I’m flabbergasted at the shenanigans we’re seeing from the DFL candidates for president.
If you listen to them you’d think that the CDC and other agencies funding has been cut by Trump. In fact the congress (who controls funding) has actually increased budgets in opposition to Trump’s budget requests.
For anyone who claims honesty is something they value in candidates to stay silent is the height of hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The troll said the same thing.
Interesting that the hated Israelis are saying that they might have a vaccine ready soon. I’m sure the leftists will not avail themselves of it in solidarity with the Palestinians.
“Trump’s budgets have proposed cuts to public health, only to be overruled by Congress, where there’s strong bipartisan support for agencies such as the CDC and NIH. Instead, financing has increased.”
According to the AP, the refusal to cut the budget is “bipartisan”, so the libs can’t even rationally claim credit for not making the cuts in the presidential budget proposal.
What’s more disturbing is that this bunch of idiots either didn’t bother to check this out before opening their mouths, or that they’re unaware that the president doesn’t actually control spending.
Either way, the fact that the lemmings are making excuses for the stupid lies being told by their candidates instead of criticizing them, and celebrating the fact that the cuts weren’t made, says all we need to know about the lemmings need for honesty from their candidates.
Thank goodness the AP chose honest accurate reporting and actually fact checked the DFL.
I'm interested in knowing exactly what Trump hoped to cut and whether or not the cuts were actually detrimental as oppose to eliminating unnecessary spending. Haven't been able to find such details as all stories my search uncovers seem to be variations on the same "orange man bad" theme. (But never "attack" the press.)
Given the General mood that Trump is responsible for everything bad and the fact that the charges are so vague, I agree that specifics would be helpful.
But, the fact remains that you’ve got multiple presidential candidates telling blatant lies about this with no accountability and no correction. The silence from the “I don’t like lies” crowd is deafening.
FYI this “new hoax” bit of fake news is just the DFL doubling down on the fact that their lemmings won’t question them and the media will uncritically report every word, true or not.
Yes, I’m arguing that reporting without verifying is fake news.
Dan,
Go ahead and ban me. I literally, factuality, objectivity answered your question at least 4 times before you finally deigned to accept it. The fact that you had to hide/delete multiple versions of my answer doesn’t help your case.
FYI, I’ll be dealing with your vague and subjective answer at my blog. I’ll deal with it there because I choose to allow you the freedom to comment without demanding that you do as I say, or deleting and lying about the deleted comments.
I know that you are 100% correct in choosing to be impatient and demand answers now while accompanying those demands with threats. The fact that you so quickly and generosity answered my one question after days of hoop jumping, lies, and silence, clearly gives you the standing to make your impatient demands and threats back to me.
So, yes I’ll answer your questions. But in s venue that’s a little less restrictive.
I suspect you’ll promptly delete this, so it’ll appear in the context of my reply. It’ll counter anything you might say about it after it’s deleted
As a sop to your impatience, I’ll answer your question briefly and expand later.
It’s virtually impossible to disagree with something so nonspecific, subjective, and vague. So I agree with your answer within the limits of the answer.
As a sop to your impatience, I’ll answer your question briefly and expand later.
It’s virtually impossible to disagree with something so nonspecific, subjective, and vague. So I agree with your answer within the limits of the answer.
Had your impatience and graceless not gotten the better of you, there would be a comment here explaining my plans to respond to your answer in a manner that will allow me to explore your answer and the questions it raises. The fact that it’ll happen in a space where there is no concern for my responses being deleted or that I’ll be forced to regurgitate your scripts in order to move things forward is a bonus.
The fact that you’ve chosen to delete my initial response to you and to then lie about it, speaks volumes about you and your intentions.
Chill out, accept the fact that I don’t want to dig into this on my phone, or at your blog, and stop deleting/lying. Maybe you just can’t demonstrate grace to others.
Clearly you don’t read what you delete, then lie about what you didn’t read.
I’ve literally addressed everything you bitch about, in your impatient and graceless manner.
While we’re talking about reality, let’s remember the fact that I asked one simple question of you. You spent a day forcing me to parrot your rubric ascthe price for an answer. Ignoring the fact that I answered multiple times, which you deleted and lied about.
Finally after 3 days of silence, you show up and demand instant compliance with multiple comments, regardless of my circumstances.
If you really think graceless impatience is a good look and reflects Christ, I feel very sorry for you.
As I’ve said, when I have time and a computer I’ll slog through your foolishness.
If you can’t embrace grace and patience, then embrace silence please.
Dan is incapable of honest discourse. Hell... he's incapable of honesty. It's dishonest to come up with all manner of rationalizations just to deny factual representations of immoral women so as to prevent any possibility that their true character being acknowledged would diminish Dan's ability to portray Trump's character as evil as he needs it to be. Because of Dan's unholy hatred... and certainly Trump's personal reputation, accurate or not, is perfect for inviting such attacks by fakes like Dan... requires that when it serves him to do so, he'll insist no immoral women is responsible for her behavioral choices due to trauma or abuse. In other words, no whore chooses to be a whore just because she sees it as easy money and she likes the idea of having sex with lots of guys and gals while getting paid for it. Oh no. All whites are victims and no woman would ever choose such a profession if they had a happy childhood free of sexual abuse. In Dan's mind, it's just not possible. Trump can be a slut and only be evil, while Stormy Daniels and his other accuser who posed in Playboy, and thus are by definition whores but are helpless victims. Because as we all know, no woman who ever lived has ever succumbed to temptation. This is Dan's argument.
And this is Dan's problem with me: Dan regards Trump with contempt because Trump's a slut, and as a result dares considers himself justified in calling all sorts of nasty names. Here calls Trump a pathological liar whose word can't be trusted except for his tales of sexual exploits. Yet, these two women, are not only sexually immoral, too, in addition to their own testimonies that support this fact, there's video and photographic evidence.
But Dan's unholy hatred for Trump compels him to defend their "honor" against accurate and appropriate labeling of "whore" and "slut". Somehow, they're "harmed" by being called what they clearly are, while Trump is in no way harmed by any if the many nasty epithets Dan throws his way with total abandon. My argument was an obvious one. As it concerns these three sexually immoral people, we're to believe the women. And because it was Trump with whom they had an immoral affair, they are totally blameless and thus it is a moral sin to call them whites and sluts. This is how corrupt Dan is.
As you might have guessed, these are the comments Dan deleted and lied about.
It’s an interesting moral code that allows so much falsehood from the one who claims to hold it.
It’s interesting that Dan gives Bill a degree of absolution because he calls the Monica affair consensual. With his harm based moral code, consent mitigates immorality. Under this ethic, consensual sex can’t under any circumstances be considered immoral.
You know, we don’t hear much about hallucinogenic drugs now days, but it’s clear some folx are still indulging a little too much.
Rereading my above comment, there's a spot where "whites" appears rather than "whores", which is what I meant to type. I typed in out on my phone using a technique I see my daughter use. I'm not expert with it as yet, and as such it allows for more auto-correct alternatives I wasn't intending. My proof reading missed that mistake.
The following is my last paragraph from my above comment, with other corrections in bold, as well as an additional thought or two in bold as well, that more fully expresses what I meant to convey:
"But Dan's unholy hatred for Trump compels him to defend their "honor" against accurate and appropriate labeling of "whore" and "slut". Somehow, they're "harmed" by being called what they clearly are, while Trump is in no way harmed by any of the many nasty epithets Dan throws his way with total abandon, as harming Trump is his intention...because that's what Christians do, evidently, in Dan's world. My argument was an obvious one. As it concerns these three sexually immoral people, we're to believe the women. And because it was Trump with whom they had an immoral affair, they are totally blameless and thus it is a moral sin to call them whores and sluts. This is how corrupt Dan is."
Post a Comment