that you're using racism for your own ends. You understand how it comes across that way?
"Also your keep referring to Styles. What did he say that was racist?"
Yes, I do, and you've kept ignoring that fact. I suspect because it's more difficult to write him of as a person of no influence. I should tell you to do your own damn research, because you'd probably learn something.
Styles and Cyrus were responding to stories about Candace Owens successfully getting one of the "fact checking" groups to acknowledge that they had labeled something of hers wrong. After much pressure, they admitted they shouldn't have done so and retracted. Styles responded to this news by posting a picture of himself eating a banana and Cyrus responded with her "nappy ass hoe" comment. This hypocrisy was pointed out by numerous commentators on the right, roundly ignored by the left, and Cyrus, at least< tired to claim stupidity.
The reality is that you and many like you ignore racism on the left, jump on manufactured racist incidents, and jump on those on the right for things that were said decades ago. It's just one more example of your double standard, and your unwillingness to specifically, directly, and unequivocally call out the same (or worse) behaviors on the left that you do on the right.
"That you have to look to Liberal entertainers who appear to have said something one time and apologized for it does not make it appear that you care about racism, just that you're using racism for your own ends. You understand how it comes across that way?"
And you would be wrong. I'm not looking at a liberal entertainer who's too stupid (in this PC culture) to know that it's wrong to call a black woman a "nappy ass hoe". I'm pointing out the reality that she's one in a long line of liberal entertainers, politicians, and businessmen, who get away with all sorts of racist, antisemitic, misogynist, vile crap because people like you don't care. As long as they donate millions to Biden, advocate for unrestricted abortion, and post the "right" crap on their social media, y'all will give them a pass on all sorts of crap.
No one is surprised that liberals are racist, antisemitic, etc, we're all surprised that folks like you are so quiet about it, even when it's pointed out.
I understand that virtually everything I do is going to com across in the way that best suits your narrative, regardless of the reality. I just try to point out the reality, and otherwise ignore your hunches, guesses, and bias driven prejudices.
One last example. Ever since the "15 days to flatten the curve" turned into 100 more days in 2021, we've seen a steady stream of DFL politicians who have violated their own lock down orders, and somehow gotten a free pass from y'all on the left. We've seen riots and protests with thousands of unmasked screaming people (many minorities who are much harder hit by Covid), with nothing but praise from the left, while we see observant Jews being arrested in their homes for gathering 10-15 people to worship. There is an obvious sense that those on the left (especially those who are privileged) have one set of rules for themselves, and one for everyone else. This is just a hyper focused example of that phenomenon.
Craig... " and you've kept ignoring that fact. I suspect because it's more difficult to write him of as a person of no influence..."
If you want people to review your information about people we don't know saying things we don't know what they said in a context we're not aware of, perhaps you'd be better off actually providing you know, actually links to the stories you're referencing.
Here's the thing: I pretty much (like you) don't write on my blog about entertainers. I don't even write much about state politicians or lower level politicians. That is NOT to say that I don't care if they engage in misdeeds or am giving them a pass on misdeeds... just that I don't try to write on every person who is misbehaving, right or left.
I'm consistent in that regards.
Likewise, I don't hold you accountable for being quiet on entertainers are lower level politicians. IF I want to talk about a specific instance, then I provide the information about that specific instance, links and stuff.
That I'm "silent" about most people's misdeeds is not a sign of giving them a pass or not caring, any more than when you're silent about most people's misdeeds.
On the other hand, the president of the US is not just "most people." So, I do talk about presidents and their behaviors, because they are more impactful and more out there. I ESPECIALLY do this when the president is engaged in misdeeds and is unapologetic about it.
I find this to be rational.
Craig... "post the "right" crap on their social media, y'all will give them a pass on all sorts of crap."
I'm sorry if you fail to understand and I was not clear enough. Clearly what I mean is that I don't comment on every misdeed in the world. On my blog I tend to focus on presidential and big National politics. I don't comment on every single Misty, anymore than you do. But the fact that neither of us comments on every misdeed is not the same as saying we're giving it a pass. Right? Or are you going to hold yourself to your own standard?
I'm saying, let's find common ground and not go the hypocritical route. You can either condemn yourself as giving a pass to racist comments on the part of people because you haven't commented on everybody, or you can recognize that of course we don't comment on every misdeed and that's not the same as giving it a pass.
" If you think that hectoring those of us who don't 100% agree with you on this is valuable, then you can do so at your blog."
Actually, I've already done this to some extent here. And though it was directed more toward what's been said to me by Stan and David, it's the pretty much the same angle you've taken, which is, sadly, pretending I'm doing something wrong when I'm merely seeking clarity and demonstrating the interest in your position you claim I don't possess.
The "value" is in determining why you guys have ignored what I believe is the clearly superior choice (to whatever extent any of you have---note I have not demanded you admit how you voted for president, as it's not necessary to the point, which you guys either can't grasp or are working to avoid), and, should it come to that, understand why I'm wrong. Nothing...not a thing...you guys have said comes close to making that case other than asserting by your rejection of Trump that I am indeed wrong.
The default "God's in control" response fails, as I've stated earlier. It's as if you allow a child to play in the street and insist it is God's will whether or not the kid survives, yet ignore your obligation to intercede in the child's desire to play in the street. We can totally abdicate from our responsibilities or we can assess the situation and make a decision to act. The "God's in control" angle is not a question. in such choices that lie before us. It's the reality after the choices are made. It's not an excuse or rationalization for acting poorly or not acting at all. Pretending the evidence of the track records of both Trump and Biden didn't make Trump the necessary choice, to say nothing of being the superior choice, demands the explanation none of you guys have provided as yet.
I get you three believe you are acting in good faith. I don't doubt it for a second. That, too, is a given in my mind. The interest I have, which you insist I don't, is an explanation. Tweets, bloviating, past sexual indiscretions...this stuff simply doesn't outweigh the stated goals of the moron Biden. His plans are unfolding even now and they were not hidden previously despite his hiding in the basement saying nothing.
You want to insist the choice was simply between two old dudes who "lie"? How absurdly superficial!
One more thing: I don't know if I've said anything about the Senate in any of these fruitless quests for insights into your thinking and that of Stan and David. (Evidently I'm to simply accept you have good reasons and am in no way entitled to hear what they are) The fact is that I've donated to the campaigns of both Perdue and Loeffler fully aware of just how important a stopgap their success is for America should Trump's every effort at thwarting the theft of this election fail. And I most certainly am planning for even that effort failing. I simply need to know why otherwise intelligent people chose not to fight against allowing us to be in this situation, just because Trump talks funny. I guess that'll never happen.
"But much of the vitriol from the left has been a result of the outrageous, beyond the pale attacks on over half the citizenry, the media, Democrats... on the part of trump. We have reacted strongly to Trump because Trump is awful."
No. You've reacted strongly because YOU'RE awful. Trump's simply weird. You chose the truly evil Hillary and in your corruption have reacted with a vast national tantrum because she lost and Trump won. Now you're backing the inept and 47 year waste of time Biden and pretending we'll be better off. Not gonna find common ground with stupidity like that coming from the likes of you.
"We disagree with the daily over the top lies and attacks."
In fours years, you've not come up with even one "lie" of any significance...not one lie that can compete with the lies that are part of your party's platform...not one lie that compares to anything told by Obama, Clinton and of course the buffoon Biden. Not one.
As to attacks, Trump's have been well directed attacks on those who have attacked him, and more importantly, this country. The attacks on Trump have been lies for the most part, and the better "attacks" on him...the legitimate concerns about him...have come from those who support him the most, because we don't lie like you do. We don't focus on nonsense like you and other anti-Trumpers do. But YOUR dishonesty is far worse for the nation than any exaggeration, any hyperbolic self-promotion that's come out of Trump's mouth. He actually cares about all Americans. You just pretend to. Your party is even worse. Common ground? You're a joke.
"I'm consistent in that regards."
Yes, consistently silent, and consistently failing to apply your standards evenhandedly.
"Likewise, I don't hold you accountable for being quiet on entertainers are lower level politicians. IF I want to talk about a specific instance, then I provide the information about that specific instance, links and stuff."
I realize that you think that this somehow makes you superior or something, when in reality it's simply a different philosophy of blogging. On occasion, I will post something with enough details for people to find the story if they are interested. If people are intrigued, they'll check it out. If they aren't interested by the post, they won't. Usually when I do those posts, it's a story that is pretty widely reported or talked about on social media and easy to find. In other cases, I choose to provide, more information. It's simply a choice that I make, because I can. The fact that doing a little research is so problematic to you isn't really something that I think about. I also assumed that you weren't someone who is so ignorant of popular culture.
"That I'm "silent" about most people's misdeeds is not a sign of giving them a pass or not caring, any more than when you're silent about most people's misdeeds."
I'm sure you think this is true, and I'm sure you are sincere about that. Unfortunately, your silence on any misdeeds from the left, as well as your tendency to excuse those misdeeds when they are pointed out, makes the conclusion that you give your folx a pass a reasonable conclusion.
"On the other hand, the president of the US is not just "most people.""
Neither are influencers who have 35 million+ followers or members of families who've been in the public eye for decades. It's cute that you think that POTUS is more relevant for young people than social media influencers. It's interesting that you seem to have this disdain for popular culture, and the effects it has on people.
"So, I do talk about presidents and their behaviors, because they are more impactful and more out there. I ESPECIALLY do this when the president is engaged in misdeeds and is unapologetic about it."
To be accurate, you disproportionately (both in volume, and in level of vitriol) talk about presidents you oppose, than presidents you support and don't seem to apply the same standards to both sides.
"I find this to be rational."
Who cares what you find rational. Is this some sort of attempt at setting an objective standard based on your preferences? Stupid and self centered.
"But the fact that neither of us comments on every misdeed is not the same as saying we're giving it a pass. Right? Or are you going to hold yourself to your own standard?"
1. You literally asked a virtually identical question in the previous comment, yet somehow think it's rational to ask virtually the same question before I have a chance to answer.
2. I tend to comment on a wider variety of misdeeds than you, I tend to comment on misdeeds on "my side" more than you, and I tend to comment specifically and pointedly on misdeeds when they are brought up by someone else. Provided, that those misdeeds are supported by actual, specific, evidence, and not just vague, generalities without any in context quotes etc.
3. My standard is that I'm much more likely to comment on hypocrisy on the left (and moral failures on the right), because it's interesting to see how creative the left can get in excusing it's own for all sorts of things. In this current climate where those on the left tend to "shame" all sorts of things, when it's convenient, it's amusing to point out the double standard.
4. Not only is it amusing on a big picture level, it's amusing when you excuse, or minimize, or ignore the sorts of things you rail about in others.
5. You say that you only talk about Presidents and the like, yet you frequently talk about topics like "racism" or "honesty". Are you really suggesting that your disdain for "racism" and "dishonesty" only extends to presidents and people of that stature?
"I'm saying, let's find common ground and not go the hypocritical route."
I love that your idea of "common ground" is to tell me exactly what I must do and how I must act, with no mention of yourself. If that's common ground with you, then I'll pass.
I'm curious though, do cabinet level government officials rise to the level where you will scrutinize their behavior and criticize them, or are they not important enough?
Art,
Don't you love Dan's use of the "royal we" when he tries to speak for others? It's clearly either hubris, or an appeal to numbers logical fallacy.
"Actually, I've already done this to some extent here."
I realize this, and I'm asking you to keep this discussion there for any who want to participate. If no one wants to participate, maybe that is a clue.
"The "value" is in determining why you guys have ignored what I believe is the clearly superior choice..."
1. Then you're assuming multiple things not in evidence.
2. "Superior choice" is a subjective term, regardless of what you might think.
"The default "God's in control" response fails,"
1. It's not a default.
2. Since God literally IS in control, the position is more a simple statement of reality, than a proposition that "fails".
3. The notion that it "fails" is again subjective, and ignores virtually the entire NT.
" The interest I have, which you insist I don't, is an explanation."
You have multiple explanations, you just don't like them because you subjectively prioritize some things over others. I've mentioned this before, but two objectively conservative reasons to not vote for Trump are his massive increases in spending (before COVID) tied to his failure to even attempt to balance the budget, and the fact that in all of his non COVID spending spree he proposed absolutely no infrastructure spending. But, I've mentioned those previously. Can you argue that Biden would be worse? Sure, but it all depends on who controls the senate, and on whether of not folks who sound like you can convince the people in GA to hand over control of the senate to the DFL.
"You want to insist the choice was simply between two old dudes who "lie"? How absurdly superficial!"
More sarcastic than superficial. But the reality is that the two crappy choices we had were between two old, white, guys with a decades long history of lying.
"Evidently I'm to simply accept you have good reasons and am in no way entitled to hear what they are"
Both Stan and I have given you multiple explanations, for you to pretend like we haven't is simply Dan-like.
" I simply need to know why otherwise intelligent people chose not to fight against allowing us to be in this situation, just because Trump talks funny. I guess that'll never happen."
No, you don't "need" to know. The reality is that you (and Dan) make assumptions about others actions based on silence. Just like you use a "pen name" to protect your privacy, I choose not to expose every detail of my personal and political life in public. The reality, is that there are people who sound just like you encouraging voters to boycott the GA senate race.
The reality is that I just don't put as much faith in politics and political solutions as you or Dan. I'm not saying one perspective is better than the other, just pointing out how things appear. I 100% agree that we need to fix any problems we have with election security, I don't agree that incoherent ranting on social media is the best way to accomplish that goal.
But, seriously, this is officially a topic that I'm done with at my blog. It's off the topic of this post, it's pointless, and it's a waste of my limited time.
Craig... ""I'm consistent in that regards."
Yes, consistently silent, and consistently failing to apply your standards evenhandedly."
Of course, this is just false. I have NEVER (I don't think) talked about conservative entertainment celebrities having racist, sexist or otherwise bad views AND I have not talked about liberal entertainment celebrities and their negative views. That is precisely evenhanded.
Look, here's a chance for finding common ground:
NEITHER of us regularly comments on the misdeeds of all people. Right?
So, NEITHER of us thinks that failing to mention a given misdeed of one person - especially a person they don't even know! - is in and of itself wrong. Right?
But it's different when we're talking about a president or someone very much in the limelight and in leadership. Right?
IF we had a Democratic president who told false claims multiple times a day throughout his administration, you can bet I'd be calling it out. And I SHOULD be calling it out as wrong. We all should. That's just not acceptable.
And the same is true for a GOP president, we should all be calling out daily false claims - especially stupidly false claims - as wrong and saying that these sorts of lies are not acceptable.
I can commit to doing that moving forward. Can you admit that you should have been calling out Trump's daily false claims as unacceptable?
Craig... "2. I tend to comment on a wider variety of misdeeds than you, I tend to comment on misdeeds on "my side" more than you, and I tend to comment specifically and pointedly on misdeeds when they are brought up by someone else."
I would have to believe that this is probably not factual, although I don't know how we could demonstrate it one way or the other. Just how it seems from here.
I would frame it as you tend to create false equivalencies... Like if you were to say, "Joe Biden has lied and Trump has lied and I've called them both out on it..." Well, yes, both men have lied, but there is a chasm of difference between the sheer volume and depth of the false claims made between the two men.
If you were to say, "I have called out both men for their lies..." it is a way of downplaying the seriousness or depths of depravity and irrationality of Trump's lies.
"Of course, this is just false."
Good lord, it's freaking hyperbole. Although the fact that you have to qualify your silence on racism in the public eye makes me think I might have hit closer to home than I thought.
Oh goody! Another example of finding "common ground" by doing exactly what Dan demands.
"NEITHER of us regularly comments on the misdeeds of all people. Right?"
So what.
"So, NEITHER of us thinks that failing to mention a given misdeed of one person - especially a person they don't even know! - is in and of itself wrong. Right?"
If you have to twist my position to reach "common ground", it doesn't seem like "common ground". I'm pointing out that even when you are confronted with things like racism on the part of your political tribe, you ignore it as long as possible, then revert to equivocal, unspecific, vague, excuses.
"But it's different when we're talking about a president or someone very much in the limelight and in leadership. Right?"
Why, because you say that it is? In this case we are literally talking about someone who is "very much in the limelight" and who is engaged in cultural leadership? Do you not understand the concept of an influencer, and the influece/leadership these people have?
"IF we had a Democratic president who told false claims multiple times a day throughout his administration, you can bet I'd be calling it out."
No i can't. How much time have you spent calling out Biden's history of lies and plagiarism and his lies during the campaign?
"And the same is true for a GOP president, we should all be calling out daily false claims"
By what standard are we obligated to call out any and all false claims "daily"? If you can claim that you're bland, vague, mildly negative response to something absolves you from ever dealing with that again, then my multiple criticisms of Trump and his aversion to the truth still stand.
"I can commit to doing that moving forward. Can you admit that you should have been calling out Trump's daily false claims as unacceptable?"
Nope. I've consistently and repeatedly criticized Trump for his lying, I see no reason why I should repeat myself in a conviction I've held for years just to satisfy you.
Craig... " I'm pointing out that even when you are confronted with things like racism on the part of your political tribe, you ignore it as long as possible, then revert to equivocal, unspecific, vague, excuses. "
Then, in an effort to find common ground, LISTEN to what I'm actually saying and seek to understand, rather than misrepresent (as you are doing).
I don't comment - ever - on things I don't know anything about or people I don't know. That may sound strange to you, but it's just reasonable. Right? I assume you also don't comment about people you don't know, right?
When someone says, "But... but... but a LIBERAL person said something bad, they said 'nappy ass hoe...'," and yet, I STILL don't know anything about it, I still don't comment based on the say so of one person.
But also understand this: ANY TIME ANY ONE says anything that is racist or racially divisive, I don't think it's a good thing. Of course, I don't. Why would I? And it doesn't matter if it's a liberal or a conservative, I just don't think it's a good thing, period. The same is true if ANYONE says, "I just grab them by the pussy..." and jokes about sexual assault, that is not a good thing and you can know that I'll ALWAYS think it's not a good thing. And if it's a person with power and privilege saying it, that's especially true. And if they're someone who has a history of saying sexist, misogynist, oppressive things, then it's especially true. Doesn't matter if it's a liberal or a conservative.
Because I'm consistent, you can know I'd be opposed to such behavior. I'll go further: I would say that ANY man who would say something like that and have a history of other oppressive words and actions, I would not vote for such a deviant/predator and would actively act to stop him from getting elected to office. Doesn't matter if they were liberal or conservative. I'd work against such a person because I'm consistent.
Now, having said all that, the less information I have about an individual and set of circumstances, the less likely I am to make a sweeping accusation.
Is this Cyrus person someone with mental illness? Or are they just a privileged adult-child who's been used to getting things her way? If the former, I'm more likely to be patient with bad words. If the latter, I'd be less patient. Are they 20 or 60? Was it a one time thing or a pattern of behavior? Are they otherwise a good human being or a bully or predator?
Because circumstances and situations may make a difference, the less I know, the less likely I'm to make a sweeping accusation.
Again, I think this is reasonable, don't you?
And so, there is a chasm of difference between a 20 year old I'd never heard of who is a sibling of a famous entertainer in a one time situation that I know very little about and an old privileged white guy who has a well established history of corruption, lies, perversions, indecencies and general atrocious behavior and words.
If Biden truly sniffed a woman's hair one time while hugging her, that is weird/creepy as hell.
BUT, there's a chasm of difference between that and a known pervert/predator who moves from woman to woman who laughs and boasts about being able to sexually assault women and get away with it because of his privilege.
I don't chastise Trump the way I do because ONE TIME he was caught in saying something that is racist-sounding. I chastise him because of the conglomeration of behaviors and words and his own defense of such perversions and corruptions.
I think this is rational.
Do you disagree, or is this something we can find common ground on?
"I can commit to doing that moving forward. Can you admit that you should have been calling out Trump's daily false claims as unacceptable?"
Nope. I've consistently and repeatedly criticized Trump for his lying, I see no reason why I should repeat myself in a conviction I've held for years just to satisfy you.
Not to satisfy me. In an effort to find common ground. YOU ASKED me to speak to this one time incident of a person I didn't know and, after reading a bit about it, I did condemn the behavior (but not when I didn't know about it, because I never comment on things I don't know about!). EVEN THOUGH, it is a safe and rock solid assumption that I am ALWAYS opposed to racist words and behaviors because it's my value system, I had no problem saying it was wrong.
So, in an effort to build upon some common ground, can you say that Trump's daily false claims are just beyond the pale unacceptable?
I can say that in a heartbeat about Biden, if he started doing that. Can you say the same thing about Trump's pattern of behavior?
How are we going to build common ground if you can't agree to something that you appear to agree with?
By what standard are we obligated to call out any and all false claims "daily"?
I don't know what you mean. There is not a president who has made multiple false claims (nearly) every day, every week, every month for the years that he's in office. From stupid false claims about misrepresenting his crowd size to dangerous claims like calling the media "Fake news" or saying that they are the enemy of the people or that he won and that there's a conspiracy to steal the election... this is just unprecedented in US history.
If Biden goes into office on Day One and says, "We had the largest crowd ever at my inauguration..." that's one thing. If he is called on it (and it's false) and he insists he's factually right and the media is lying, THAT is something different. IF he then goes on to say that the media is fake news and an enemy of the people, that's yet another level of lie. The deeper, more dangerous the lies, the more strongly we need to call it wrong. IF Biden develops a pattern of making false claims, every day for the first month in the office, then it's time (past time) to start talking about removing him as unfit.
Such behavior can not be tolerated, not as a pattern, not with no repentance when caught in a false claim.
I would be fighting to have Biden removed from office if he made one false claim every day for the first month of his presidency. Would we be able to find common ground there?
If so, can we find common ground in saying that Trump should have been more strongly opposed for his unending false claims? His attacks on the media?
When will either of you...ANY of you who continues to talk about "Trump lies"...provide an example of a "Trump lie" that should be of any concern? I've been asking for the last four years. Just one, and then explain why it freaking matters compared to any of the many lies from the left, the Democratic party, Obama, Biden, Clinton, whomever and Dan Trabue.
Art,
Trump promised to "eliminate the deficit" during his 2016 campaign. He then, sort of, walked back that promise by promising that he'd spend on infrastructure.
That's at least one big lie.
"I don't comment - ever - on things I don't know anything about or people I don't know. That may sound strange to you, but it's just reasonable. Right? I assume you also don't comment about people you don't know, right?"
Yet you've commented extensively on gun control, a subject you've admitted that you're ignorant on. I'll say this, when people directly confront me with someone they think is "on my side" who's done something wrong, I do the research to find out what they're talking about. I don't ignore it, I don't whine to be spoon fed information, I go look it up. But if that's your excuse for ignoring famous liberal racists, that's cool. Just admit it.
"But also understand this: ANY TIME ANY ONE says anything that is racist or racially divisive, I don't think it's a good thing."
1. Ohhhhhhh, how harsh. When a lib says something racist "it's not a good thing", when a conservative does it's "evil" or "diabolical".
2. I keep pointing out the obvious double standard where you expect to be able to make a blanket, sweeping, generalized, vague, "It's not a good thing" statement and expect it to stand in perpetuity. Yet, I do the same thing and you demand that I denounce the same people "every day". Again with the double standard.
3. If you're serious about "common ground" you can start with the following.
a) Acknowledge that I have been consistently critical of Trump for his character flaws, his lying, and his adultery, among other things. Then agree that you will stop this incessant demand that I repeat myself.
b) Acknowledge that Biden has a decades long, well documented track record of both telling lies/plagiarizing, as well as inappropriate behavior towards women, and that you denounce those traits that he's displayed for decades.
"Again, I think this is reasonable, don't you?"
Given your bizarre definition of reasonable, I doubt it.
"Do you disagree, or is this something we can find common ground on?"
When your idea of "common ground" is that I must agree with a bunch of pronouncements, statements, claims, or demands, you've made, the of course not.
"Not to satisfy me."
If not you, the who?
"In an effort to find common ground."
If not you, then who?
"EVEN THOUGH, it is a safe and rock solid assumption that I am ALWAYS opposed to racist words and behaviors because it's my value system, I had no problem saying it was wrong."
Yet, even though the above statement applies to me, you demand something of me you're not wiling to demand of yourself. Of course you also had no problem coming up with discuses to explain why it really wasn't that bad, and really just repeated the same bland, vague, general, "it's not a good thing", crap you always pull out when a leftist transgresses your moral code.
"So, in an effort to build upon some common ground, can you say that Trump's daily false claims are just beyond the pale unacceptable?"
I've already said this multiple times, yet you demand more. Why the double standard?
"I can say that in a heartbeat about Biden, if he started doing that. Can you say the same thing about Trump's pattern of behavior?"
Then why have you remained silent on Biden's decades long pattern of lies, plagiarism, and inappropriate behavior toward women and female children? I've been critical of this behavior of Trump's since 2015, but you still pretend that Biden hasn't left a decades long swath of lies, plagiarism, and inappropriate behavior behind him.
"How are we going to build common ground if you can't agree to something that you appear to agree with?"
Do you realize how incoherent the above sentence is? On some level you know that I've been criticizing Trump since 2015, yet you continue to pretend otherwise so that you can stuff me into your preconceived little box and impose your narrative.
If you can't acknowledge the truth, then why would I want "common ground" with someone who's going to continually lie about me, because lies are bad? Or some convoluted bullshit.
"I don't know what you mean."
You said that I must call out Trump daily, I'm asking when this became the objective standard.
"this is just unprecedented in US history."
This could be because you are deficient in US history. But who cares, it's just you repeating the same old bullshit ad nauseum.
"IF Biden develops a pattern of making false claims, every day for the first month in the office, then it's time (past time) to start talking about removing him as unfit."
So, you're choosing to ignore the decades long pattern of lies and plagiarism, and give him a clean slate. Impressive, I criticized Trump for his behavior before he was POTUS.
"Such behavior can not be tolerated, not as a pattern, not with no repentance when caught in a false claim."
Yet, you voted for a man who has a decades long history of just such a pattern...
"I would be fighting to have Biden removed from office if he made one false claim every day for the first month of his presidency. Would we be able to find common ground there?"
Why not just have elected someone who doesn't have a history of lies, false claims, and plagiarism that spans decades? Why didn't you work to remove Clinton from office after he was convicted of perjury (lying under oath)? Surely lying under oath, is more serious than lying about a number, isn't it? With all these millions of multiple truths floating around, how do you know a lie from someone's truth?
"If so, can we find common ground in saying that Trump should have been more strongly opposed for his unending false claims? His attacks on the media?"
You mean like I have been since 2015? Or that I must jump through some new hoop or bend to your demands to have you allow me into this "common ground"?
Then why have you remained silent on Biden's decades long pattern of lies, plagiarism, and inappropriate behavior toward women and female children?
Do you have data to support the suggestion that Biden has told multiple lies each and every day for the last year, for instance? Or even the last month?
Present that and you will begin to have something to talk about.
The thing is, we ALL make false claims... usually in the form of misspeaking or even twisting things in a more favorable way (to our view). Usually, normal people when confronted with these sorts of lies can and do clarify what they mean.
Normally, it doesn't happen every single day, multiple times a day. THAT is the problem with Trump that differentiates him from all the other presidents.
Do you understand that difference? That isn't a condescending question or a leading question. I think it is exceedingly obvious that there is a chasm of a difference between Trump's style of lying and EVERY other president and politician who has told lies, at least in our nation in our lifetimes. Do you not see this as obvious?
Yet, you voted for a man who has a decades long history of just such a pattern...
No. This is not factual. IF you can support that Biden has told lies every day multiple times a day, for years, support that claim. I can do that for Trump. And that is the difference.
Craig... "Why not just have elected someone who doesn't have a history of lies, false claims, and plagiarism that spans decades?"
All people make false claims. If we have to have someone who has told NO lies, we wouldn't be able to vote for anyone.
I can live with imperfect people. I can't live with depraved people. Biden is imperfect. Trump is corrupt, depraved, perverted, amoral and immoral. There is a distinct difference.
Do you not see that difference?
How?
Craig... "Why didn't you work to remove Clinton from office after he was convicted of perjury (lying under oath)? "
I did. Boom.
I did. Period. I didn't vote for Clinton because he seemed too untrustworthy and because he had at least three women making unsavory (if unverifiable) allegations against him. And when he perjured himself, I called for him to step down.
I did what I could. I wrote letters, I talked with progressive colleagues, I wrote our representatives.
AND I did that when Clinton's lies measured, for instance, 100. Trump's lies, on the other hand, measured in thousands, in the tens of thousands.
Did you do ANY of that for Trump?
Craig... ""If so, can we find common ground in saying that Trump should have been more strongly opposed for his unending false claims? His attacks on the media?"
You mean like I have been since 2015? Or that I must jump through some new hoop or bend to your demands to have you allow me into this "common ground"?"
I mean like I don't recall EVER seeing you strongly condemn Trump, NOT as merely less than perfect, but as utterly corrupt and unfit for office. I don't recall you EVER condemning for his deviant attacks on the free press. I don't recall you EVER denouncing his lies about the election and the traitorous attempts to overthrow the election with strong language.
I'm not looking for you to say, "I really wish he'd be more careful about his language."
I'm looking for you to say, "Daily lies the way that Trump engaged in are NOT acceptable... such a degree of immorality and amorality is NOT acceptable in the WH. He needs to step down and, if not step down, be removed from the office. This behavior is NOT acceptable. YOU Conservatives who support him, you need to stop. This is undermining our nation and undermining conservatism."
Trump is strongly corrupt and dangerously unfit for office, I want to see language that reflects indignation and outrage, not mild displeasure.
Re: "Like I have been since 2015..."
I just spent a bit of time reviewing your 2016 comments about Trump. I saw a LOT of defending the pervert, a LOT of minimizing his behaviors, and I saw you say of him the stinging rebuke... "Trump is still bumbling."
I don't see much criticism of his more problematic behaviors and nothing in measure to the degree of filth and corruption of the man.
Why not, instead of me going through and trying to find SOME place where you actually strong denounce him or milquetoastedly saying that you don't see how you could vote for either candidate... why NOT just say here and now, "YES, I clearly denounce his utterly contemptible dishonesty and corruption. These daily lies from Trump are an embarrassment to our nation and to the GOP, who elected a thoroughly dishonest man. This degree of dishonesty and corruption is just not matched in at least recent history..."? Or words to that affect?
Take a stand and join in on some common ground. If you believe it, why not say it?
I think the reason is that you still don't really think he's all that bad... maybe slightly worse than Democrats who you couldn't vote for, but comparable to them... And he's just not.
"That's at least one big lie."
That's called "a promise unfulfilled"...not "a lie". Any others?
Craig... "Surely lying under oath, is more serious than lying about a number, isn't it?"
As noted, I DID call for him to step down and tried to rally the Democrats behind my reasoning. But when you say "lie about a number..." What are you talking about? Trump's lies about his crowd? That is inconsequential. His attacks on the free press, the lies about the media being an enemy of the people and his pogrom attacks on the media, that is helluva lot more serious and deadly and evil than lying about an affair.
Do you disagree? Or are you not seeing how Trump lied with his relentless attacks on the heroes in our free press?
Okay, then his lies about "winning the election" and his lies about the election "being stolen..." THOSE are helluva lot more serious than any of Clinton's stupid personal lies.
Craig... "With all these millions of multiple truths floating around, how do you know a lie from someone's truth?"
So, in an attempt to come together, to find some unity, why not begin by representing our mutual positions correctly?
There ARE millions of Truths out there. It's true that my car is blue. It's true that love is good. It's true that lies are bad. It's true that rape is awful. It's true that laughing about sexual assault is awful.
There are six truths right there. Do you disagree that there are multiple truths out there, or can we find common ground with that notion?
"From stupid false claims about misrepresenting his crowd size to dangerous claims like calling the media "Fake news" or saying that they are the enemy of the people or that he won and that there's a conspiracy to steal the election... this is just unprecedented in US history."
The media has indeed been the enemy of the people. When they choose to report only that which they believe will reflect badly on the president they didn't want, that makes them the enemy of the people, because it's no better than lying. They're intending to highlight whatever they believe will reflect badly on Trump while ignoring everything that is far worse about those they would prefer. As a result, we learned that 17% of those who voted for Biden would not have if they had heard about his son's laptop and all that was verified by Tony Bobulinski...if they had heard about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations...and other such stories about Biden.
The fact that there was widespread fraud in this election is beyond doubt. That there's been trouble bringing the evidence to light does not mean there is no evidence. Like Dan, some left-leaning judges have refused to even look at the complaints. Other Republican appointed judges have also failed to do their duty in the face of these serious and plentiful allegations. There's nothing at all false about it. The only question is whether there was enough to alter the results. Frankly, the Pennsylvania case is enough to deny certification given the blatant disregard for the demands of the state's constitution regarding changing election laws and procedures.
Dan's a liar of a kind Trump's never been. Such is the case with any typical lefty just on the fact that they promote so much that is based on lies. And unlike Trump, the lies of the left are destructive to the nation. I'm done with it all.
On some level you know that I've been criticizing Trump since 2015
Yes, on a very superficial, not quite getting it level. Never at the level his perversions deserved. I don't believe you've ever said, "The way that he lies hundreds/thousands of times each year is NOT acceptable..."
Have you?
Have you ever said that, "I'll never vote for a deviant pervert who can laugh about grabbing women by the crotch and get away with it because of his wealth and privilege... that is just an evil too far gone!"? You always seem to hedge your criticism by suggesting he's awful... like the Democrats are... or otherwise minimize the unique level of unfitness the man represents.
Am I wrong?
By the way, it seems I neglected to add this objection: I have NEVER, in any way, suggested, hinted or advocated for any Georgian to disregard the upcoming run-off election. NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...about any comment I've heretofore made can possibly be used to assert such a nonsensical suggestion. In fact, I've donated some righteous bucks to the campaigns of both Perdue and Loeffler. That election is the stopgap against the evil of the Democrats' intentions should Trump fail to prevent the Dems from overturning this election.
If not you, then who?
The world. The nation. We are two fellow citizens who have strong disagreements. But, if you and I can begin to find some common ground, agree on some basic realities, then we're showing that it can be done.
Why not do so?
Trump regularly attacked the media (meaning any media, up to and including Fox, who disagreed with him or made a point that he didn't like) as fake news. That is a pernicious and stupidly and overtly false claim.
Can we find some common ground on that? Then say so.
The president should not make such a sweeping stupidly false claims.
Can we agree? Then say so.
The president routinely has labeled the media as an enemy of the people. That is a pernicious stupidly overtly false claim.
Agreed? Then say so.
The importance of saying so is clarity. Usually, when you make some very vague reference to your mild disagreements with Trump, they have been vague and mild, from where I stand.
If you DO agree with the ex-president that the media is an enemy of the people, then say THAT. I'm not trying to force you into agreeing with me. I'm stating what is an obviously factual point in the real world and seeing if you agree.
Same for these stupidly and dangerously false claims that the election was rigged or stolen. These are dangerous and cancerous to a Free Republic.
Can you agree with that? Then say so.
Same for this latest attempts to just dismiss the votes in states where the president and some GOP types don't like the results of the vote. This is fundamentally un-American and insidious. It's wrong.
Can you say so? Then say so.
It's important to finding common ground to hear you agree with these basic realities, not some milquetoast and watered down version of "agreement," NOT with what I'm saying, but that the president's words are "problematic..." or that you "wish he hadn't said it that way..." (quotation marks not meant to represent actual quotes from you, but general ideas about what it sounds like you're saying, just to be clear...).
There's a distinct difference between, "I wish he hadn't said it that way..." and "It's stupidly, dangerously false to say that the election was rigged and Trump won."
It's the difference between lightning and lightning bug.
That's why you should say it clearly and agree or clarify that you DON'T agree with the point I'm actually making. If you agree with some watered down version of what I'm saying, then that isn't agreement.
See?
Re: you're posting my comments about "if Biden suddenly turns into someone who makes false claims everyday..." as a separate post, as if there's some indication that he might suddenly start making false claims at the rate that Trump does:
First of all, there is zero indication that it's going to happen. He has no record of making false claims at the rate or at the scale that Trump has made them.
If Trump had made, on average, just one false claim a day, let's round that down to three hundred year. In 4 years he would have had 1,200 false claims. I see no indication that Biden has made anything like 1,200 false claims. If you have data to suggest that's the case, present it.
However, Trump has not made, on average, one false claim a day. As of July this year, the number was over 20,000 false, misleading or wildly unsupported claims in his four years!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/fact-checker-analysis-president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/%3famp=1
This is horrifying. This is unprecedented. This is dangerous. This is an indication of a fundamentally troubled mind, an indication of a wildly wholesale amorality.
You can't point to anything similar with Biden or Clinton or Obama or whoever. Not with Bush or even Reagan.
And so, secondly, when you put that up as a separate post, as if there's a remote possibility that it might happen, you are minimizing Trump's unique degree of unfitness. You're acting as if all politicians, or maybe all Democrat politicians, or at least Biden and Clinton and Obama, have made false claims at a rate that Trump has. Have indicated a stick mind in the manner that Trump has. This is why it's important to be precise as we seek to find common ground. If you're saying that Trump is in perfect and Biden isn't perfect, of course we agree. If you say that both Trump and Biden make false claims at a similar rate and scale, would you not agree. There is no common ground. Because that claim is not based upon reality. No one can point to 20000 false claims that Biden has made over the last for years. You can't point to anything similar to Trump's attacks on the media in Biden's words.
And I say that, not as someone who's especially familiar with Biden's history, but as someone who just recognizes that Trump's false claims, his irrationality, his amorality are historically unprecedented in our presidents. At least in our lifetime. By a long shot.
Can we find common ground on that?
"Do you have data to support the suggestion that Biden has told multiple lies each and every day for the last year, for instance? Or even the last month?"
nope, just a well documented, decades long, history of self serving lies, false claims, and plagiarism. Because a decades long pattern isn't nearly as bad as a year or a month.
"Do you understand that difference?"
I understand that you are making a distinction without a difference. Either lies are bad, or some lies are excusable according to your sliding scale. Of course, with "millions of truths", some lies are probably true.
"This is not factual."
Actually, the statement I made is 100% factual. You're attempt to move the goal posts to this absurd "every day" standard is just your attempt to justify the fact that you voted for a serial liar.
"All people make false claims."
So, you just choose which people and which false claims you'll get your panties wadded about. Shockingly, the only one's worth the vitriol and wadded panties are those you disagree with.
"Do you not see that difference?"
Sure I do. One is on your side of the political aisle, one isn't. One is more brash and out front than the other. It's a subjective question of degree, yet you act like it's objective.
"How?"
I just find them both to be historically bad candidates, and choose to be critical of things I disagree with, and supportive of things I agree with. It's the way non monomaniacal people do politics.
"I did. Boom."
A claim that you've made, but haven't proven.
"Did you do ANY of that for Trump?"
Yes.
"I mean like I don't recall EVER seeing you strongly condemn Trump,"
I don't really care what you "recall" or what your subjective opinions are. The fact that I can disagree without resorting to vitriol and expletives just indicates that I can exercise self control. The fact that you don't like something, doesn't deny the reality.
" mean like I don't recall EVER seeing you strongly condemn Trump, NOT as merely less than perfect, but as utterly corrupt and unfit for office. I don't recall you EVER condemning for his deviant attacks on the free press. I don't recall you EVER denouncing his lies about the election and the traitorous attempts to overthrow the election with strong language."
You're right. Because those are your opinions, they are your obsessions, they are the things you want to yell, and scream about. This notion that I must do what you demand that I do, is simply bizarre and the antithesis of "common ground". "Common ground" doesn't mean that I must adopt your monomaniacal obsessions verbatim.
"I'm looking for you to say, "Daily lies the way that Trump engaged in are NOT acceptable... such a degree of immorality and amorality is NOT acceptable in the WH. He needs to step down and, if not step down, be removed from the office. This behavior is NOT acceptable. YOU Conservatives who support him, you need to stop. This is undermining our nation and undermining conservatism. Trump is strongly corrupt and dangerously unfit for office, I want to see language that reflects indignation and outrage, not mild displeasure."
I don't care what you demand that I do. This obsession with forcing me into this rhetorical box based on your obsessive monomania, makes absolutely zero sense from any rational standpoint. Further, the notion that "common ground" is found only by me bending to your will, is disgusting. You have no standing to tell me what I "need: to do. This sort of petty tyrannical bullshit, is beyond childish. Grow the hell up.
"Take a stand and join in on some common ground. If you believe it, why not say it?"
I've said it, multiple times and multiple places in my own words. This attempt to bully me into your hellish version of "common ground" isn't going to work.
I don't think that you understand that your bullying, tyrannical, behavior on this small scale, is exactly what we've seen in Australia writ larger. This obsessive demand that I parrot exactly what you say, in exactly the way you approve of, over and over again, makes me think that you'd support government policy enforcing this same thing.
So, screw you, screw your bullshit "common ground". If "common ground" means conformity with your obsessions, hunches, and prejudices, then I will most definitely pass.
"So, in an attempt to come together, to find some unity, why not begin by representing our mutual positions correctly?"
"There ARE millions of Truths out there." Dan's version of his position.
"With all these millions of multiple truths floating around," Craig's version of Dan's position. I guess using that exact same words, isn't quite enough for Dan is his obsessive quest to accomplish some unknown goal.
I have no desire to "find unity" by acceding to your demands.
"What are you talking about?"
I'm pointing out that engaging in literal criminal lying, is worse that telling some number of "ordinary" lies.
Craig, communicating with you is quite difficult.
"There ARE millions of Truths out there." Dan's version of his position.
"With all these millions of multiple truths floating around," Craig's version of Dan's position. I guess using that exact same words, isn't quite enough for Dan is his obsessive quest to accomplish some unknown goal.
I'm noting the reality that we ALL recognize that there are millions of Truths, millions of True notions out there. My belief in this is not unique. YOU, TOO, believe in millions of Truths. Am I mistaken?
If I'm mistaken and you actually think there is only ONE truth out there: That the answer to "What color is Dan's car?" and "Is it wrong to rape women?" and "How old is the earth?" and "How far is it around the earth, in miles?" ...if you think there is ONE TRUE ANSWER to all these questions and the answer is Purple... then say so.
I don't think you think this but feel free to clarify so that we can move towards some common ground. I'm not demanding you agree with me, I'm stating reality and I imagine you recognize reality, but maybe I'm missing something. But rather than make it about me demanding you "accede to my demands," why not just clarify?
Communication is not always easy, but it doesn't have to be this hard.
I'm pointing out that engaging in literal criminal lying, is worse that telling some number of "ordinary" lies.
I think that is not a rational or moral conclusion to jump to. I think the circumstances always matter.
It WAS criminal AND wrong for Clinton to lie under oath about a consensual blowjob.
But do you really think that is worse than repeated lies about the election being "stolen" in an effort to overturn an election and the will of the people?
If that's what you think, you're welcome to that opinion, but I'd say it's not a rational or moral conclusion to reach. The repercussions of Clinton's lies and the harm from it is nowhere near as dire as the repercussions of lies attempting to undermine a national election.
Something being "criminal" does not de facto make it worse than a lie that is legal, just by nature of it being criminal. A lie to protect an escaped slave might be "criminal" back in the day, but it would have been moral in the extreme to speak that lie (or otherwise protect the escaped slave).
A lie that is legal but otherwise lent support to slavery, or attacks on the press, or attacks on women, or attacks on a Democracy is dangerous and immoral and unjust.
Just curious: On what basis would you suggest that a lie that is criminal MUST be worse than a lie that is legal? Or are you saying that?
"...serious and deadly and evil than lying about an affair."
This is exactly the sort of claim that undercut's your claims of rationality.
1. I'll agree that some of Trump's lies are serious.
2. Please give me examples of people who have died specifically and directly as a result of Trump's lies about the media, and the election results. Failure to do so will have negative ramifications for you.
3. Evil, is a strong word. By using it so cavalierly, you simply demean, and devalue actual evil.
4. The subject of a lie is really immaterial when it comes to Clinton. The fact that he, a lawyer, made the conscious decision to lie under oath. He intentionally, willingly, and knowingly chose to lie when he has sworn an oath to tell the "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The fact that he chose to do this as a lawyer, is inexcusable. The fact that he chose to do this as POTUS is worse.
"Do you disagree that there are multiple truths out there, or can we find common ground with that notion?"
If you have to ask that question, then you are more obtuse and stupid than you appear.
"Do you disagree? Or are you not seeing how Trump lied with his relentless attacks on the heroes in our free press?"
The problem that you have with the above, is that you've taken Trump's comments about the media out of context. For example, knowing what we know now, (and honestly knew then) it's generous to characterize the reporting on the Russia hoax as faulty and mistaken. The problem is that without connecting Trump's comments to the specific story he was referring to, we literally, factually don't know if he was correct or incorrect. If he was referring to stories that were false, then his complaints gain some validity. But by more broad brushing, it's simply you blathering. You can't evaluate Trump's claims about stories in the media, without evaluating the stories he was commenting on.
"Okay, then his lies about "winning the election" and his lies about the election "being stolen..." THOSE are helluva lot more serious than any of Clinton's stupid personal lies."
Clinton's lies weren't "personal" you idiot. They took place with him under oath in a court of law. He was (as an attorney) an officer of the court. As such he was held to a higher standard of conduct. He was,simultaneously, POTUS. As the head of the executive branch of government, he was (essentially) telling the entire judicial branch that he was above the law. So, if you look at it that way, it was no big deal at all. Hell, he violated two oaths/vows, I'm sure he took his oath of office seriously as well.
Thank you for acknowledging that I have been critical of Trump since 2015, it's a tiny step toward embracing reality, but a step nonetheless.
"Have you?"
No, Instead of using the exact words, expletives, vitriol, tone, and histrionics you demand I use, I've chosen to express my own thoughts, in my own way. The fact that you don't like that means bopkess.
"Have you ever said that, "I'll never vote for a deviant pervert who can laugh about grabbing women by the crotch and get away with it because of his wealth and privilege... that is just an evil too far gone!"? You always seem to hedge your criticism by suggesting he's awful... like the Democrats are... or otherwise minimize the unique level of unfitness the man represents."
"Am I wrong?"
No, Instead of using the exact words, expletives, vitriol, tone, and histrionics you demand I use, I've chosen to express my own thoughts, in my own way. The fact that you don't like that means bopkess.
"Why not do so?"
Because finding "common ground" based on accepting your demands is a sham. It's you attempting to impose your subjective hunches on others under the false flag of some bullshit "common ground". I noted that if you really sought common ground, you would acknowledge a couple of realities, at this point you haven't done so. If you don't as I move forward, I'll know that you really aren't interested in "common ground".
Since Dan's comments of December 11, 2020 at 6:04 AM, he's done more lying that Trump.
"Trump regularly attacked the media (meaning any media, up to and including Fox, who disagreed with him or made a point that he didn't like) as fake news. That is a pernicious and stupidly and overtly false claim."
Far more true than Dan, the Trump-hating liar, has the integrity and honor to admit. The most recent example of the media demonstrating they are indeed the enemy of the people has been their behavior during this election season. The New York Post published the Hunter Biden laptop story and the media creeps Dan defends worked hard to falsely call it Russian disinformation. Now of course, with Nov 3 behind us, they've "discovered" this story. It's reported that due to this story alone being intentionally ignored by the media arm of the Democrat Party, around 9% of Biden voters would not have voted for Biden had they been fully informed of the story and the implication of Joe Biden's profiting from it.
Trump's "attacks" on the press have been fully justified since he came down that escalator to announce his candidacy. Dan's too much a liar to acknowledge it. Thus...
"The president routinely has labeled the media as an enemy of the people. That is a pernicious stupidly overtly false claim."
...it would be if it wasn't so absolutely true.
"Same for these stupidly and dangerously false claims that the election was rigged or stolen. These are dangerous and cancerous to a Free Republic."
Not as dangerous and cancerous to the Free Republic as this rigged election has been. Dan doesn't care because his party of corruption and death seems to have won because of it. Common ground begins with acknowledging truths such as these.
more later...
"Can we find some common ground on that? Then say so."
No, as I explained earlier.
"The president should not make such a sweeping stupidly false claims. Can we agree? Then say so."
As a general premise the president should not make false claims. Certainly not stupidly false claims. Yet, as I addressed earlier, with out the context of knowing the truth of the news stories he was referring to, it's impossible to make this sort of sweeping generalization.
"The importance of saying so is clarity. Usually, when you make some very vague reference to your mild disagreements with Trump, they have been vague and mild, from where I stand."
1. That's your subjective opinion as worth absolutely nothing in the real world.
2. Since you do the same thing, it's hard to understand your attempt to bully me into doing exactly what you want.
3. I frequently take the exact words you use in defense/excuse of those on the left when I criticize Trump. It's strange that they bother you so when I use them, but not when you do.
"If you DO agree with the ex-president that the media is an enemy of the people, then say THAT. I'm not trying to force you into agreeing with me. I'm stating what is an obviously factual point in the real world and seeing if you agree."
I wouldn't use the term "enemy of the people", but we've certainly seen the media jump on false stories that make Trump look bad, run them without proper vetting, and continue to run the narrative after it's been shown to be false. So, I could make a case that any media organizations or members who are intentionally shading, misrepresenting, suppressing the truth in favor of a partisan political narrative, are not working in the best interests of the American people. Surely you'd find some common ground there. Of course, I've criticized Trump for this sort of broad brush bullshit before. What's interesting, is seeing you do the same sorts of things only with vulgarity, vitriol, and expletives.
"Same for these stupidly and dangerously false claims that the election was rigged or stolen. These are dangerous and cancerous to a Free Republic."
This hunch of yours assumes facts that are not in evidence, and is just as factually wrong as Trump's claims. If we do find evidence that there was enough irregularity or fraud to gave changed even a state or two, regardless of the effect on the election, then that certainly does more harm than Trump's hyperbole. Let's not forget, we spent years listening to high DFL officials saying these same sorts of things about the Russia bullshit, and we now know that that was false. Why not go through a process to find out the existence and possible extent of irregularities in this election?
"Can you agree with that? Then say so."
I can agree that your obsession with my agreeing with you on all this crap is both tiresome, and creepy.
"Same for this latest attempts to just dismiss the votes in states where the president and some GOP types don't like the results of the vote. This is fundamentally un-American and insidious. It's wrong."
I've never heard one single person say that they want to "dismiss the votes in states...don't like the results". If you can't demonstrate that anyone has actually said this, then you're basing your assault on Trump's lies with your own lies. The issue is not wholesale throwing out of votes, it's one of verifying the validity of the votes cast, and removing those that are invalid. Surely you would agree that any votes cast wrongly shouldn't be counted. I'd think that, if you were confident in the lack of irregularity in Biden's win, that you would embrace the opportunity to show the world that Biden won fair and square. That a Biden victory with minimal taint of irregularity would be preferable. I guess you're more of an "anything it takes" kind of guy and are willing to accept irregularities if your guy wins.
"There's a distinct difference between, "I wish he hadn't said it that way..." and "It's stupidly, dangerously false to say that the election was rigged and Trump won."
Damn, you're a freaking genius to have figured this out. Of course there's a difference between me expressing myself in my own words, and me parroting your words back to you. Unfortunately, you don;t seem willing to accept anything but the latter.
Can you say so? Then say so.
"See?"
That you're intent on bullying me onto "common ground" that involves my agreeing with every premise you insist on, yes I do see that.
"And I say that, not as someone who's especially familiar with Biden's history, but as someone who just recognizes that Trump's false claims, his irrationality, his amorality are historically unprecedented in our presidents. At least in our lifetime. By a long shot."
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on what's gone before this in your comment. I'll note that your attempt to avoid Biden's lengthy history of lies, plagiarism, and false claims is impressive. I'll further note that your claim of ignorance of Biden's decade long, well documented, history of lies, plagiarism, and false claims, doesn't really help your case at all. The fact that you chose not to subject Biden to any sort of scrutiny regarding his history of dishonesty and behavior towards women says much more about you and your standards, than about Biden.
"Can we find common ground on that?"
I think that we can agree that ignorance is no excuse for supporting a candidate with a decades long history of lies, plagiarism, false claims, and inappropriate behavior towards women. I also think that we can agree that the fact that many of those behaviors were engaged in while running for or holding elected office, don't mitigate the seriousness of the pattern. The fact that this guy got this far in politics says plenty for the standards of DFL voters.
Dan,
I kept your quote to keep track of how well you hold Biden to the standard you hold trump to. Nothing else.
"I'm noting the reality that we ALL recognize that there are millions of Truths, millions of True notions out there. My belief in this is not unique. YOU, TOO, believe in millions of Truths. Am I mistaken?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then you weren't paying attention, and you've now convinced me that I could just type random gibberish for all the good it does.
"If I'm mistaken and you actually think there is only ONE truth out there: That the answer to "What color is Dan's car?" and "Is it wrong to rape women?" and "How old is the earth?" and "How far is it around the earth, in miles?" ...if you think there is ONE TRUE ANSWER to all these questions and the answer is Purple... then say so."
If you think that after all I've written on the topic then you're either willfully obtuse or stupid.
"I don't think you think this but feel free to clarify so that we can move towards some common ground. I'm not demanding you agree with me, I'm stating reality and I imagine you recognize reality, but maybe I'm missing something. But rather than make it about me demanding you "accede to my demands," why not just clarify?"
Ohhhhhhhhh goody!!!!!!!! More things I have to agree with you on to join you on your "common ground", because yes you are.
If you think that after all I've written on the topic then you're either willfully obtuse or stupid.
"Same for this latest attempts to just dismiss the votes in states where the president and some GOP types don't like the results of the vote. This is fundamentally un-American and insidious."
No. It's another lie. He's not looking to "just dismiss the votes in states where the president and some GOP types don't like the results of the vote", as if he's the leftist press just dismissing stories they don't like for the public to hear. He's insisting he wants all LEGAL votes counted. A legal vote is that ballot which is submitted in accordance with the election laws of the state in which it is cast. For example, if the state election laws, decided by the legislature of that state as mandated by the US Constitution, requires votes to occur by a given date, no votes submitted after that date is legal and thus must not be counted. This is the type of thing Dan purposely and intentionally distorts, because he's a liar.
Oh, jeez! I can't believe I missed it! Dan once again purposely and intentionally lies about something that has been proven false several times, including at least twice with actual video showing exactly what Trump said in the context in which he said it:
"Have you ever said that, "I'll never vote for a deviant pervert who can laugh about grabbing women by the crotch and get away with it because of his wealth and privilege... that is just an evil too far gone!"?"
Dan's a total reprobate. He once again suggests that this is behavior in which Trump engages and pretends he admitted engaging in it. Talk about perversion!!! Talk about a deviant!! Dan is both these things, and he is beyond hope. In the meantime, he voted for a guy who assaulted a woman who has stood firmly in her assertion that he did so, and routinely gropes and takes liberties with other women and girls of all ages for which there is miles of video that proves it. How can common ground be found with someone so enamored of lying and falsehood?
But that's not enough for the creepy fake Christian, Dan Trabue. He tries again with the idiotic "billion lies" nonsense, by a very questionable source that defines "lies" as loosely and corruptly as does Dan. Yet, by their standard, Biden and the Democratic party is equally, if not more guilty. Merely standing by their party platform means they're repeating the lies they promote every day. Count them all Dan!! Joe Biden continues to pretend Trump said nice things about the nazis at Charlottesville. Dan never calls the old bastard out for that, does he? This kind of lie is the very type of lie that can make a difference in how people vote. It is a very direct form of election fraud by bearing such false witness against an opponent. Dan's good with it, because Dan's a lying, hateful fake Christian who pretends he cares about finding common ground.
It's because of people like Dan our nation is so messed up. Trump was working to turn it around, but people like Dan prefer chaos and suffering. God help him.
"But do you really think that is worse than repeated lies about the election being "stolen" in an effort to overturn an election and the will of the people?"
Already answered.
"If that's what you think, you're welcome to that opinion, but I'd say it's not a rational or moral conclusion to reach. The repercussions of Clinton's lies and the harm from it is nowhere near as dire as the repercussions of lies attempting to undermine a national election."
Yeah, the ;leader of the executive branch of government effectively saying "FU" to the entire judicial branch, is just all in good fun. I suspect that you don't quite (want to) grasp the seriousness of an officer of the court/POTUS lying under oath, because you want to focus on the "blowjob" aspect and the fantasy that an intern can really "consent" to a sexual advance from the most powerful person in the country. Of course, you also want to avoid the implications of POTUS thinking that there's nothing wrong with having a sexual relationship with an intern.
I know you have to rationalize this to make Trump look worse, but if you're really ignorant of the repercussions of POTUS committing perjury, just say so.
"Just curious: On what basis would you suggest that a lie that is criminal MUST be worse than a lie that is legal? Or are you saying that?"
Since that "question" doesn't make any sense, then it's safe to assume no.
I get it, you want to go from the specific to the general. You need to believe that a lie about a blowjob, is no big deal, regardless of who tells it and where it's told. I understand. But, in your need to protect yourself, you ignore the specific ramifications of a sitting president and licensed attorney, making the intentional choice to lie under oath. Especially since he was almost certainly advised by his attorneys NOT to lie under oath. I suspect that you just haven't considered, or don't care about, the ramifications of a person in the office of the president (and as an officer of the court) intentionally choosing to lie under oath.
I'll note two things.
1. You've chosen to latch onto two peripheral tangents and focus your attention on those things to the seeming exclusion of things like answering questions, responding to my answers of your questions, or proving your claims.
2. I can't help but note the disparity between the length, depth, and specificity of my responses and the brevity, and misrepresentation of yours.
If you choose to continue down this path, I won't stop you or even ask you to take a different path, I'll just move in that direction myself. I've taken quite a bit of my day to attempt to respond to your comments/answer your questions at least paragraph by paragraph. If you place so little value on this sort of thing, then I'll save my time for other things. Just don't bitch when I do.
"as if he's the leftist press just dismissing stories they don't like for the public to hear"
Excellent point. For example, the story about Hunter Biden was certainly downplayed prior to the election, yet virtually everything alleged about Hunter appears to be true. Yet, even now it's being spiked. Ditto, Swalwell screwing a ChiCom spy.
Good Lord. Well, it can't be said that I didn't try.
I can't even get you to admit to the reality that there are millions of possible True things out there or to even address the question in a meaningful way or to engage in conversation about what you're talking about when you criticize me for making that fact claim (one of the millions of truths out there). I can't get you to say if you can agree that Trump's attacks on the media or on the election are dangerous lies... you appear to not understand how these are dangerous and that they're just silly little statements from Trump.
I tried and tried to engage with you in a good faith effort and it's come to ALL that /\.
Good luck in life. Maybe we'll try again another day.
Wow! As if Dan hasn't proven his stupidity already, there's this:
"And I say that, not as someone who's especially familiar with Biden's history..."
Here Dan admits he doesn't seek to know as much as possible about the scumbags for whom he'll cast his vote! How could anyone support ANYONE over Trump without first learning all they can about the person in order to determine if they were indeed the better choice? He's not just a liar, but he's stupidly false!! Isn't that how he describes Trump's alleged lies? Thus, he lies when asserting he's not obsessively hateful toward Trump. Voting "anyone but Trump" as he clearly did in supporting Biden is incredibly stupid and dangerous for the nation to have such people voting at all!
Then Dan distorts Craig's position on truth, pretending by "a million truths", Craig denies that the color of a car or whether its hot in the summer is what Craig means by referring to Dan's equivocating about what is or isn't true.
It seems all those conservative bloggers who deny Dan's comments were correct. He's a reprobate in every form of the word and unrepentant as well as unwilling to alter his opinions and behaviors in the face of actual fact and truth. I'll take a "liar" like Trump any day, all day, than to suffer the type of sinful falsehood Dan represents every time he posts his opinions and positions.
"Good Lord. Well, it can't be said that I didn't try."
Sure it can.
"even address the question in a meaningful way or to engage in conversation about what you're talking about when you criticize me for making that fact claim (one of the millions of truths out there)."
Well, let's start by pointing out the reality that you had me engaged in a lengthy conversation on the topic not that long ago, and either paid no attention, forgot, or didn't do some research to refresh your memory. Of course, if that's a "fact claim", you'll gladly and promptly provide unequivocal, objective proof.
"I can't get you to say if you can agree that Trump's attacks on the media or on the election are dangerous lies... you appear to not understand how these are dangerous and that they're just silly little statements from Trump."
No, you can't get me to parrot back your opinions. I've already disagreed and criticized Trump.
"I tried and tried to engage with you in a good faith effort and it's come to ALL that /\."
As I pointed out in my previous comment, the sheer difference in the level of detail and volume of responses demonstrates the bullshit in that claim.
Lying to stop lying, is like having sex to protect virginity.
But at least that litany of unanswered questions, unproven claims, and diversions is still intact.
I know you don't like or wish to use the expression "enemy of the people" in referring to the press, but I can't see that it's not entirely appropriate given their behavior over the last two or three administrations. The election of Trump in 2016 was the straw that broke the camel's back for the leftist media. The kid gloves came off and they've been going full on bullshitters ever since. As we've seen reports suggesting as many as 17% of Biden voters...enough right there to have prevented Trump losing...it's clear that the media is responsible for corrupting the perception of at least that 17% of Biden supporters. That is, their malfeasance contributed to people voting for someone they wouldn't have had they been truthfully informed.
Now, my position is that it is the duty of every citizen who votes to do their own due diligence. Unfortunately, there's no law requiring it and politicians are elected without the benefit of a fully educated electorate. That's just the way it is. But for the press to ignore that reality and intentionally misinform is criminal and thus the label, "enemy of the people" is a less than accurate term for the level of harm the public suffers as a result.
Sharyl Attkisson has a new book out on the subject. Mark Levin's most recent book covers it as well. Only liars like Dan pretend the media are victims of false accusations. Only liars like Dan ignore the far more blatant and counter-constitutional attacks on the press of his favored god, Barack Obama in order to malign Trump for his justified negative opinion of the press and its treatment of him over the last four years.
let's start by pointing out the reality that you had me engaged in a lengthy conversation on the topic not that long ago, and either paid no attention, forgot, or didn't do some research to refresh your memory.
1. The reality is that my memory is not that great.
2. Another reality is that have a tendency not to give direct, clear answers.
3. And so, a third reality is that I LITERALLY do not know what your problem is with my position on there being multiple Truths - endless Truths and facts out there.
I DO know that you could probably have put all this to rest by merely agreeing with reality, "YES, Dan, there are multiple things that are True, not one Single Truth, at least when it comes to truths about facts." Something like that could have helped clarify, just one single sentence. And yet, you appear to be criticizing me for recognizing the existence of multiple truths AND yet, you almost certainly agree, AND YET, you won't clarify that. Instead, you do this vague innuendo about something being wrong in what I believe about Truths.
If you'd like to clarify, feel free. That would indicate a good will effort to find common ground. If you don't want to clarify, that's on you.
Art,
I'm not fond of that term, and of any term that is based on broad brushing such a disparate group of individuals together to tar them all with the same broad brush. I don't like it when Dan does it, I don't like it when Trump does it. If it was specifically applied to specific reporters/stories/organizations, then I might feel differently.
1. That's your problem, not mine. But maybe it explains your penchant for characterization my positions so cavalierly. It's interesting that you offer this, yet have consistently argued that you remember enough details of multiple "conservative" writings that you read 30+ years ago to say confidently that they are all wrong and that there have been no better arguments advanced since then.
2. Yes, that's your opinion, not reality.
3. So, because your memory is poor, and you don't want to go back and look at our previous exchange on the topic, it's my responsibility to re constitute an entire lengthy discussion and spoon feed it to you.
Got it. No thanks, I'm not interested.
Yes, I could have put this away and achieved common ground by repeating your opinion back to you. Again, no thanks.
As far as spoon feeding you what you've forgotten to allow you to divert this thread further from the topic is not something that I feel is a valuable use of my time.
Instead, I'll ask you this. What happens when one of these millions of truths contradicts another of the millions?
Re: an enemy of the people
The problem with the term is not in using it to broad brush. The problem with the term is it that is factually stupidly false.
In what possible definition of enemy of the people does it make sense to apply that to the media? To say, the media makes mistakes, or that the media is biased for my taste, therefore they are an enemy of the people, that is irrational. I've asked you all this forever. How are y'all defining enemy of the people?
This claim by Trump and Marshal makes no rational sense. The fact is it is a stupidly false claim to call the media an enemy of the people. Y'all may have delusions about that, but the facts are the facts. I'm talking about real-world observable data and reality, not crazy, unsupported hunches.
I know your memory sucks, but maybe there's another problem here.
Your assertion that "The problem with the term...", is factually false. Had you said, "MY problem with the term...", that would have been accurate. In the absence of proof that your claim about "THE" problem is objectively, universally, proven to be true, it's just your opinion.
In a general sense, I would argue that if "the media" was hiding or misreporting news in order to influence something, I would argue that they were acting against the interests of the American people.
Craig... "What happens when one of these millions of truths contradicts another of the millions?"
Well it depends, doesn't it? If my car is blue and I claim my car is blue and someone else claims my car is orange, then what happens is that one truth claim is false and the other is factual. But the reality is my car is blue as a matter of fact, and that does not negate the realities that are 12 inches in a foot or that it is wrong to rape people.
Those truths can exist side-by-side with each other. Just as a point of fact.
That is the only rational answer, is it not? Do you disagree with that reality? Do you think if it's true that there are 12 inches in one foot that it cannot also be true that raping people is wrong?
That is how you directly answer a question.
Craig... " I would argue that if "the media" was hiding or misreporting news in order to influence something..."
People have always twisted things or slanted things in order to try to influence others. The president is doing this precise thing when he calls the media fake news. He's trying to influence his followers do not trust the news. Does that make Trump an enemy of the people?
Again, how are you defining the term enemy of the people?
I agree that people should be as forthright as possible, but I do not think that putting things in terms that they think will help influence others rises to the level of an enemy of the people.
Not at all.
Neither do I think it rises to the level of acting against the interest of the American people.
It might be acting in the interest are those who disagree with a particular view, but that one view is not the same as the American people.
You yourself have used words that misrepresent my actual positions to try to make your point. Does that make you all an enemy of the people? Does that mean that you are operating against the best interest of the American people?
Also, do you have any evidence at all that the media is actively hiding or deliberately misreporting news? Like on a regular basis? Because as someone who was schooled in journalism, I can tell you that that's contrary to the values of Journalism that I've seen in operation at media Outlets. I rather suspect that you cannot justify this with actual data. That is, you can give no evidence that there is widespread deliberate misinformation being passed on.
Having information passed on in a manner that you think is too biased is not the same as deliberately passing on bad information.
Re: Your Truth kerfuffle...
I suspect What's Happening Here is that you have not understood my position on truth and that, in your confusion about my actual position, you are probably arguing against a position that I do not actually hold. I think you probably think that I'm saying that it is both true that God exists and that God doesn't exist. Or that Jesus is the son of God and the Jesus is not the son of God. But I've never said that and don't think that.
That is, some truth claims are false. Of course. Obviously. I've never suggested otherwise.
I have not said that two contradictory claims of Truth are both equally true. Is that what you think I'm saying? Because it's not, you know that, don't you?
Craig... "I would argue that if "the media" was hiding or misreporting news in order to influence something..."
Part of the problem is it people tend to want to see news represented from their point of view. And so, if a new story makes it sound too much like the police were at fault, because they were reporting on people who were claiming the police were at fault, did they might argue that they are passing on fake news. Instead, what they're doing is passing on actual news from one perspective. There's a difference between passing on actual news from a different perspective than one may hold and hiding or misrepresenting the news.
People in the media are not now nor have they ever been perfect Godlike entities able to report all news stories from all perspectives perfectly well. The fact is, at least in the mainstream media groups governed by good journalistic ethics, NPR, ABC, BBC, CNN, Fox News, Etc... it is extremely rare to have people actually passing on fake news or deliberately overlooking or misrepresenting a story. The reason for this is that it would get them fired in most journalism groups.
So the fact is, Craig, you cannot provide support that it is a common occurrence that widespread misreporting of news that happens. Do you agree with that reality? If you think you have data to prove that sort of claim, you can back it up. If not, you should clarify that you do not know or have any reason to believe that this is common or widespread in respectable mainstream media.
Craig... "Your assertion that "The problem with the term...", is factually false. Had you said, "MY problem with the term...", "
Fair enough. The problem with the suggestion that "the problem with calling the media an enemy of the people is broad brushing the media..." is that it's missing the point. In the US, NONE of the mainstream media is an enemy of the people. The claim, itself, is false and wrong and dangerous, at least as "enemy of the people" is normally understood.
When idiots like Trump and Marshal make this false and stupidly false claim ONE problem is that they are not saying WHY "the media" is an enemy of people AND there is no data on which to base a claim that ANY of the mainstream media is an enemy of the people.
Saying that "the problem is broad brushing the media with this Enemy charge" makes it sound like MAYBE some of the media truly IS an enemy of the people, but that, too, is a stupidly false claim.
WHO? WHICH reporters or whole news groups are an enemy of the people? Based upon what?
Saying "I don't like the bias they bring (Fox News, CNN, NPR) to reporting, therefore they're an enemy of the people" is also problematic because it presumes that the speaker of the claim has authority to speak for "the people."
There's all manner of problems with the claim and your own simplistic objection to it, but the primary problem is that it is just a plain dumb and false claim. Not based upon reality.
And the irony of that is saying "The media is an enemy because they're so biased and say false things" is that the claim itself is biased and false.
By that measure, then the claimant is defining themselves as an enemy of the people.
Craig,
"I'm not fond of that term, and of any term that is based on broad brushing such a disparate group of individuals together to tar them all with the same broad brush."
But everyone...Trump supporters, haters like Dan and everyone in between...know exactly about whom Trump speaks when using this expression. It's no secret, and no detailed list of every member of the press for whom the appellation fits is required.
What news sources exist that do not engage in influence, but stick to reporting facts, are those the more well known outlets disregard as "far right" or worse, because they behave as journalists. Those who make a point to take it upon themselves to take no source for granted have learned which sources are reliable in their reporting. But they do not have the cache of those to whom the vast majority of the population give their attention. They're not the CNNs, MSNBCs, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Posts and even FoxNews. Even the latter has proven itself to be less reliable than once thought.
While "the press" is a general term, the above (and a few others) are those that come to mind for most people and they suck. The term is appropriate for the consequences of their behavior are dangerous for their willful rejection of objective reportage. When they operate on behalf of one party or in obvious opposition to another, they no longer are performing their function while people accept that they are. They are causing harm by acting as they do and as such are enemies of the people...whether you like the term or not.
Dan,
"The problem with the term is not in using it to broad brush. The problem with the term is it that is factually stupidly false."
You're a liar. I've provided several examples of evidence that demonstrates the appropriateness of the term and in recent months they're actions have further proven it. They are not acting as objective reporters of news. They're acting as shills for the Democratic Party.
"In what possible definition of enemy of the people does it make sense to apply that to the media?"
By exploiting the dependence the public has on them for providing news and information to sway public opinion in favor of one party or politician over another. It's not "mistakes" or bias. It's the intentional withholding of information which is damaging to the electoral prospects of a scumbag. It's the intentional inflation of numbers of "lies" of an incredibly effective president not of their preference so as to exaggerate a perceived flaw in his character. It's the repetition of false numbers of deaths from Covid-19 and new "cases" to maintain fear in the population and provide another means of disparaging the president. It's the manner in which they "correct" their mistakes, as in such a way that no one knows they've actually admitted they made them. It's the provision of false fodder for liars like you so you have validation for the opinion of a president you know is untrue but need for it to be.
The press is the enemy of the people and you aid and abet their criminal behavior because you're just as corrupt as they are. You're just as much a liar as they are. You're just as irrationally hateful as they are. This is real world, observable data provided by your generosity in each and every blog post and comment wherein you express yourself as hateful, morally corrupt and dishonest. The fact is that it is an absolutely accurate expression to apply to the media these days.
I can't believe that this debate about "truths" is being waged with both parties speaking of the same thing. Dan wants to pretend Craig's referring to "It's true my car is blue" and "It's true I have a dog" as examples of what Craig perceives Dan saying when speaking about what is or isn't "TRUTH". But I believe that Craig is referring to there being only way truth and we must divine what it is. Thus, Craig would say that one's car being blue is a truth that is an objective truth and cannot be argued. One cannot say, "Well, YOU might say it's blue, but it's true for me that it's chartreuse." This statement would suggest multiple truths...a concept that Craig opposes. There is only one color of the car in question and as such no one can say it's another color and be aligned with truth at the same time. These two "truths" (one being actually true and the other only asserted as truth, but falsely so) are in conflict.
Thus, Dan, being a liar, willfully muddies the debate about truth...unless I've totally misunderstood the debate between them.
Craig... I have absolutely no doubt that Biden will continue his pattern of lies, false claims, and plagiarism
Fact 1: There is NO pattern of plagiarism. If that's what you're saying, it is a stupidly false claim. There was ONE incident where he forgot to cite the person he quoted. To call that dishonest or a pattern is, itself, dishonest.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/07/neil-kinnock-joe-biden-1987-scandal
Agreed?
Fact 2: I rather doubt you can point to a "pattern of lies and false claims" that amount to anything more than the false claims any human makes. Are you suggesting he makes more false claims than the average person?
"There is NO pattern of plagiarism. If that's what you're saying,"
That's not what I'm saying. You can tell because you had to ignore what I said to get there. I said that Biden has a decades long pattern of "lies, plagiarism, and false claims"
" Are you suggesting he makes more false claims than the average person?"
I was unaware that "more false claims than the average person" was the standard we judged politicians by. When did this happen? What I'm saying is that we judge people based on their conduct, not based on other people's conduct. The fact is that Biden has a decades long history of "lies, plagiarism, and false claims". Including some recent lies about his connections with Hunter's "business" dealings.
But you keep trying to come up with excuses to hold Joe to a different standard.
"The problem with the suggestion that "the problem with calling the media an enemy of the people is broad brushing the media..." is that it's missing the point."
No, YOUR problem with the suggesting is "blah, blah, blah", not "the problem".
"In the US, NONE of the mainstream media is an enemy of the people."
Prove this claim.
"makes it sound like"
Makes it sound TO YOU like. But that's your problem, not mine.
"Can you, Craig, speak with the Marshal's of the world and let them know that now, finally (after Trump's own SCOTUS recognizes the frivolous nature of these ridiculous claims), you all can know that there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud, that the election was NOT stolen and that Biden IS the president?"
Unfortunately, that's not what SCOTUS found at all. Even if it was, it's not my job to do your bidding and tell people what you demand I tell them.
"Can you let them know they need to accept it and, like it or not, efforts must be made to find common ground?"
I've addressed your idiotic notions of common ground, and why I have no desire to find "common ground" on your terms.
No, I probably won't.
"When I noted that my memory is not so great, for one thing I did it because it's true. Not that my memory sucks, just that it's imperfect. And so the point was to allow did I am not perfect in my memory that's just the reality of it."
Which, of course gives us no reason to trust anything you say regarding past conversations, because we know your memory sucks.
"But the other reason for me putting it that way was because I was trying to be gracious."
Given you lack of being gracious, I find this hard to believe.
"As a point of fact, I do not believe you have ever spoken clearly on this point of multiple truths."
I'll note that the "point of fact" is only that you hold that belief. The fact that you don't remember, are too lazy to do your own research, and immediately presume that you are correct, isn't me problem or my fault.
"I believe we have had conversations and you said all kinds of vague noncommittal phrases like what you've done here, but you've never clarified what your problem is with me in my view that there are multiple truths, just as a point of reality."
If you are claiming that your statement immediately above is "reality", then you'll need to provide proof, quotes, links, context, or apologize and retract. You literally have no rational options. I suspect that you'll just ignore or bullshit your way around it, but you claimed something as "reality", PROVE IT!
"And so, rather than say you're lying, I was trying to be gracious and allowing that perhaps my memory is not right, so you could certainly prove this by just clarifying."
Again, because of your history of not accusing me of lying, and being gracious. What a joke. It's more because you're being passive aggressive because you don't have the gumption to look shit up, and actually prove your claims.
"Instead of accepting that bit of Grace, you're using that as a point of attack? Do you think that's rational or in the best interest of Truth?"
No, I'm not accepting your inability to prove your point as a bit of Grace. If you're going to make claims, it's your job to prove them, not mine. If your memory is decrepit, it's your job to refresh it, not mine.
You trying to play this bullshit grace game, after so much ungracious, vitriol, and lies isn't going to be taken seriously.
It's late, and I just don;t have the energy to deal with Dan repeating the same crap over and over.
I've disproportionately answered his questions, responded to his comments paragraph by paragraph, and all I've gotten are claims he won't prove, and passive aggressive disguised as grace.
If you can't provide specific proof of the claims you've made, quotes, links, context, then I'm done trying to keep up with your BS.
Dan: in the US, none of the mainstream media isn't any other people.
Craig: prove it.
No. If you're going to make a serious and stupid claim, a clearly false claim, then the onus is on you to support that claim.
We have zero data to support a crazy sounding claim like the media is an enemy of the people. Zero data. There's nothing there.
If YOU want to try to make that claim, then YOU support it. Otherwise, rational people will write you off as a conspiracy theorist and insane.
You might begin by just trying to define "an enemy of the people." This is part of the problem of people like you on the right. An enemy of the people is a serious charge in normal language as it is normally used. It is a charge of treason or traitorous actions.
That's a helluva charge, Insane-sounding on the face of it. You want to make that charge, support it. I'm not going to prove the innocence of the media from an insane charge any more than I would pay at the slightest bit of attention if someone charged me with treason. It's crazy. That's the problem with the Trump conservatism. Crazy has been normalized in conservative circles. As if it's okay to make crazy sounding clearly false charges. It's not okay.
"Dan: in the US, none of the mainstream media isn't any other people."
1. This makes absolutely zero sense.
2. This is not an actual quote of the original claim you made.
3. I expect you to prove the specific claim you originally made, not this nonsensical paraphrase.
"If you're going to make a serious and stupid claim, a clearly false claim, then the onus is on you to support that claim."
That's correct. You made the claim, therefore you should support the claim that you made. It's like you want this rule to apply to others, but not to yourself.
"If YOU want to try to make that claim, then YOU support it."
But I didn't make "that" claim. I didn't make any claim. I quoted your claim, and expect you to support the claim you made. I certainly am not going to support I claim that you made up and decided to attribute to me.
"You might begin by just trying to define "an enemy of the people.""
Why? I've already been quite clear that I don't like the phrase and don't care to use it. You even copy/pasted me saying that earlier. Your damn memory must really be crap if you can't remember the stuff you did and said yesterday.
"This is part of the problem of people like you on the right."
This is part of the problem of people like you, you broad brush individuals with the actions of whatever group you decide they should be in, regardless of what the individual you broad brush says of does.
"You want to make that charge, support it."
1. I didn't/don't want to make it.
2. Given the reality of #1, why would I support it.
3. You made, and I quoted, a specific claim that I expect you to prove.
4. You should probably be supporting the claim you made, instead of demanding that I support something I never said.
5. If you'd spend more time supporting the claims you've made, and less time making shit up and demanding that others support the shit you've made up, things might go smoother.
But, it's an excellent attempt at diversion. Too bad it's such obvious bullshit.
Hint. If you are going to say that I made a claim, it would behoove you to actually quote me, (like I do you), instead of just inventing some shit.
"If you're going to make a serious and stupid claim, a clearly false claim, then the onus is on you to support that claim."
This is how an alleged journalism student deals with a claim: Call it stupid, "clearly false" and then do absolutely nothing to investigate the merits of the clam. He also pretends I haven't already provided several articles that have provided evidence of media malfeasance, as well as more recently referenced two notable people who have published books on the topic.
But let's look at the whine about defining "enemy of the people". First, recall the expression "public enemy #1", used by the FBI to describe the level of danger posed by a criminal at large. Could any single individual be an enemy of the entire public? One certainly could be to whatever segment of the entire public with whom that individual might come in contact. Yet no one bristles at an expression suggesting the entire public is victimized. The whine here is distinctly regarding who used the expression to describe the deliberate actions of the leftist media. And of course, let's not forget how much more overt were the anti-press actions of Dan's preferred president, Barry Obumble.
Dan likes to demand definitions, which is another overt act of diversion and obfuscation. Everybody knows what the expression is intended to convey about the left-wing media that has made itself the mouthpiece of the party Dan supports, particularly for it's opposition to the president for whom he has such a psychologically perverse hatred. But an "enemy" is a person or group of persons that is active in opposing another. The leftist media is clearly an enemy in the manner in which it fails to do its actual job as journalists, which is to present the ENTIRE public with facts that inform the ENTIRE public with the facts they need to make their own decisions on an issue, topic or person. The leftist media chooses what stories they'll run by whether or not those stories will reflect well on the people or issues they support, or negative on those they do not. This makes them the enemy of the people because it MISinforms the public.
Too often this intention to misinform comes in the form of "sins of omission". Imagine being told a food tastes delicious, but never being told it will kill you. That second half of the story is important for making decisions, but some may act on the the first part and die as a result. The most recent and a most egregious example of this sin is the Hunter Biden story regarding his corruption and its connection to his father...the buffoonish Joe Biden. The New York Post broke this story and no one in the leftist media chose to look into it. Instead, they lambasted the Post and others who reported on it. They called it "Russian disinformation", which is a claim for which an honest journalist would have evidence before asserting.
It's one thing to call out a president for saying something that isn't true. To add that non-truth to a list of "lies" in order to disparage the president is an act of hostility, not only to the president, but to the general public who may rely on that news source for facts so they can arrive at a decision.
"But wait!" Dan will cry. "Everyone makes mistakes!"
Not a good argument. If a news source routinely makes these "mistakes"...and they more of then not aren't mistakes at all...then the head of that news organization has a responsibility to make sure the mistakes are as loudly corrected as they were made, and the employees who continue to make these "mistakes" need to be replaced with better people. More often than not, they're lauded as top journalists.
When a news source...in this case, the entirety of the leftist media...chooses to misinform, not inform and corrupt what others provide that they won't, they have made themselves enemies of the people. They are enemies because of the great disservice they've perpetrated by misleading the public with their false reportage. Dan engages in the very same style of dealing with "reality", so it's easy to see why he has a problem with the expression. It was purposely chosen because it's appropriate, whether one is comfortable with it or not.
Art,
Of course everyone makes mistakes. Unfortunately when someone makes a mistake, and is in a position of influence, the margin for error is smaller and the responsibility is greater to not make mistakes. That's why news organizations has layers of people who are only employed to check for mistakes and prevent them from getting published/broadcast. Of course, when a mistake persists and becomes the narrative then the problem goes beyond a mistake. It'd be interesting if Dan applied the same standards to everyone.
Let's look at the exact claim Dan made, and then maybe it'll make sense why he won't provide the proof and felt like he had to edit his claim.
"In the US, NONE of the mainstream media is an enemy of the people."
He's made a very specific claim, one that can and should be empirically verifiable, yet he won't. I wonder why. Perhaps because the US has media members from the state run (or otherwise "official" news organizations of countries that don't particularly care for, and who are actually anti American or who are our enemies.
I was mostly giving up on this conversation, but THIS is classic. From Marshal...
Dan likes to demand definitions,
which is another overt act of diversion and obfuscation.
Ha! I mean, I literally am laughing out loud. Do you not recognize how funny/insane/irrational this comment is?
Demanding (expecting) definitions is a way (an OVERT way) to divert and obfuscate?
HOW is clarifying what the terms we're using mean, how we're using them... HOW is that obfuscation? Is that not the epitome of clarification and the opposite of obfuscation?
Marshal calls me a socialist AND YET, the literal definition of socialist is NOT what I believe? In what possible sense am I a socialist, then? WHY NOT expect Marshal to, you know, actually support and explain what he means.
Same with this press nonsense. "An enemy of the people..."? What do you MEAN by that, because the way you're using it literally does not fit the typical meaning of the term.
Clarifying word meanings and usage is a critical first step to finding some sort of understanding. NOT an effort to undermine clarity.
If nothing else, thanks for the laugh.
Craig... "He's made a very specific claim, one that can and should be empirically verifiable,"
NO. IF YOU (note that IF) IF YOU are going to make a serious charge like "the press" - whatever/whoever you mean by that - is "an enemy of the people" - whatever you mean by that, THEN YOU have to support that claim, because on the face of it, it is false and stupid as hell. HOW are "the press" an enemy of the people? Making mistakes? Being "too liberal" for your personal taste?
You all need to begin by clarifying what in the heck you mean by your words, since they're being used atypically. THEN, IF YOU are going to make the claim, YOU have to support it.
It's like this: If I say that rightwing conservative christians are child molesters and you respond with, "No we're not..." and I respond with "PROVE IT!" That is an irrational claim. I would be the one making the charge, the onus is on me to prove it, not you to disprove it.
Same with the media. IF YOU are going to make that charge, THEN YOU need to support it.
On the face of it, if you look at the good people in the media doing their work (and to a person, the ones I know are doing it as a public service, for the GOOD of the people, not otherwise), there simply is NO DATA to support a charge of "they're an enemy of the people." There's just nothing there. IF YOU want to make the charge, YOU prove it.
We don't need to disprove stupidly false claims.
Understand?
Come now, let's find common ground on basic decency and reason. You DO agree that a person who's been falsely accused of something doesn't need to prove their innocence, right?
For one thing, what would they point to? "Um, I've never colluded with Russia to overthrow the US... I've never deliberately... well, wait, what precisely am I being charged with? An enemy of the people... HOW?"
You have to support a charge and explain what you mean. Rumors, gossip and slander are not part of the realm of God, nor of a decent human society.
"In the US, NONE of the mainstream media is an enemy of the people."
He's made a very specific claim, one that can and should be empirically verifiable, yet he won't. I wonder why.
Come on. You KNOW this. You're not a stupid person.
WHO am I going to defend specifically against this vague, sweeping charge? WHO?
Are you suggesting that I need to "prove" that each and every person who works for a media group is not an enemy of the people? DONE. They aren't. Like with the stupidly false claims about Trump winning the election, there is ZERO data to support a charge of "enemy of the people" against ANY member of the media.
Right? If I'm mistaken, then who? WHO specifically in the media is an enemy of the people? WHAT made them an enemy of the people?
There's literally nothing for me to defend UNLESS and UNTIL someone makes a specific clear charge against someone.
Are you saying that NPR, as a whole, is an enemy of the people? How? What did they do, specifically, that makes them an enemy of the people?
Is BBC an enemy of the people? CBS? FoxNews? HOW? What did they do? What is the specific charge?
Unless and until you can provide SOME rational, fact-based charge, an empty, unsupported claim is nothing. There's nothing to defend against.
How specifically am I mistaken?
Post a Comment